We need to be removed from the Railway Labor Act...NOW!

quadro

Well-Known Member
Doesn't the term "Civil Rights" inherently include the right(s) to dignity and respect? If you were an 1950's African-American person in some Southern states you were charged a poll tax in order that you might vote. Eliminating Jim Crow laws gave them both dignity, respect, and the right to particpate in the American political process.
Not in and of themselves. The word dignity isn't even in the Civil Rights Act. If you are Caucasian and I treat you with more respect and dignity than someone who is Hispanic, depending on the circumstances, that could be considered discrimination. That would fall under the Civil Rights Act but it's the discrimination that is at issue, not the dignity and respect per se. Civil Rights gave certain people the right to vote. Did that also bestow them dignity and respect? Absolutely but the issue was the right to vote, not dignity and respect.

It should be a legal right to join a union. What Smith has done to us is similar in concept to the poll tax. We are realistically prevented from joining because of the special FedEx RLA classification, just as blacks were realistically kept from voting. Sure, they could pay and vote, plus deal with the local KKK members hanging around outside the polling place. At FedEx, you just lose your job if you're brave enough to openly advocate for a union. Same difference. Oppression can take many differnt forms.
There is a legal right to join a union and it is outlined in the NLRA and the RLA but it's not a Civil Right.
 

FedEx courier

Well-Known Member
Oh my goodness. Please, I'm begging you, show me where dignity and respect is part of the Civil Rights Act and therefore deals with this supposed Civil Right to dignity and respect. And what were you being general about? Just to be clear, yes, I agree with you, people should be treated with dignity and respect and they do have a legal right in most cases to be part of a union. These are just not Civil Rights. Are you really not getting this or are you just yanking my chain for the sake of it?
Ha Ha! Again I never brought up the Civil Rights act nor did the article. I was speaking in a "general" sense when I said that Civil Rights deal with people being treated with dignity and respect. I'm not "yanking your chain" you are just making a lot more out of this than there is. I guess you like to do that to discredit any argument against an mistreatment of employees at FEDx. Please quote me or the article in where either stated that forming a Union was in a Civil Rights title. I do believe that if people are being discriminated against for their beliefs, political or otherwise, than it is a discrimination issue that is should be a Civil Rights issue.
 

Cactus

Just telling it like it is
Ha Ha! Again I never brought up the Civil Rights act nor did the article. I was speaking in a "general" sense when I said that Civil Rights deal with people being treated with dignity and respect. I'm not "yanking your chain" you are just making a lot more out of this than there is. I guess you like to do that to discredit any argument against an mistreatment of employees at FEDx. Please quote me or the article in where either stated that forming a Union was in a Civil Rights title. I do believe that if people are being discriminated against for their beliefs, political or otherwise, than it is a discrimination issue that is should be a Civil Rights issue.

I see exactly what your saying but trying to get quadro see the point is like arguing with a drunk.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Maybe because in juris prudence Civil Rights is an area of law having to do with 5 areas, unionizing not being one of them.
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
Ha Ha! Again I never brought up the Civil Rights act nor did the article. I was speaking in a "general" sense when I said that Civil Rights deal with people being treated with dignity and respect. I'm not "yanking your chain" you are just making a lot more out of this than there is. I guess you like to do that to discredit any argument against an mistreatment of employees at FEDx.
Civil Rights has to do with a legal doctrine. When you and the article talked about civil rights you are talking about legislation that is covered by the Civil Rights Act. Civil Rights and Civil Rights Act are the same thing. There is no "general term" with civil rights. It is what it is. When you talk about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, do you refer to them in general terms?

Please quote me or the article in where either stated that forming a Union was in a Civil Rights title.
IT'S NOT IN A CIVIL RIGHTS TITLE, THAT'S THE POINT. The article said that joining a union was a civil right. You've stated that dignity and respect are civil rights. THEY ARE NOT IN ANY CIVIL RIGHTS TITLE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT CIVIL RIGHTS.
I do believe that if people are being discriminated against for their beliefs, political or otherwise, than it is a discrimination issue that is should be a Civil Rights issue.
Correct. Now you are getting it.
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
Maybe because in juris prudence Civil Rights is an area of law having to do with 5 areas, unionizing not being one of them.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally, someone with some sense gets it. And dignity and respect are also not one of the areas. What's scary is that the thought process of Fedex courier and Cactus. It's a lack of understanding of complex issues that will get everyone in trouble.
 

FedEx courier

Well-Known Member
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally, someone with some sense gets it. And dignity and respect are also not one of the areas. What's scary is that the thought process of Fedex courier and Cactus. It's a lack of understanding of complex issues that will get everyone in trouble.
The idea behind the Civil Rights movement was that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless race,creed,color belief ect. So I'm going to stick to my guns here and say again that the general ideas are the same. Did the term Civil Rights not exist before the Civil Rights Act. That is basically what you are saying. Is that complex enough for you. I know you've been trained to think that if you call something a name long enough then it becomes that. You know like Guaranteed Fair Treatment, ect...
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
The idea behind the Civil Rights movement was that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless race,creed,color belief ect. So I'm going to stick to my guns here and say again that the general ideas are the same. Did the term Civil Rights not exist before the Civil Rights Act. That is basically what you are saying. Is that complex enough for you. I know you've been trained to think that if you call something a name long enough then it becomes that. You know like Guaranteed Fair Treatment, ect...
Actually, that wasn't the idea behind the Civil Rights movement. Here's a link that hopefully you'll take as unbiased info. http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-defined.html
Interesting that you think I've been trained to think that if I call something long enough then it becomes that seeing as that's exactly what you are doing. You believe dignity and respect is a civil rights issue and you keep calling it that but it isn't.
 

FedEx courier

Well-Known Member
Actually, that wasn't the idea behind the Civil Rights movement. Here's a link that hopefully you'll take as unbiased info. http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-defined.html
Interesting that you think I've been trained to think that if I call something long enough then it becomes that seeing as that's exactly what you are doing. You believe dignity and respect is a civil rights issue and you keep calling it that but it isn't.
The funniest thing is that the article you linked defines Civil Rights and the Civil Rights movement as two different things. Don't know why you disagree that Civil Rights, the Civil Rights movement, or the Civil Rights Act all deal with people attaining the right to be treated with dignity and respect?
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
The funniest thing is that the article you linked defines Civil Rights and the Civil Rights movement as two different things. Don't know why you disagree that Civil Rights, the Civil Rights movement, or the Civil Rights Act all deal with people attaining the right to be treated with dignity and respect?

That's not the civil rights movement. It has to do with ending discrimination and segregation on a very basic level. If I disrespected or treated you without dignity and you and you were person of color, that is not necessarily violating your civil rights, sorry.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
So in other words all Civil Rights issues are dignity and respect issues but not all dignity and respect issues are civil rights issues.
 

quadro

Well-Known Member
The funniest thing is that the article you linked defines Civil Rights and the Civil Rights movement as two different things. Don't know why you disagree that Civil Rights, the Civil Rights movement, or the Civil Rights Act all deal with people attaining the right to be treated with dignity and respect?
Aside from the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was about Civil Rights and therefore related, who said anything about the Civil Rights Movement. I guess you didn't really read the link as the words dignity and respect are nowhere in the article. Does treating people equally give them dignity and respect? As I've already said, yes it does but that's a byproduct of equal treatment and not something protected under Civil Rights.
 

FedEx courier

Well-Known Member
Aside from the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was about Civil Rights and therefore related, who said anything about the Civil Rights Movement. I guess you didn't really read the link as the words dignity and respect are nowhere in the article. Does treating people equally give them dignity and respect? As I've already said, yes it does but that's a byproduct of equal treatment and not something protected under Civil Rights.
The article you linked mentions the Civil Rights Movement, don't really know what you're talking about.
 

BrownBlue

New Jack
Well it seems like no one in our government cares about giving you guys the chance at a better shake. Who knows when the next time you will be able to get out from the RLA now. I wish you all the best, but I know Fred will only give you the same old crap he has been feeding you. I tried my best as far as contacting senators and stuff, but corporations rule this country, and the working people that make them money get the shaft. On a plus note, as of August 1, I will be making over 30 bucks an hour, with full benefits, and a pension that few still have, all thanks to me working union. Really if I could take a pay cut to help you guys get a union, I would, you all deserve it after the crap you've put up with for years. The grass is really green over hear, but how would you know delivering from a plane.
 

FedEx courier

Well-Known Member
Well it seems like no one in our government cares about giving you guys the chance at a better shake. Who knows when the next time you will be able to get out from the RLA now. I wish you all the best, but I know Fred will only give you the same old crap he has been feeding you. I tried my best as far as contacting senators and stuff, but corporations rule this country, and the working people that make them money get the shaft. On a plus note, as of August 1, I will be making over 30 bucks an hour, with full benefits, and a pension that few still have, all thanks to me working union. Really if I could take a pay cut to help you guys get a union, I would, you all deserve it after the crap you've put up with for years. The grass is really green over hear, but how would you know delivering from a plane.
Hope you're wrong about them retaining the classification. It's seems like they are still very uncertain about it over at Brownbailout in the recent PR interviews. You are certainly right that if it doesn't change this time around it probably won't.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Hope you're wrong about them retaining the classification. It's seems like they are still very uncertain about it over at Brownbailout in the recent PR interviews. You are certainly right that if it doesn't change this time around it probably won't.
Senator Rockefeller is pretty certain about it also.
 

BrownBlue

New Jack
BTW Senator Rockefeller if you recall is related to the Rockefeller that owned the mines in W Virginia where hired security thugs opened fire on striking workers, after they poured oil into the valley where the workers were camp. "Harlan County" Spelling? He may acted like a workers friend but his genes may tell otherwise. The government is currently not interested in doing anything big business doesn't want, so continuing to suppress workers rights is going to go on. Move to Australia, they have got it together. I recently vacationed there again, and crap, they really take care of their citizens. Minimum wage if you are over 21 is 17 and change an hour, thats with government provided health care and retirement, which they call Super. It's what America could be if we gave a damn about anything besides corporations' profits.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
"...his genes may tell otherwise"? That's kind of a stretch, isn't it? I think Rockefeller would love to see the change. What he said is that it won't pass a vote in the senate.
 

FedEx courier

Well-Known Member
"...his genes may tell otherwise"? That's kind of a stretch, isn't it? I think Rockefeller would love to see the change. What he said is that it won't pass a vote in the senate.
Rockefeller said the Express Carrier coverage won't be on the Senate version. According to FDx pr via their site the senate will be voting on the bill with the language in it next week, if you don't believe me check their site. Not saying it will be on the final bill but it seems like they may have declared victory a little early.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Rockefeller said the Express Carrier coverage won't be on the Senate version. According to FDx pr via their site the senate will be voting on the bill with the language in it next week, if you don't believe me check their site. Not saying it will be on the final bill but it seems like they may have declared victory a little early.
I have no reason to doubt you, but I have no reason to doubt the senator either.
 
Top