No, I'm repeating what has been said here for years, you know, "Same job, different trucks" and all that. Contracts are for 5 years I believe and you yourself are saying all that could be phased in. Tell me where the money will come from on all of that? The lowest payscale pays top-out of $22.57. Most who make that are well over 10 years so if 10 years is your standard and top pay will be say $28hr then you are talking about tens of thousands being raised substantially, immediately, with many more coming in right behind them. Please show me where the $Billions are going to come from? And of course you want better healthcare and retirement. Is that phased in? Will only some get good healthcare while others wait 10 years for it? Well? The fact is it's really easy to scream unfair and ripoff but if you take the time to crunch the numbers it doesn't add up. The only way it does is if Ground becomes significantly bigger and there's substantially more profit. Then if they give you everything you want the Ground guys are going to be the field slaves, breaking their backs so that you can live well. Sound familiar?
Why Senior Employees Should Be Pro-Union
- Thread starter MrFedEx
- Start date
No, I'm repeating what has been said here for years, you know, "Same job, different trucks" and all that. Contracts are for 5 years I believe and you yourself are saying all that could be phased in. Tell me where the money will come from on all of that? The lowest payscale pays top-out of $22.57. Most who make that are well over 10 years so if 10 years is your standard and top pay will be say $28hr then you are talking about tens of thousands being raised substantially, immediately, with many more coming in right behind them. Please show me where the $Billions are going to come from? And of course you want better healthcare and retirement. Is that phased in? Will only some get good healthcare while others wait 10 years for it? Well? The fact is it's really easy to scream unfair and ripoff but if you take the time to crunch the numbers it doesn't add up. The only way it does is if Ground becomes significantly bigger and there's substantially more profit. Then if they give you everything you want the Ground guys are going to be the field slaves, breaking their backs so that you can live well. Sound familiar?
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Like I said all the specifics would be negotiated. Better than the system we have now. Those are just some of my ideas. As far as the money. Like I said it's there the issue is where it's being spent.
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
Negotiations between ORGANIZED labor and unorganized labor are completely different animals...
Say the employees of Express organize and get the NLRB to compel Express to recognize the union. At that point very specific rules kick in, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AGREED TO CONTRACT.
Being under the RLA does restrict Express' ability to dramatically cut compensation (the RLA does have prohibitions on that, to discourage 'disruptions' to national commerce), but doesn't state that compensation must follow any real guidelines as to progression. It is all under 'good faith'. Companies not under RLA, actually have more leeway to cut their non-organized employees compensation if they see fit. The RLA does have a dual edge - it makes it harder for employees in companies so covered to actually organize, but they also have some protection against changes in compensation which are not in good faith. Employees working for employers under NLRA rules have a much easier time to actually organize, but should they remain non-organized, are at risk of having compensation cut without their employer being fearful of federal intervention. Fred's business model works much better under RLA rules, thus why he paid to get under them.
However, should the Express employees organize, enter into a negotiation with Fred, then come up empty handed - they go back to work at their ORIGINAL wages, work conditions, etc. In other words, they don't risk losing what they have, as a potential consequence of organizing and entering into the highly structured collective bargaining process. In a typical non labor contract negotiation, everything is fair game, if one side is in a power position, they can present terms which are in essence 'take it or leave it'. Both parties are assumed to enter into the process as equally competent players and equally able to walk away. The same assumption doesn't apply to employer-employee negotiations when the employees are represented by a union.
Say the employees of Express organize and get the NLRB to compel Express to recognize the union. At that point very specific rules kick in, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AGREED TO CONTRACT.
Being under the RLA does restrict Express' ability to dramatically cut compensation (the RLA does have prohibitions on that, to discourage 'disruptions' to national commerce), but doesn't state that compensation must follow any real guidelines as to progression. It is all under 'good faith'. Companies not under RLA, actually have more leeway to cut their non-organized employees compensation if they see fit. The RLA does have a dual edge - it makes it harder for employees in companies so covered to actually organize, but they also have some protection against changes in compensation which are not in good faith. Employees working for employers under NLRA rules have a much easier time to actually organize, but should they remain non-organized, are at risk of having compensation cut without their employer being fearful of federal intervention. Fred's business model works much better under RLA rules, thus why he paid to get under them.
However, should the Express employees organize, enter into a negotiation with Fred, then come up empty handed - they go back to work at their ORIGINAL wages, work conditions, etc. In other words, they don't risk losing what they have, as a potential consequence of organizing and entering into the highly structured collective bargaining process. In a typical non labor contract negotiation, everything is fair game, if one side is in a power position, they can present terms which are in essence 'take it or leave it'. Both parties are assumed to enter into the process as equally competent players and equally able to walk away. The same assumption doesn't apply to employer-employee negotiations when the employees are represented by a union.
overflowed
Well-Known Member
Not their drivers. BB and his ilk.
I stand corrected.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Exactly. You even have a ground manager on here saying the contractors have autonomy as to wages and benefits they pay their drivers. According to him FedEx has no control in that aspect. Just like upstate said, why would bb pay more if he doesn't have to? In fact this is the reason so many contractors on here are against a unionized Express. It would put pressure on them to actually pay a decent wage and benefits.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
March 3, 2013 6:56pm EST
Nope. Just awaiting your organizing fiasco.
overflowed
Well-Known Member
Call Guinness world records and maybe the Pope. Worms turning.
Why? What Express pays has nothing to do with what contractors pay. Why would a unionized Express make it any different for Ground drivers?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
You don't think they would want their sliver?
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
Correct... different legal animals.
Technically speaking, none. However, if Express were to unionize, I guarantee that the drivers in Ground would be none too pleased about their own situation. There wouldn't be much they could do about it, but they would be even less inclined to take what they are currently being offered to do what they are doing. It would cause problems in Ground.
Seeing the Express Couriers getting some more in their pocket... most certainly, the Ground drivers would be expecting some extra coin in their pockets too.
Demonstrates all the more how much Fred has to lose should the Express Couriers finally get it through their collective heads to organize.
do you think Ground drivers don't already know they make less than Express couriers?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Of course, but if Express were to organize, you don't think your boys would expect a little more in their pay envelope each Friday?
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Ah, yes. And how do you think they would feel if that gap were to widen. All the mean while FedEx and contractors such as yourself making a hefty profit.
Strangely, no. We are so uninvolved with them that in the past when Express got raises, nobody at Ground even took notice. I don't even know that alot of Ground people even consider themselves anything like Express except that we are the ones making the huge profits for the company. Maybe that's it. We already know we should be getting a bigger share but this is just how it's always been.
ROFLMAO!!
I guarantee that if Ground guys know that they are creating the bulk of FedEx' profit and it's going to pay for union high wages and great benefits at Express it'll be a problem. Can't imagine someone making $15hr, if that much, with little or no benefits being perfectly fine with Express drivers making twice as much with good healthcare and a decent pension.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
That's a good one. The only reason ground is making huge profits is because of the contractor scam model. If ground were all employees like express, would FedEx be making huge profits? Hell no. If you had to pay express wages and benefits, would you be turning 6 figures. I think not. Would you be a contractor if you made only say 30- 40k? Probably not. See the only way it works is if FedEx can make those huge profits and throw you some cash. What does that leave your drivers ? Peanuts. As long as this scam is in place the drivers will never see more than they are getting now. It's a pyramid scheme
