Abusing Part-Timers.....Again

[MrFedEx]

Ever notice how there are progressively fewer and fewer full-time openings? If a FT person leaves, they get replaced with 2 PT people. Wasn't this a big part of the 1997 UPS strike and didn't they also force the company to upgrade PT employees instead of perpetually abusing them? This is happening to CSA's, couriers, and RTD's at Express. If you want to work for FedEx Express, you'd better have a second career.

If you want to stay PT...fine. But if you don't, FedEx has an obligation to keep FT slots FULL-TIME...but they won't honor that obligation, will they?

Just another reason to have a UNION CONTRACT that prohibits this type of BS.

[quadro]

The UPS strike was about the pension fund. The part-time/full-time jobs issue might have come up but it was mostly about the pension fund. The problem today is that the decline in volume and stops at FedEx means that when a full-timer leaves, sometimes the best solution is to replace with a pt employee. Unfortunate but keep in mind, it's not always 2 pt people that replace the full-timer. When a pt employee replaces a ft employee, often that means shifting some work to the existing ft employees thus keeping them busy and employed. I'd rather my manager look out for existing ft employees rather than adding another mouth to feed, so to speak.

And FedEx has no such obligation to keep ft slots ft. Also, don't pt UPS employees get less pay and benefits than ft UPS employees? And what's the average time it takes a UPS pt employee to get full time compared to a pt FedEx employee? If you don't know those answers, you might be somewhat surprised. But then that's what a contract gets you.

[MrFedEx]

The UPS strike was about the pension fund. The part-time/full-time jobs issue might have come up but it was mostly about the pension fund. The problem today is that the decline in volume and stops at FedEx means that when a full-timer leaves, sometimes the best solution is to replace with a pt employee. Unfortunate but keep in mind, it's not always 2 pt people that replace the full-timer. When a pt employee replaces a ft employee, often that means shifting some work to the existing ft employees thus keeping them busy and employed. I'd rather my manager look out for existing ft employees rather than adding another mouth to feed, so to speak.

And FedEx has no such obligation to keep ft slots ft. Also, don't pt UPS employees get less pay and benefits than ft UPS employees? And what's the average time it takes a UPS pt employee to get full time compared to a pt FedEx employee? If you don't know those answers, you might be somewhat surprised. But then that's what a contract gets you.

FedEx has no legal obligation to keep FT slots open, but don't they have an ethical option under PSP? After all, PEOPLE are the absolutely, positively most important part of this company. You don't know that? Instead of being Smith's apologist, why not face the fact that he's doing exactly as he effing pleases, and part of his master plan is to get rid of as many full-timers (especially those over 40) as he possibly can.
Please remove your head from that dark place where the sun doesn't shine.

[quadro]

FedEx has no legal obligation to keep FT slots open, but don't they have an ethical option under PSP? After all, PEOPLE are the absolutely, positively most important part of this company. You don't know that? Instead of being Smith's apologist, why not face the fact that he's doing exactly as he effing pleases, and part of his master plan is to get rid of as many full-timers (especially those over 40) as he possibly can.
Please remove your head from that dark place where the sun doesn't shine.

I forgot that you like the ad hominem arguments. Anyway, the ethical obligation under PSP is to look after the people because, as you correctly stated, they are the most important part of the company. That means looking after the people that are there. All of them. PT and FT. Sometimes to do that, the last thing you want to do is hire another person. Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You cannot please 100% of the people 100% of the time. As long as the decisions that are made are in the best interest of the majority of the employees, then that's probably the right decision. Unfortunately, it sometimes means that someone gets the short end of the stick. I've been that someone before and it sucks. But I understood why and I realized it wasn't personal and it wasn't about screwing me over, it was about doing the fairest thing for all involved. Remember, "people" is plural, not singular and that often means that a person doesn't get what he or she wants but two people do. Out of those 3 people, two of them are saying how fair FedEx is and how they did the people thing. One isn't. In the eyes of that one person, FedEx is the devil incarnate. You can feel sorry for that person, you can empathize with that person but ultimately, the decision benefited more people than not and therefore it was a "people" decision.

[MrFedEx]

I forgot that you like the ad hominem arguments. Anyway, the ethical obligation under PSP is to look after the people because, as you correctly stated, they are the most important part of the company. That means looking after the people that are there. All of them. PT and FT. Sometimes to do that, the last thing you want to do is hire another person. Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You cannot please 100% of the people 100% of the time. As long as the decisions that are made are in the best interest of the majority of the employees, then that's probably the right decision. Unfortunately, it sometimes means that someone gets the short end of the stick. I've been that someone before and it sucks. But I understood why and I realized it wasn't personal and it wasn't about screwing me over, it was about doing the fairest thing for all involved. Remember, "people" is plural, not singular and that often means that a person doesn't get what he or she wants but two people do. Out of those 3 people, two of them are saying how fair FedEx is and how they did the people thing. One isn't. In the eyes of that one person, FedEx is the devil incarnate. You can feel sorry for that person, you can empathize with that person but ultimately, the decision benefited more people than not and therefore it was a "people" decision.

Replacing 1 FT with 2 PT has been going-on for a long time and is almost always designed to save the company money and prevent someone new from going FT. PSP is nothing but a joke.

[DOWNTRODDEN IN TEXAS]

[QUOTE=quadro;672033]I forgot that you like the ad hominem arguments. Anyway, the ethical obligation under PSP is to look after the people because, as you correctly stated, they are the most important part of the company. That means looking after the people that are there. All of them. PT and FT. Sometimes to do that, the last thing you want to do is hire another person. Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You cannot please 100% of the people 100% of the time. As long as the decisions that are made are in the best interest of the majority of the employees, then that's probably the right decision. Unfortunately, it sometimes means that someone gets the short end of the stick. I've been that someone before and it sucks. But I understood why and I realized it wasn't personal and it wasn't about screwing me over, it was about doing the fairest thing for all involved. Remember, "people" is plural, not singular and that often means that a person doesn't get what he or she wants but two people do. Out of those 3 people, two of them are saying how fair FedEx is and how they did the people thing. One isn't. In the eyes of that one person, FedEx is the devil incarnate. You can feel sorry for that person, you can empathize with that person but ultimately, the decision benefited more people than not and therefore it was a "people" decision.[/QUOTE]

*cough cough*soundslikeamanger*cough cough*

[quadro]

*cough cough*soundslikeamanger*cough cough*

That's kind of insulting to all the hourly employees around here. You're insinuating that only managers can make factual, valid points. You also validated my points by not responding to them. In other words, you couldn't dispute what I said, rather you resorted to an ad hominem argument.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

*cough cough*soundslikeamanger*cough cough*


What does a manger sound like?

[FedEx courier]

That's kind of insulting to all the hourly employees around here. You're insinuating that only managers can make factual, valid points. You also validated my points by not responding to them. In other words, you couldn't dispute what I said, rather you resorted to an ad hominem argument.

I will dispute what you are saying and also state that you are the one who is insulting hourly employees here. You are saying that replacing a full time employee with two part timers is a decision made in the best interest of employees. FedEx would rather have a part time work force to limit holiday pay, full time benefits, guaranteed pay and employee expendibility. They want a completely flexible workforce that can be used when necessary and not used when not needed.Does it benefit FedEx?Certainly.Does it benefit the employee?No.There is no set of rules at FedEx not put in place to benefit the company over the employee, if there is a set of rules that are accessible please post a link to them or state where they can be found.

[quadro]

I will dispute what you are saying and also state that you are the one who is insulting hourly employees here. You are saying that replacing a full time employee with two part timers is a decision made in the best interest of employees. FedEx would rather have a part time work force to limit holiday pay, full time benefits, guaranteed pay and employee expendibility. They want a completely flexible workforce that can be used when necessary and not used when not needed.Does it benefit FedEx?Certainly.Does it benefit the employee?No.There is no set of rules at FedEx not put in place to benefit the company over the employee, if there is a set of rules that are accessible please post a link to them or state where they can be found.

I never said "replacing a full time employee with two part timers is a decision made in the best interest of employees". You're twisting what I said to fit your perception of me.

There is certainly some truth in what you say about what FedEx would prefer. They are, after all, a business. Not sure that FedEx would really save that much money on benefits as pt benefits are for the most part the same as ft. I'm sure there would be some savings but not sure how much. Just curious, but can you point to any business that schedules employees when they are not needed?

There are many rules at FedEx that benefit the employee over the company. I can't post a link because they are on the intranet and the link wouldn't work but just look at some of the policies in People Best Practices. Here's one for you: route bidding. The way routes are bid and the policy surrounding that certainly benefits employees. If it benefited FedEx, there wouldn't really be any route bids, the managers would just assign them based on what works best for their operation (with, I'm sure, some favoritism involved).