Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Illegal Anti-Union Meetings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ricochet1a" data-source="post: 557498" data-attributes="member: 22880"><p>With FedEx, the key term is "lay off". FedEx wants to maintain its position that it has never had to lay off a wage employee. They have had lay offs for salaried employees, but not hourly. As part of the severance package, it is a specified that it isn't a lay off, but rather a voluntary departure. If an employee is notified that their position is going to be eliminated, they aren't to be subjected to a lay off, but rather their job will have been eliminated. Its all parcing of language, but that is what FedEx does so very well. </p><p> </p><p>The "displaced" employee's status isn't technically a "lay off", since that would have to involve seniority on a company wide scale. They are given the option of receiving a severance, or 90 days to accept another job posting with FedEx. If they don't take the severance, and don't accept another position within 90 days, their position is closed and they are considered to have terminated employment voluntarily. I'm not sure of their status for unemployment compensation. On the face of it, I'd assume they're eligible, but who knows. </p><p> </p><p>It is another subterfuge for FedEx to cut positions where there is excess manning, give an option for the "excess" to accept a position in a station that has a vacancy, and get away with stating that they have never had a lay off for its hourly employees. Technically they are correct, but it is all semantics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ricochet1a, post: 557498, member: 22880"] With FedEx, the key term is "lay off". FedEx wants to maintain its position that it has never had to lay off a wage employee. They have had lay offs for salaried employees, but not hourly. As part of the severance package, it is a specified that it isn't a lay off, but rather a voluntary departure. If an employee is notified that their position is going to be eliminated, they aren't to be subjected to a lay off, but rather their job will have been eliminated. Its all parcing of language, but that is what FedEx does so very well. The "displaced" employee's status isn't technically a "lay off", since that would have to involve seniority on a company wide scale. They are given the option of receiving a severance, or 90 days to accept another job posting with FedEx. If they don't take the severance, and don't accept another position within 90 days, their position is closed and they are considered to have terminated employment voluntarily. I'm not sure of their status for unemployment compensation. On the face of it, I'd assume they're eligible, but who knows. It is another subterfuge for FedEx to cut positions where there is excess manning, give an option for the "excess" to accept a position in a station that has a vacancy, and get away with stating that they have never had a lay off for its hourly employees. Technically they are correct, but it is all semantics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Illegal Anti-Union Meetings
Top