“Incentive Pay”: Where?

MassWineGuy

Well-Known Member
I read here that in Denver FedEx is paying $2.50 an hour in addition to regular wages as incentive pay. Memphis had this, too. Is it happening elsewhere?
 

Artee

Well-Known Member
Also for the record, Memphis is paying a lot more than $2.50/hr in incentive pay. The market I am in is getting $3/hr.
 

chris45

Well-Known Member
My friends who are truck drivers at ohare airport get 3 dollars extra


Its interesting because Ive been to 3 stations that are far away for weeks at a time to help out because they don't have enough people yet they're doing nothing about the pay lol.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Let's ask @59 Dano exactly what would be the answer from Memphis if not all, just 51% of all couriers, handlers, and csa's in markets or stations that do not get the incentive refuse to report for work on the same day, nationwide?

It seems to me that is the complete rationale for putting express under the RLA.

@59 Dano, what would X's response be and which entity has the authority to order these non-compliant slackers to report for work?

Essentially wouldn't Fedex be doing the same thing the RLA seeks to protect them from if they don't address the concerns of the call-outs? It's not like there is no remedy under the RLA.

@59 Dano, what is Express's response and what remedy is available through statuatory and administrative law?
 

Fred's Myth

Nonhyphenated American
Let's ask @59 Dano exactly what would be the answer from Memphis if not all, just 51% of all couriers, handlers, and csa's in markets or stations that do not get the incentive refuse to report for work on the same day, nationwide?

It seems to me that is the complete rationale for putting express under the RLA.

@59 Dano, what would X's response be and which entity has the authority to order these non-compliant slackers to report for work?

Essentially wouldn't Fedex be doing the same thing the RLA seeks to protect them from if they don't address the concerns of the call-outs? It's not like there is no remedy under the RLA.

@59 Dano, what is Express's response and what remedy is available through statuatory and administrative law?
And try to do so without deviating, bloviating, or obfuscating, please.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
And try to do so without deviating, bloviating, or obfuscating, please.
I'm a work in progress.
Thank you 59Dano for the critique, now answer the damn question. :rofl:
That is a demand for an answer @Questions Needed Answered, take note.
Thanks for offering a teaching opportunity.
That said, I am long winded and generally full of :poop:, occasionally I am correct.

That said, I like growing things, I like a nice lawn as well.
Fertilizer prices don't seem to be agreeing with my (a) passion
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Let's ask @59 Dano exactly what would be the answer from Memphis if not all, just 51% of all couriers, handlers, and csa's in markets or stations that do not get the incentive refuse to report for work on the same day, nationwide?
I don't know what exactly the answer from Memphis would be to your stupid hypothetical premise. My guess is that they'd say "This sucks."

It seems to me that is the complete rationale for putting express under the RLA.

@59 Dano, what would X's response be and which entity has the authority to order these non-compliant slackers to report for work?
Jim in accounting.

Essentially wouldn't Fedex be doing the same thing the RLA seeks to protect them from if they don't address the concerns of the call-outs? It's not like there is no remedy under the RLA.

@59 Dano, what is Express's response and what remedy is available through statuatory and administrative law?
I'm not trying to be rude (well not with this part of the post) but do you have issues organizing your thoughts and expressing them clearly? "What remedy is available through statutory and administrative law?" To whom? For what????

A bunch of people skip work. Does one side have a legal option to retaliate with? No.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
I don't know what exactly the answer from Memphis would be to your stupid hypothetical premise. My guess is that they'd say "This sucks."
It's obvious it would suck, even you can figure that out. That said, how would they respond? That is an answer. I'll draw you a picture if you need it.
Jim in accounting.
Jim in accounting most likely has a hard time ordering at Chick-fil-a. He can't order anything.
Non responsive to the question asked.

Jim in accounting can deny pay however.

"What remedy is available through statutory and administrative law?" To whom? For what????
That is the purpose of the RLA, to settle labor disagreements.
Will Fedex just walk away and watch their hub-n-spoke airline fail?

"What remedy is available through statutory and administrative law?" To whom? For what????

A bunch of people skip work. Does one side have a legal option to retaliate with? No.
At times I do have trouble organizing my thoughts. Then there are times I hook and draw a person in, idiots gift, that's how I like to define it.
Under the language of the RLA I'll give you the opportunity to answer this question for yourself.

I do thank you for not being rude and highlighting my ignorance and lack of legal reasoning.

We agree on one thing however,

It is a hypothetical. For only one reason, nutless employees. If they find anything in the sack one day we can revisit this post and the numerous times we have spoken.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
It's obvious it would suck, even you can figure that out. That said, how would they respond? That is an answer. I'll draw you a picture if you need it.

Jim in accounting most likely has a hard time ordering at Chick-fil-a. He can't order anything.
Non responsive to the question asked.

Jim in accounting can deny pay however.


That is the purpose of the RLA, to settle labor disagreements.
Will Fedex just walk away and watch their hub-n-spoke airline fail?


At times I do have trouble organizing my thoughts. Then there are times I hook and draw a person in, idiots gift, that's how I like to define it.
Under the language of the RLA I'll give you the opportunity to answer this question for yourself.

I do thank you for not being rude and highlighting my ignorance and lack of legal reasoning.

We agree on one thing however,

It is a hypothetical. For only one reason, nutless employees. If they find anything in the sack one day we can revisit this post and the numerous times we have spoken.
I have no idea where you're going with any of this and have no interest in trying to decipher cryptic messages. I try my best to answer whatever is asked of me but your stuff is oddball crap, either because you don't know any better or because you like to think you're being clever or something.

If you think the language of the RLA says something about this scenario one way or the other, quote the RLA language that says it. I've read a billion different "the RLA says" posts from people who can barely spell RLA, let alone who have read it and know what it says.
 
Last edited:
Top