FedEx Freight | Any news on if there will be an October pay increase?

[SwampRatt]

I just proved him wrong. You must be at a center that wasn't invaded by the union or else you would have been in those meetings and heard the same thing I heard.

Not so fast, SP.

How can I be wrong when the quote begins: "I wouldn't be so certain. I am not positive how this will play out, But... "

Then in another instance, I said: "I'm not prepared to predict this one. I do think extreme care will be required if they are denied, and previous communications could come into play"

Now let's look at what you said:

If this was law, why wasn't fedex charged. You always heard in the meetings with the company that everything would be frozen after negotiations started

It sound like if charges were to be filed, You (aka Sex pistol) could be brought in to testify on behalf of the plaintiff. You heard Company Reps say it.

Here's another:

Yout know how many times I heard that during our meetings with the company when the union was invading. Probably a 100 times from Pat Reed all the way down and nobody said or did anything about it

You may be the star witness against the Company. Who knows?

Again I'm not certain, but it could be a question of whether you heard what you think you heard. Did you really hear "would", or may the word have been "could"? As in "could be frozen" I don't know.

 

[Redracer3136]

I understand what your trying to say but, the ruling was that all employees regardless of whether they were represented or not, because it was a planned pay raise, got the raise. It didn't have to have the unions blessing to get so the precedent has been set. It does not have to be negotiated.

No, the ruling was because the NLRB claimed that ARC Bridges' withholding the wage increase to union-represented employees was motivated by anti-union animus...it had nothing to do with it being a "planned raise".

"As a general premise, under certain circumstances, employers are permitted under the NLRA to treat represented and unrepresented employees differently during collective bargaining negotiations, as long as the differential treatment is not motivated by anti-union animus."

Straight from the link you provided

 

[pops11359]

No, the ruling was because the NLRB claimed that ARC Bridges' withholding the wage increase to union-represented employees was motivated by anti-union animus...it had nothing to do with it being a "planned raise".

"As a general premise, under certain circumstances, employers are permitted under the NLRA to treat represented and unrepresented employees differently during collective bargaining negotiations, as long as the differential treatment is not motivated by anti-union animus."

Straight from the link you provided

And do you think it would be hard to prove at these 4 terminals that there wasn't anti-union animus? I really don't think so. Ever since I hired on at fedex there has been anti-union animus. I'm sorry red but I think your wrong on this. But I guess we'll see come October.

 

[roogie]

Wasn't this thread about pay raise information?

 

[SwampRatt]

I would guess they will get the raise because I don't think negotiations are that far along and they wouldn't want to anger the employees by denying them the raise. I could see it if they were right at the point of signing a contract but I don't think they are.

This just might be the most likely prediction of what COULD occur.

In THAT SCENARIO, any hold placed would maintain the current terms, including insurance terms, IMHO.

Before anyone gets too alarmed, there are often retroactive elements, which can make the parties whole.

 

[Redracer3136]

Wasn't this thread about pay raise information?

It is, we're just discussing the pay raise as it relates to the four centers that voted yes. Should this discussion be on the other thread....probably.

 

[Redracer3136]

And do you think it would be hard to prove at these 4 terminals that there wasn't anti-union animus? I really don't think so. Ever since I hired on at fedex there has been anti-union animus. I'm sorry red but I think your wrong on this. But I guess we'll see come October.

Before the election, no, probably not since the company was campaigning against representation. The case within the link you provided took place "during negotiations" and our company hasn't shown any anti-union animus since our election.

IMO, things have actually gotten worse since our negotiations have started because the company is scared to death to offend a union supporter, thus most are getting away with murder, hypothetically speaking of course.

 

[pops11359]

The original

Before the election, no, probably not since the company was campaigning against representation. The case within the link you provided took place "during negotiations" and our company hasn't shown any anti-union animus since our election.

IMO, things have actually gotten worse since our negotiations have started because the company is scared to death to offend a union supporter, thus most are getting away with murder, hypothetically speaking of course.

Wow, maybe not in CLT, but I have seen anti union animus both before during and after the votes were counted. Sorry I just don't agree with you.

 

[Redracer3136]

The original

Wow, maybe not in CLT, but I have seen anti union animus both before during and after the votes were counted. Sorry I just don't agree with you.

Before, during, and after the votes were counted really means nothing in this case, it's only once negotiations start.

With that being said, I do see the two centers that have already started negotiations still getting the raise, for the union to deny us the raise would be political ******* IMO....and even the teamsters aren't that stupid!!

 

[Sex pistol]

Not so fast, SP.

How can I be wrong when the quote begins: "I wouldn't be so certain. I am not positive how this will play out, But... "

Then in another instance, I said: "I'm not prepared to predict this one. I do think extreme care will be required if they are denied, and previous communications could come into play"

Now let's look at what you said:


It sound like if charges were to be filed, You (aka Sex pistol) could be brought in to testify on behalf of the plaintiff. You heard Company Reps say it.

Here's another:


You may be the star witness against the Company. Who knows?

Again I'm not certain, but it could be a question of whether you heard what you think you heard. Did you really hear "would", or may the word have been "could"? As in "could be frozen" I don't know.

It was definitely was would be frozen and remain in status quo. This was said after the union filed for a petition for a vote,so maybe you can say it after a petition is filled and not before. I don't know.
Btw. I get amnesia sometimes, especially in any kind of testimony that doesn't favor me. Lol

 

[Crazy Trucker]

It was definitely was would be frozen and remain in status quo. This was said after the union filed for a petition for a vote,so maybe you can say it after a petition is filled and not before. I don't know.
Btw. I get amnesia sometimes, especially in any kind of testimony that doesn't favor me. Lol

Hey i thought you knew for sure those centers were not going to get the raise? This is why your fear campaign doesn't work because your wrong more than your right.

 

[Sex pistol]

Hey i thought you knew for sure those centers were not going to get the raise? This is why your fear campaign doesn't work because your wrong more than your right.

That post was from meetings with the company and that's what was said by company officials. Btw it was frozen. CLT got the raise through collective bargaining. Just like I said. The union fails to mention what they gave up for that raise through collective bargaining. It just goes to show you how weak the local is at CLT. It will be interesting to see what the union at EPH will give up for that raise.

 

[Crazy Trucker]

That post was from meetings with the company and that's what was said by company officials. Btw it was frozen. CLT got the raise through collective bargaining. Just like I said. The union fails to mention what they gave up for that raise through collective bargaining. It just goes to show you how weak the local is at CLT. It will be interesting to see what the union at EPH will give up for that raise.

Lmao and you believe everything your told by company. Yeah they gave up nothing nice try though. The union agreed to a planned raise i bet there were some real negotiations to pull that off.

 

[pops11359]

That post was from meetings with the company and that's what was said by company officials. Btw it was frozen. CLT got the raise through collective bargaining. Just like I said. The union fails to mention what they gave up for that raise through collective bargaining. It just goes to show you how weak the local is at CLT. It will be interesting to see what the union at EPH will give up for that raise.

That post was from meetings with the company and that's what was said by company officials. Btw it was frozen. CLT got the raise through collective bargaining. Just like I said. The union fails to mention what they gave up for that raise through collective bargaining. It just goes to show you how weak the local is at CLT. It will be interesting to see what the union at EPH will give up for that raise.

It is illegal to withhold a planned raise even if the terminal in question is in negotiations, they didn't bargain for anything.

 

[Sex pistol]

Lmao and you believe everything your told by company. Yeah they gave up nothing nice try though. The union agreed to a planned raise i bet there were some real negotiations to pull that off.

The union didn't agree to the increase in insurance premiums? They didn't agree to not talk wages for another year? They just agreed to that for nothing? What about vacation pay for city drivers? The city drivers aren't getting that either. But spin it anyway you want.

 

[pops11359]

NLRB Puts Employers in No Win Situation re: Wage Increases | The National Law ...

I think this answers the question.

@Sex pistol read this article again the NLRB sides with the workers in these type of issues, cannot withhold a planned raise nor can your treat drivers different at locations that have voted yes, or are in negotiations, if any city drivers get the 1/52 vacation average ALL WILL GET IT!

 

[Redracer3136]

It is illegal to withhold a planned raise even if the terminal in question is in negotiations, they didn't bargain for anything.

Incorrect, actually the union did bargain.
In exchange for the .75 per hour/.01 per mile raise, the union agreed not to talk/negotiate wages for 12 more months AND they agreed to increased insurance premiums.
Why is this significant?? 12 more months...our one year clock ends in 9.5 months, so much for the union "negotiating better pay"!!

If they'll concede this for a "planned raise", I can't wait to see what they'll give up in order for the city guys to get the enhanced vacation wage rate...or the 40+ work rule related demands that were made!!

 

[Redracer3136]

@Sex pistol read this article again the NLRB sides with the workers in these type of issues, cannot withhold a planned raise nor can your treat drivers different at locations that have voted yes, or are in negotiations, if any city drivers get the 1/52 vacation average ALL WILL GET IT!

Incorrect again, the 1/52 enhanced vacation wage rate is a new item, not "planned", therefor it must be negotiated.

 

[pops11359]

Incorrect again, the 1/52 enhanced vacation wage rate is a new item, not "planned", therefor it must be negotiated.

So then you agree that the raise was a planned raise, if so why would it have to be negotiated to allow clt to get the raise? Nothing would have to be conceded.

 

[SAC75]

If the union negotiated all of this then why didn't your employees have to vote for it? You can't negotiate and approve anything without the members voting on it. The union might have threatened legal action if the raises were not givin but nothing can be negotiated without final approval of the employees.