Iamfedex.com/Newest PR Scam

quadro

Well-Known Member
Gotta call B.S. here. FedEx tries to maximize productivity on all their rts. I can't do any more than I'm already doing due to necessity to get back to station to turn in outbound. The only way we'll ever do as many stops as UPS drivers is if we are doing their volume and our rts will shrink to their size. Whether you do 175 stops in a small area or 75 in a much larger area or 35 to 45 in a huge area there's only so much that can be done within the constraints of D.O.T. rules, our particular rts, and the logistics of moving freight to and from our particular stations.
Well the key word is "tries". You are correct that you cannot do as many stops unless you have the density, but don't think for a minute that stop per hour goals won't be part of any negotiation. If you think you cannot do more, you might not like what comes out of a negotiation. Maybe it won't affect you, maybe it will. You just don't know. And even if it doesn't affect you, it will affect some of those around you. Have you ever seen anyone (or at least more than one or two) employees ever lose their job for not hitting stops per hour? You likely will under a union contract.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Well the key word is "tries". You are correct that you cannot do as many stops unless you have the density, but don't think for a minute that stop per hour goals won't be part of any negotiation. If you think you cannot do more, you might not like what comes out of a negotiation. Maybe it won't affect you, maybe it will. You just don't know. And even if it doesn't affect you, it will affect some of those around you. Have you ever seen anyone (or at least more than one or two) employees ever lose their job for not hitting stops per hour? You likely will under a union contract.

In every location I've seen couriers who are always trying to get out of work. If higher pay will force them to work harder or get fired I'm all for it. I know how much I'm capable of doing. If I'm finally rewarded for the effort I'll come to work every day ready to run. On 40 hrs a week topped out couriers have easily grossed $100k more than me in the 11.5 years since I was rehired. It's getting harder and harder to go the extra mile when I know I'll never make similar money. I'd just as soon do without than work overtime to just make what they make on 40. It's a matter of fairness. Life may not be fair, but it does seem fairer for some.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
A stop is a stop is a stop. How hard is it to drive between stops? A union likely won't affect me one way or the other. My concern is that people don't take the time to research and think things through and they end up listening to the misleading info that you post. It is a lot harder to get in and out of your vehicle 150 times a day than it is 100 times a day. So thanks for proving my point. The UPS driver does about 50% more work than you and, for arguments sake, let's say he works just 25% harder. Voting in a union isn't going to suddenly provide FedEx extra volume. Common sense tells you that some of the money to pay for whatever is negotiated (which we don't know what that would be even though you like to think you do) is going to come from requiring couriers to do more work in less time. Given that there is no additional volume, that work will come from other employees. Can you say "layoffs"? That's a good way to look out for each other.


I have no expectation of you agreeing with me and I would suggest you take your own advise and stop misrepresenting the issues. Once again, you cloud the issue by casting aspersions on me rather than explaining how you believe 150 stops is less work than 100 stops.


You say educate, I say mislead. There is certainly a lot of opportunity for FedEx to improve but blindly assuming that a union is the lesser of two evils is going to lead many people down the wrong path. Your claims all boil down to the fact that a union will ensure more pay, better benefits, and the return of a defined benefit pension plan. You rarely, if ever, point out the pitfalls of voting in a union. If you truly wanted to educate people you would present the pros and cons of a union, not just your assumed beliefs of a contract negotiation.[/QUOT

Whatever. When I hear someone who's supposed to be a courier say something insane like "a stop is a stop is a stop" I've got to wonder if they even know what they're talking about. If I have to drive 2 miles to get a stop in rush hour traffic and when I get there they have 12 International Letters on AWB's and a screwed-up DG pkg, it's just the same as the UPS driver who has signed-off on 2 stops 50 feet from each other? I'd rather jump in and out of my truck twice and look twice as busy doing less work. Are you sure you've ever been a courier?
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
Whatever. When I hear someone who's supposed to be a courier say something insane like "a stop is a stop is a stop" I've got to wonder if they even know what they're talking about. If I have to drive 2 miles to get a stop in rush hour traffic and when I get there they have 12 International Letters on AWB's and a screwed-up DG pkg, it's just the same as the UPS driver who has signed-off on 2 stops 50 feet from each other? I'd rather jump in and out of my truck twice and look twice as busy doing less work. Are you sure you've ever been a courier?
Cast aspersions and don't discuss the issue. Hmmm, that's something new for you.

I've been a courier for a long time. I'd much rather sit in traffic for 2 miles doing nothing and getting paid for it than jump in and out of my truck twice. Much less stress on my knees, back, etc. plus if I'm in my truck, I don't have to pickup or deliver anything. When I finally get to that stop that has 12 international letters and a screwed up DG, I'm doing pretty much the same work as the UPS driver, only I don't have to do it as many times in a day. A stop for FedEx is very similar to a stop for UPS, hence a stop is a stop is a stop except for the fact that UPS drivers might handle more packages per stop.

I know it is a tough concept but think about it for a while and maybe it won't seem so insane.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Cast aspersions and don't discuss the issue. Hmmm, that's something new for you.

I've been a courier for a long time. I'd much rather sit in traffic for 2 miles doing nothing and getting paid for it than jump in and out of my truck twice. Much less stress on my knees, back, etc. plus if I'm in my truck, I don't have to pickup or deliver anything. When I finally get to that stop that has 12 international letters and a screwed up DG, I'm doing pretty much the same work as the UPS driver, only I don't have to do it as many times in a day. A stop for FedEx is very similar to a stop for UPS, hence a stop is a stop is a stop except for the fact that UPS drivers might handle more packages per stop.

I know it is a tough concept but think about it for a while and maybe it won't seem so insane.

But haven't we established we aren't expecting UPS pay and benefits? Are you against getting better pay, period? Do you think anything will change if we don't get a union? If so, when and why?
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
But haven't we established we aren't expecting UPS pay and benefits? Are you against getting better pay, period? Do you think anything will change if we don't get a union? If so, when and why?
Once again, no, I am not against getting paid more. And once again, I am not against unions. Do I think anything will change without a union? I'd like to think so but the truth is I have no idea. I can be fairly confident that things will change with a union otherwise the union is going to have egg on its face for not doing something. So the question simply becomes what do I think a union will bring to the table and what will FedEx require in return? In addition, I am concerned that people are missing the fact that UPS enjoys a pseudo RLA protection with the NMA. There's no guarantee that FedEx will have an NMA and that could certainly mean that a few locations could hold the rest hostage. Yes, a nationwide strike is also possible but much less likely than several localized strikes.

That's a lot of unknowns and the promise of more money may not be worth the risk let alone how much harder I might have to work for not much more pay. While people such as you and I don't think we can work any harder, that won't stop FedEx from demanding more.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Once again, no, I am not against getting paid more. And once again, I am not against unions. Do I think anything will change without a union? I'd like to think so but the truth is I have no idea. I can be fairly confident that things will change with a union otherwise the union is going to have egg on its face for not doing something. So the question simply becomes what do I think a union will bring to the table and what will FedEx require in return? In addition, I am concerned that people are missing the fact that UPS enjoys a pseudo RLA protection with the NMA. There's no guarantee that FedEx will have an NMA and that could certainly mean that a few locations could hold the rest hostage. Yes, a nationwide strike is also possible but much less likely than several localized strikes.

That's a lot of unknowns and the promise of more money may not be worth the risk let alone how much harder I might have to work for not much more pay. While people such as you and I don't think we can work any harder, that won't stop FedEx from demanding more.

You don't think that FedEx isn't already trying to maximize production? OSS comes-in and adds stops, re-aligns boundaries, or consolidate routes almost at will. The company is always requiring more. What you don't seem to get is that UPS routes are generally far more dense, so more stops per hour is a given. This is especially true with pick-ups, where we have a much higher percentage of on-call stops as opposed to regulars (UPS house stops). As I said before, I have multiple UPS routes operating within my 1 FedEx route, and that's fairly typical. While it's true that they are in and out of the truck more often, I'm working just as hard as they are, plus I have to figure-in a bunch of on-calls that they don't.

We have plenty of people with knee and back injuries from repetitive motion too, especially all of those folks with the 150# pkgs they don't get any help delivering. Oh, right, that's against policy, but how often do "2-man lift" pkgs ever have 2 people doing the job. Almost never. Yet when you get hurt, you "should have asked for help". Right.

On the union deal, you cannot have separate locals holding others hostage under the RLA. If we're properly re-classified under the NLRA, then the scenario you describe is possible.

Who brought all of this on? FedEx did. If they had done right by us, NONE of this would even be on the table, but they didn't. It would have cost them a few bucks, but decent raises, reduced top-out times, and a host of other issues could have stopped any union movement dead in it's tracks. But Fred chose to maximize profits and forget the people that make those profits happen. That's why a union is probably on the way. FedEx created this...we did not.
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
You don't think that FedEx isn't already trying to maximize production? OSS comes-in and adds stops, re-aligns boundaries, or consolidate routes almost at will. The company is always requiring more. What you don't seem to get is that UPS routes are generally far more dense, so more stops per hour is a given. This is especially true with pick-ups, where we have a much higher percentage of on-call stops as opposed to regulars (UPS house stops). As I said before, I have multiple UPS routes operating within my 1 FedEx route, and that's fairly typical. While it's true that they are in and out of the truck more often, I'm working just as hard as they are, plus I have to figure-in a bunch of on-calls that they don't.
Absolutely FedEx is always trying to maximize production; however, in my experience and opinion, a lot is left on the table because managers often don't hold people accountable. I believe this is in part due to their concern that they don't want to affect their SFA score. With a union, none of that will matter. The manager will be free to hold people to whatever standard is set in the contract. Even if you think you are a 7 employee, you will likely have to do more.

Any time you are doing less stops in the same general area (i.e. same type of boxes) as the UPS driver, you are doing less work. Simple as that.

On the union deal, you cannot have separate locals holding others hostage under the RLA. If we're properly re-classified under the NLRA, then the scenario you describe is possible.
Correct. That was my point that under the NMA, UPS has a pseudo RLA agreement. There's no guarantee that under the NLRA, FedEx will or won't have an NMA.

Who brought all of this on? FedEx did. If they had done right by us, NONE of this would even be on the table, but they didn't. It would have cost them a few bucks, but decent raises, reduced top-out times, and a host of other issues could have stopped any union movement dead in it's tracks. But Fred chose to maximize profits and forget the people that make those profits happen. That's why a union is probably on the way. FedEx created this...we did not.
Maybe so. Not everyone will agree with you but that is their right.

Thanks for replying in a civilized manner, I respect you and your opinions much more when you do that.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Absolutely FedEx is always trying to maximize production; however, in my experience and opinion, a lot is left on the table because managers often don't hold people accountable. I believe this is in part due to their concern that they don't want to affect their SFA score. With a union, none of that will matter. The manager will be free to hold people to whatever standard is set in the contract. Even if you think you are a 7 employee, you will likely have to do more.

Any time you are doing less stops in the same general area (i.e. same type of boxes) as the UPS driver, you are doing less work. Simple as that.


Correct. That was my point that under the NMA, UPS has a pseudo RLA agreement. There's no guarantee that under the NLRA, FedEx will or won't have an NMA.


Maybe so. Not everyone will agree with you but that is their right.

Thanks for replying in a civilized manner, I respect you and your opinions much more when you do that.

But as long as FedEx is primarily an overnight service the logistics of getting those pkgs to the airport will dictate how much we can do in a given day. And they will be concerned about the cost of overtime also. If we are at $30hr do you think they'll want to pay us $45hr? Now if we are a part-time overnight service only they may make us run like crazy for 5 or 6 hrs a day. I'll live with that. But one thing is for certain. They have given no indication that they'll spend more on us without a union. With a union at least we have a chance for something better. If they don't want a union they need to come up with something considerably better than we have now. Why not come up with a plan that promotes employees to whatever the current top-out is after they reach 10 years? Or even 15 years? No matter what happens those 10 or 15 years, when an employee crosses that threshold, kuh-ching, they are topped out. If not why not? Give people a real goal to work for and morale may greatly improve. As is, when topped out people retire, they are replaced by cheaper newhires. As more and more retire profits will increase. The labor force is seen as a source of profit enhancement. Hey Wall Street, look how we are growing profits. Look how we are increasing dividends. Buy our stock, make the price go up. That's what it's all about. They need to settle for a bit less and pay us better.
 

Cactus

Just telling it like it is
I agree that with a union at least there's a chance we can get better pay and retirement. Without it no chance at all since Fred probably thinks he can roll his money over into the next life. At any rate him and his Memphis buds will never "settle for a bit less and pay us better" no matter how good the stock goes up or how great the profits are unless the union comes in. They're too consumed by greed to stop and meanwhile they keep acting like Fed Ex is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I agree that with a union at least there's a chance we can get better pay and retirement. Without it no chance at all since Fred probably thinks he can roll his money over into the next life. At any rate him and his Memphis buds will never "settle for a bit less and pay us better" no matter how good the stock goes up or how great the profits are unless the union comes in. They're too consumed by greed to stop and meanwhile they keep acting like Fed Ex is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You may be right but if they do decide to revamp pay and it's considerably more than now, will you and others be satisfied? If they decide tomorrow that they will top-out everyone at 15 years and increase top-out $2hr the neighbors will be calling the cops because I will be dancing in the street!
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
But as long as FedEx is primarily an overnight service the logistics of getting those pkgs to the airport will dictate how much we can do in a given day. And they will be concerned about the cost of overtime also. If we are at $30hr do you think they'll want to pay us $45hr? Now if we are a part-time overnight service only they may make us run like crazy for 5 or 6 hrs a day. I'll live with that. But one thing is for certain. They have given no indication that they'll spend more on us without a union. With a union at least we have a chance for something better. If they don't want a union they need to come up with something considerably better than we have now. Why not come up with a plan that promotes employees to whatever the current top-out is after they reach 10 years? Or even 15 years? No matter what happens those 10 or 15 years, when an employee crosses that threshold, kuh-ching, they are topped out. If not why not? Give people a real goal to work for and morale may greatly improve. As is, when topped out people retire, they are replaced by cheaper newhires. As more and more retire profits will increase. The labor force is seen as a source of profit enhancement. Hey Wall Street, look how we are growing profits. Look how we are increasing dividends. Buy our stock, make the price go up. That's what it's all about. They need to settle for a bit less and pay us better.
It sounds like you are inferring that if given more work you will still work at the current pace. I would be willing to bet that isn't how it will work. The expected pace will rise. Really no other way to cut on-road costs if you are increasing on-road pay but not increasing volume. Other way is to raise rates which is what UPS is hoping for.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
It sounds like you are inferring that if given more work you will still work at the current pace. I would be willing to bet that isn't how it will work. The expected pace will rise. Really no other way to cut on-road costs if you are increasing on-road pay but not increasing volume. Other way is to raise rates which is what UPS is hoping for.

Not inferring that at all. I'm saying there's no way I can do more than I do now as a 5X8, and still work 9-10 hrs many days. I have an extended rt, 230 to 260 miles most days, truck pulls 1910 I believe, expected back by 1830 although I'm back anywhere from 1630 to 1830. How can I do more unless the volume increases? I already help 2 other rts when I can, usually at least 2 days a week. Increasing our pay isn't going to increase volume, only an improving economy will, and if I'm 50 miles from station at 1730 I've got to head in. My rt aside, the same applies to most rts. The volume has to increase to do more, and they will want to limit overtime.

Now may I ask, why are you trying to come up with every possible negative angle to shoot down a union? A union isn't a panacea, but if we are to have any kind of negotiation power we need one. Why are you determined to keep one out? Are you afraid of hard work? Or is it you are here on the company's behalf trying to scare people? I'm not being rude, just want to know. I'll gladly do without a union if the company will substantially improve our pay. Doesn't appear they want to do that. If a union is our only option, why are you telling people that they will have to work so much harder than now? I'm prepared to work harder for better pay if need be. What I don't want to do is come in on my day off to work enough O.T. to just make what a topped out courier makes on 40. I want the same rewards that they have. Tired of them having more money for managers, pilots, UNIONIZED workers in Europe, topped out employees, higher pay for newhires. More money for everyone but mid-range employees. We have been designated for being screwed. Enough already, pay us more. I believe most of us are willing to work X number of years, pay our dues. But we need better pay too and at some point we will get it if we can get a union in. Or FedEx heads off a union by making a REAL effort to. Are you not getting this or is it your job, your assignment, to come here and try to scare forum readers?
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
Not inferring that at all. I'm saying there's no way I can do more than I do now as a 5X8, and still work 9-10 hrs many days. I have an extended rt, 230 to 260 miles most days, truck pulls 1910 I believe, expected back by 1830 although I'm back anywhere from 1630 to 1830. How can I do more unless the volume increases?
The volume will increase by cutting routes. Your productivity will increase by requiring you to be back in by 1600 to 1800. Stuff like that. And you are inferring what I said as you just stated that you expect to work at the same pace you do know. The is no way that an increase in stops per hour will not be part of any negotiation. There absolutely has to be an increase in productivity to pay for whatever increase a union negotiates because there won't automatically be an increase in volume.
Now may I ask, why are you trying to come up with every possible negative angle to shoot down a union? A union isn't a panacea, but if we are to have any kind of negotiation power we need one. Why are you determined to keep one out? Are you afraid of hard work? Or is it you are here on the company's behalf trying to scare people? I'm not being rude, just want to know. I'll gladly do without a union if the company will substantially improve our pay. Doesn't appear they want to do that.
I'm not trying to come up with every possible negative just trying to point out that there are definite negatives to a union. People will do what they think is best for themselves but at least if they are reading here they will see the pros and the cons and hopefully make a more informed decision whatever that decision may be.
If a union is our only option, why are you telling people that they will have to work so much harder than now?
Because they will.
Tired of them having more money for managers, pilots, UNIONIZED workers in Europe
Managers really aren't paid that much more, especially for the first few years. However, as in any business, employees that take on more responsibility get paid more. What have you done to prepare yourself for a management job? If nothing, then don't complain that manager get paid more. You could be a manager if you want. We are not even in the same league as pilots so don't compare our pay to theirs. However, having said that, I bet that topped out couriers with some OT make more than many commuter pilots. I doubt they make more than any mainline pilots but I don't know what the starting salary is for a first officer or flight engineer just starting out on a narrowbody. As for unionized workers in Europe, come on, get a grip. At least keep the comparisons within this country.

Now, with all that said, I absolutely think that something needs to be done for mid-range employees. The problem is what constitutes mid-range? Most likely what would need to happen is raise the starting pay without raising the top of range so that the corridor is compressed and then adjust the pay for everyone within that corridor based on some formula that keeps the relative distances between pay in tact. My point is simply that it is very expense to do that. I'm not saying FedEx cannot afford it but I am saying that FedEx will require something in return. That will most likely be more stops per hour.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
The volume will increase by cutting routes. Your productivity will increase by requiring you to be back in by 1600 to 1800. Stuff like that. And you are inferring what I said as you just stated that you expect to work at the same pace you do know. The is no way that an increase in stops per hour will not be part of any negotiation. There absolutely has to be an increase in productivity to pay for whatever increase a union negotiates because there won't automatically be an increase in volume.

I'm not trying to come up with every possible negative just trying to point out that there are definite negatives to a union. People will do what they think is best for themselves but at least if they are reading here they will see the pros and the cons and hopefully make a more informed decision whatever that decision may be.

Because they will.

Managers really aren't paid that much more, especially for the first few years. However, as in any business, employees that take on more responsibility get paid more. What have you done to prepare yourself for a management job? If nothing, then don't complain that manager get paid more. You could be a manager if you want. We are not even in the same league as pilots so don't compare our pay to theirs. However, having said that, I bet that topped out couriers with some OT make more than many commuter pilots. I doubt they make more than any mainline pilots but I don't know what the starting salary is for a first officer or flight engineer just starting out on a narrowbody. As for unionized workers in Europe, come on, get a grip. At least keep the comparisons within this country.

Now, with all that said, I absolutely think that something needs to be done for mid-range employees. The problem is what constitutes mid-range? Most likely what would need to happen is raise the starting pay without raising the top of range so that the corridor is compressed and then adjust the pay for everyone within that corridor based on some formula that keeps the relative distances between pay in tact. My point is simply that it is very expense to do that. I'm not saying FedEx cannot afford it but I am saying that FedEx will require something in return. That will most likely be more stops per hour.

I stand by my statement that they have money for every other "group" in this company but mid-range employees. We are expected to settle for less. Mid-range is everyone between starting pay and top-out. Not asking for the moon, just top us out in a reasonable amount of time. 10 years is reasonable, and just to show I'm willing to sacrifice since I'm at 11.5 years, 15 years is acceptable to me. Just string us along for 15 years but then promote us to whatever current top-out is. That's enough sacrifice for the good of the stock, er, company, don't you think?

Per your argument about stops per hour. I'm on wide-open country roads, main ones have 55 to 70 mph limits. I have a governor on my truck. Just how am I supposed to go any faster? Heard of safety? That also applies to more condensed routes too. People start having alot of accidents, people get hurt or worse, comes out that Fedex is putting pressure on couriers to drive faster, do windsprints. Millions in settlements, huge PR problem. Ask Dominoes' Pizza. Rts already are constantly tweeked to eek out additional productivity. Maybe they should just give us better pay because it's just what they should do. Can't wait for your reply on that sentence. Yes, you point out every negative. Why don't you point out the positives too?

I could care less what mgrs make as long as they don't come on here and talk about our work like it has no meaning, i.e. it doesn't require a high school diploma or they've seen better pizza delivery people. We actually do the work that brings in the revenue. If people are going to look down their nose at us to justify not paying us better, it will get them a union. And you know what, if you are actually a mgr, and the union gets in, I hope it results in no bonuses for you in the future. Then you'll have an idea of how we feel.
 
Last edited:

vantexan

Well-Known Member
By the way, are topped out couriers required to work harder because they make more? All I'm asking, and I bet most mid range employees feel the same, is give us a definite time frame when we will top out, don't string us along forever. That shouldn't require a union. And whether they choose to not give raises here and there, once we get to X amount of years we get top-out pay. To not give us raises when we make considerably less than top out, and still raise healthcare costs, and string us along forever is just cruel. Give us hope for a better future and stick to it.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
What a crock!! Do you really think a UPS driver works 100% harder than you do? Try 10-15%, OK? And you will probably get more for doing the same amount of work because you are critically underpaid right now. Smith has enjoyed a tremendous labor bargain at our expense forever. Get a backbone.

I really think that someone saying they are fearing 100% more work for 20% more wage/benes is ridiciulous. Fair days work for a fair days pay. If YOU WORK 100% harder, that is your problem. (not saying you, just for ex). I think that 98% of FedExers would vote yes to union, to top out in 3 years, at $25/hr (or $30, doubt that'll happen though), with a real pension and benefits, in exchange for 20% more workload, hours, and expectations.
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
Per your argument about stops per hour. I'm on wide-open country roads, main ones have 55 to 70 mph limits. I have a governor on my truck. Just how am I supposed to go any faster? Heard of safety? That also applies to more condensed routes too. People start having alot of accidents, people get hurt or worse, comes out that Fedex is putting pressure on couriers to drive faster, do windsprints. Millions in settlements, huge PR problem. Ask Dominoes' Pizza. Rts already are constantly tweeked to eek out additional productivity. Maybe they should just give us better pay because it's just what they should do. Can't wait for your reply on that sentence. Yes, you point out every negative. Why don't you point out the positives too?
So all you do is drive all day? How do the packages get on your truck? How do they get from your truck to your customer? How do they get picked up? That's where the pressure will come from, not driving faster. It really isn't that complicated. More money with no substantial increase in volume means either higher prices (not that likely in order to remain competitive) or cutting costs. No bigger single cost than on-road hours. Yes aircraft cost money but without them, there's not much point in picking up packages. And again, I agree that there needs to be something done about the mid-range pay. I'm just not convinced that a union is going to solve the issue.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
So all you do is drive all day? How do the packages get on your truck? How do they get from your truck to your customer? How do they get picked up? That's where the pressure will come from, not driving faster. It really isn't that complicated. More money with no substantial increase in volume means either higher prices (not that likely in order to remain competitive) or cutting costs. No bigger single cost than on-road hours. Yes aircraft cost money but without them, there's not much point in picking up packages. And again, I agree that there needs to be something done about the mid-range pay. I'm just not convinced that a union is going to solve the issue.

Having a union will significantly raise the chances of solving the issue. As of right now, we have zero chance. Please attack me now for controlling the debate because I have dared to disgree with your point of view.
 

Cactus

Just telling it like it is
And again, I agree that there needs to be something done about the mid-range pay. I'm just not convinced that a union is going to solve the issue.

Three possibilities to solve this issue:

1. A Union

2. Fred finally sees the light (Will never happen)

3. There is no 3rd possibility. Please refer back to number 1 or 2.
 
Top