FedEx Freight | History

Long time reader, havent posted much of anything since back when Everrett ran the old Freighthauler site..........read a lot of it over the years though in an attempt to try and stay current on events here and there. Another thread regarding a topic that is basically overwhelming the site may not be necessary, but its the world we live in and I will keep it as brief as possible.......

I am just an ol' trucking guy that over the years has been granted responsbility for leading groups of other ol' trucking guys. I think in analogies due to the fact that I need things broken down as simply as possible. Foremost, so I can get a good understanding of them myself and secondly, to try to find the best way to communicate that information to others. Reading the boards commentary of late, obviously I worked to break it down into those terms.

I believe that human nature over history is what it is and has not and will not change. In conjunction with that belief, I think historical events are actually the best indicator of future events. When looking at a situation I try to link it to something in the past and see how that shook out. For whatever reason, none of the more obvious examples (Overnite, UPS or other events) really struck me as good examples of the current situation. I wanted to look at it even more basic than that to form my analogy..........

I chose an event that happened in our country about 150 years ago.....

2 groups within the same "organization" that strongly believe in the "righteousness" and "correctness" of their cause...........check
A thourough mix of "fire-eaters" on both sides of the issue as well as a large number of moderates that would like to remain neutral........check
Plenty of outside influence (mainly Britain and France in my comparison) that work both groups because they feel that a divided America is weaker.......check

If you really think about it, I believe that 2 premises can actually sum up most every debate on here...........whether the debate is pension v. pension, health benefits v. health benefits or pay v. pay, or anything else......

1. Employees have the legal right to seek representation by a third-party, organize and collectively bargain.
2. Companies have the legal right to say no to any proposal at any point and to resist organization by all legal means available.

If you apply those 2 accordingly to all the different topics, most all of the other discussions are simply filled with smoke and colored bubbles........

What does the Civil War have to do with any of this?

IMHO, history shows that regardless of which side you were on in the Civil War, there really were no "winners"..........it weakened the nation as a whole and delayed successful progress in many areas for a long period of time.........

Sorry for the length of the post, I will resume lurk status, so there proably will not be any response to replies. Besides, the premise of the post is that responses would most likely be limited to "see #1" or "see #2"...........particularly if any "foreign nations" attempted to provide advice in "our best interest".

Be safe out there.....


The views, expressions and opinions contained in this post are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Yeah you're right. The people should act in their own besy interest. Corporations are dedicated to profits. Not to employees, towns, states or nation.
They should join the union. Local dedicated to " Local".

The analogy fits well to a point.
Yes the Civil War weakened our country.
But wasn't that due to massive casualties and destruction of cities and infrastructure?
I'm not seeing that aspect here. Whatever the outcome, the parties need to deal with it and move on.

And we hear from the French..........the diligent defender of the Truckingboards Maginot line.....Vive

Merci!

You seem to have focused on the surface of #1......although you do seem to have interjected your opinion regarding Corporations. I am sure you realize that many folks in the organization would disagree with your opinion or that there possibly is also a percentage of which that particular subject would be of little consequence in their value structure.

I did not see any kind of response to premise #2..........

RC.....while not necessarily agreeing with some of your posts or your choice in winter garments, I did forsee you being a bit of a deeper thinker than that response shows.

The massive casualties and destruction were obviously quite literal in the Civil War. It is more the figurative that was behind my analogy.

150 years later there are still sore spots, not to mention the on and off turmoil in the time between then......

I guess the best way I can see to put it is this:

I am certainly all for standing up and fighting for your beliefs, regardless of what they are......... However, when the fight for those beliefs threaten to severely weaken or destroy the fabric of what you are fighting over, what is the point? Does your definition of too far match all those around you? Could it be redirected if it reaches a critical point, or will it be out of control?

These are the morals of the story that I believe should be pulled from the Civil War analogy......




The views, expressions and opinions in this post are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer

I think what he's trying to say is that war never changes. No matter what the war is over, both parties are weaker for it and certainly never the same again.

I couldn't agree more. It's your right to fight for what you believe in. But you must carefully consider the war at hand before rushing off blindly to battle. Because once the war is fought, you can't change the effects it has on both parties. And in war, there's never truly a winner. Only a guy who walked away with fewer wounds

It's a perfect analogy, and I commend aflifer for voicing it.

It is only war if those involved choose to make it so.

When I read the posts I see a few antiunion stances. Or antiunion rhetoric.
1st time caller, long time listener is common phrase on rightwing antiunion radio....and I've seen 3-4 posters start this way between here and Conways threads.

Another is that its the unions fault if the companies weakened. Fact is the company started this and can't be relied on to fix it. And it is they who delay with their antiunion brainwashing.

What ya have here is a company playing the role of head-of-household....without a legally binding agreement.
The employees played role of live in lover in a position where they must be subservant and able to be tossed from Fred's house at any time.
A contract is for grown adult American citizens to balance the imbalance.
That doesn't really need to be fought. IMO it shouldn't be. It ends the turmoil. Clarity.

Hmmm.....did you really author a post talking about your perception of posts possibly containing rhetoric when your entire response to the original post contained nothing but one-sided rhetoric?

"I must be guilty, your honor, as the expert for the prosecution on the subject of rhetoric has now testified against me"................

As stated before I am an intense respector of rights, which includes your right to your opinion and views and expression of such. I reserve the right to assign them the proper place in my priority system. You seem to have the "self-appointed captain of the world" approach when this issue comes into play. Whatever makes you happy I say and I admire your enthusiasm towards your endeavors.

Unlike the employees of the organizations you choose to share your views on, regardless of their stance on the subject, your actions in this enterprise will not have a direct and possibly lasting impact on YOUR personal future. That in itself provides me enough cause to not place much creedence in the "advice" of someone that could utilize their built-in "firecracker escape clause" at any time they so choose...............(LITE FUSE AND GET AWAY).................with no accountability, it is "easy" to solve all the problems of the world. Just ask all those "talk radio" folks that you so conveniently referenced, in my opinion that is their area of expertise........


The views, expressions and opinions in this post are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer

Richard Cranium said:

It is only war if those involved choose to make it so.

Click to expand...

I think that line has been clearly drawn and stepped over by both sides.

aflifer said:

What does the Civil War have to do with any of this?

IMHO, history shows that regardless of which side you were on in the Civil War, there really were no "winners"..........it weakened the nation as a whole and delayed successful progress in many areas for a long period of time.........

.

Click to expand...

So by your perception of the Civil War it was not needed and there were no winners. I am sure African Americans would agree with you that this war was fought for no reason and nothing good was gained from it. There is always a reason people go to war even if some are blind to see it.

At no point did I say that there were absolutely no positives gained from that conflict............there were a lot of other reasons that war was fought as well, many not as positive as your example.

The thought I was trying to express with the analogy was that in every conflict there are sacrifices, be certain that your sacrifices do not exceed the value of what you are fighting for or destroy it, regardless of which way you are facing.

You do raise a good point...............as a firm believer in freedom, independence and basic rights, I am not sure that any "price" could be placed on those things. It is an eternal question that you will most likely get a different answer from every person of which it is asked. Do I think that the same results could have been achieved without the loss of millions of lives and the devastation of our country to the point that you still deal with many lingering issues 150 years later? I would like to hope so, but you can never be certain.

How about this analogy.............if Bumgarner comes up lame and can never pitch again, was it worth it to the Giants for the trophy this year? They certainly "won", but what could it have cost them by utilizing him in the manner they did?

What are people willingly able to sacrifice for a victory ?
I get it. Great points !

FXFC1620 said:

I think what he's trying to say is that war never changes. No matter what the war is over, both parties are weaker for it and certainly never the same again.

I couldn't agree more. It's your right to fight for what you believe in. But you must carefully consider the war at hand before rushing off blindly to battle. Because once the war is fought, you can't change the effects it has on both parties. And in war, there's never truly a winner. Only a guy who walked away with fewer wounds

It's a perfect analogy, and I commend aflifer for voicing it.

Click to expand...

Only when the war was brought to us did we take this path! Only after years of casualties did we say enough! The relationships were damaged over a 5 year period! Your right! Things will never be the same, but remember it wasn't our actions that started this! Only our reactions to unprofessional management and policies that stacked the deck against us!

The war analogy is a sad but fitting one.

We shouldn't be at war with the company. We shouldn't be at war with each other. War should only be engaged when all other means are exhausted.

We should support each other during this time of doubt.

Josefus said:

The war analogy is a sad but fitting one.

We shouldn't be at war with the company. We shouldn't be at war with each other. War should only be engaged when all other means are exhausted.

We should support each other during this time of doubt.

Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth, man. Amen. War is painful, no matter the reason. Even a just war will still see casualties. And we sure shouldn't be at war with each other.

A lot of people misunderstood the civil war analogy, which specifically speaks to all the infighting going on. FedEx would gladly see the drivers turning on each other, and need I remind you all who want to vote in the union that the word union is derived from unity? To unite? The idea is to stand united against FedEx, regardless of your thoughts regarding the IBT.

And yet we are divided among ourselves. At war with FedEx AND each other. A war that ultimately is hurting us more than FedEx, because unlike the drivers, FedEx isn't at war with itself. If we spend too much time beating each other up, the fight against the company becomes much more difficult.

If the United States and the Soviet Union could unite to defeat the Axis in WW2, then we can find a way to agree to disagree and focus on how to take on FedEx. Standing up united, with or without the Teamsters, will still make us heard. FedEx can't fire everybody.

Josefus said:

The war analogy is a sad but fitting one.

We shouldn't be at war with the company. We shouldn't be at war with each other. War should only be engaged when all other means are exhausted.

We should support each other during this time of doubt.

Click to expand...

I am not at war with the company or anyone else. I am simply exercising my rights given to me. If someone wants to say I am at war with the company because of this, then so be it.

Very well said Brys, we are exercising our constitutional right in seeking some sort of democracy at the work place and I don't understand why so many are so against our attempt to make our workplace better and life better for our families... Sorry that upsets some of you.

Hoot Owl said:

Very well said Brys, we are exercising our constitutional right in seeking some sort of democracy at the work place and I don't understand why so many are so against our attempt to make our workplace better and life better for our families... Sorry that upsets some of you.

Click to expand...

Some people don't feel that the union will change anything, or if it does, not for the better. A friend of mine is a member of the IBT and he's telling me constantly how the union keeps selling them up the river when a new contract comes out, and the scared sheep all vote yes because they're afraid of losing their jobs.

Further still, the guys at UPS Freight who I've spoken to (as well as Canada Cartage, their interline partner) have suggested that the union isn't doing much more for them than negotiating a contract. The pay gets better, the benefits are adjusted, but grievances are very often ignored. Many of the old timers there lament the loss of Overnite and the rise of the union.

I only know what I've heard, mind you. But there are many whom I've spoken to who feel that the union at least provides a voice where there would have been none. I personally prefer to speak for myself. And I will until the day I'm no longer heard.

FXFC1620 said:

Some people don't feel that the union will change anything, or if it does, not for the better. A friend of mine is a member of the IBT and he's telling me constantly how the union keeps selling them up the river when a new contract comes out, and the scared sheep all vote yes because they're afraid of losing their jobs.

Further still, the guys at UPS Freight who I've spoken to (as well as Canada Cartage, their interline partner) have suggested that the union isn't doing much more for them than negotiating a contract. The pay gets better, the benefits are adjusted, but grievances are very often ignored. Many of the old timers there lament the loss of Overnite and the rise of the union.

I only know what I've heard, mind you. But there are many whom I've spoken to who feel that the union at least provides a voice where there would have been none. I personally prefer to speak for myself. And I will until the day I'm no longer heard.

Click to expand...

As far as grievances go, the business agent serves at your pleasure, if he is lazy and doesn't take care of grievances, you vote his ass out.
As far as you preferring to speak for yourself, as an independent contractor, your situation is just a bit different than ours.