Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="vantexan" data-source="post: 728742" data-attributes="member: 24302">The reasoning is that out of fear for their jobs many won&#039;t participate in a union vote.&nbsp; Under the old rules non-participants were counted as &quot;no&quot; votes.&nbsp; So the deck was stacked against unions under the RLA.&nbsp; Could that be why such effort was made, and is continued to be made, to classify FedEx under the RLA?&nbsp; Now a simple majority of participants is all that&#039;s needed, assuming it passes muster in the courts.This rule change will affect many companies, it wasn&#039;t just about FedEx as the pending legislation is.&nbsp; Of course FedEx will be silent while they explore their options.&nbsp; They could make public threats and complaints about impending legislation in hopes of shutting it down.&nbsp; But this RLA rule change essentially does the same thing.&nbsp; Think they want employees to know they can get the ball rolling for a union vote?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="vantexan, post: 728742, member: 24302"] The reasoning is that out of fear for their jobs many won't participate in a union vote. Under the old rules non-participants were counted as "no" votes. So the deck was stacked against unions under the RLA. Could that be why such effort was made, and is continued to be made, to classify FedEx under the RLA? Now a simple majority of participants is all that's needed, assuming it passes muster in the courts. This rule change will affect many companies, it wasn't just about FedEx as the pending legislation is. Of course FedEx will be silent while they explore their options. They could make public threats and complaints about impending legislation in hopes of shutting it down. But this RLA rule change essentially does the same thing. Think they want employees to know they can get the ball rolling for a union vote? [/QUOTE]

Verification