Discussion in 'Fedex Freight' started by Richard Cranium, Jun 11, 2017.
There you go again spouting off nonsense.
Perhaps the LEAST accurate post of the week. No one claimed the numbers at the locations you mention, except you...now.
Numbers evolved over some time. Effects of hiring, required minimums, Co. actions, were all factors, but your low end & high end numbers are off the charts wrong. I stand by my (previously noted) short version. While you have something to gain, by skewing the facts with theatrical presentations, I do not.
This is interesting to watch, but you'd be better served sticking with the truth. When it's all said and done, credibility is most important, IMHO.
Wrong answer, the mouthpieces of CLT were claiming that that center had 100% before we voted and we knew it was just another one of their many lies...and seeing as how you act like you know everything that goes on in CLT, I'm surprised you're now claiming you hadn't heard this one!!
C'mon Swamp, now the numbers "evolved"?? It's not like the company added drivers daily causing the required minimum to rise, gimmie a break!! You had something to gain and lose, weren't you and one of your fellow road drivers trying to get signatures at your center?? I guess now you're trying to blame "evolving" minimums for your failed efforts.
I give the facts and the truth and my credibility is intact, especially with those that matter...the super majority in CLT and most of those who are pro-union!!
Never heard that 100% number. The verified number for that one center was 85%. Why they didn't file the day after your yes vote is pure speculation and irrelevant now. Each location, it seems, had unique metrics in play. However difficult, we must respect their decision(s).
Why we didn't file, when we (only very briefly) could have, was due to several factors, most notably (a wait and see) consensus. I'm not going to replay the reasoning behind that decision for your benefit. Worth noting, even the timeline never did fit your "promised tsunami" narrative.
The required percentage certainly did evolve from 60% to 70+, presumably due to a poor success ratio. The massive hiring rate eventually had some effect, but far less than one might think. Combined with the previously stated significant improvements in the workplace, no further explanation should be necessary.
You can call it a failed effort if you like. My failed effort? That's fine too. I don't think the term failure applies. The effort was necessary and based on sound principals. All efforts produce results, and too many gains were made to call the effort failed, IMHO. Let's also not forget, there are three parties involved. I'm not one to place blame, but only one party's results show them to have been ill-prepared. That party is certainly not FedEx, and it's certainly not the drivers...
This whole thing has been (and continues to be) highly educational, on so many levels. Enjoy your current effort. I'll be following it closely, but don't expect me to comment, or get sucked in to each and every unproductive revisionist history debate. I'll wait for the vote, and absolutely respect the outcome.
You weren't in CLT so you obviously didn't hear all of the lies of those days. Sorry but the masses aren't buying the "wait and see" approach, if that truly was the case then it's got to be the dumbest strategy ever come up with...thx!!
Our sources claim you never had the numbers but that's irrelevant now and if that was in fact your strategy, again, dumbest strategy ever!! For the record, it was Hootowl that promised the Tsunami, not us, we just like to quote his lies!!
IF the required percentage of 70% is true and any center that reached this plateau didn't file, then they either didn't really have the support or they just didn't understand the process!!
I'll have to agree but also disagree...agreed that the initial movement spurred changes but attempting to sign cards with no petition meant nothing. Do you know how many times in our almost 35 year history (AF/FXFE) a center attempted to sign cards?? It was only after petitions had been filed in 2014 that changes were made...again, the threat is more powerful than the union itself!!
Agreed, had we known then what we know now, our center would have never made it to an election in 2014...and as long as myself and others are here, it never will again!!
This is why we won't continue this discussion. You take words like consensus opinion, twist them into my personal opinion, then expect me to defend your newly spun narrative. A visual overlay of the three timelines (support/requirements/improvements) might help you to understand, but I suspect it would be a waste of resources, keystrokes, and time.
I don't think anyone, with the exception of Stockton, ever filed, once the requirement hit 70%. Nearly impossible hurdle? Perhaps... It certainly proved to be the death knell.
Think/believe whatever you like. I have zero interest in convincing you, or anyone else, at this point. It seems like a massive waste of time and effort, better spent elsewhere.
Sitting on the porch with a nice bottle of Makers Mark comes to mind.
THAT is a quite enticing option, Joe. Outstanding choice.
The NLRB requires 30%, if the union required(s) 70% as you claim (an admittedly impossible hurdle) then one has to wonder just how bad they really wanted to organize FedEx in the first place!!
I spent the afternoon with my daughter and a co-worker on the golf course....played like I had drank a fifth of Makers Mark!!
And/Or, when they lost interest, and why? Too much speculation in that area is likely to lead us down a road we don't need to be on.
Probably should get back on topic, before someone gets their thong in a wad. This is supposed to be the "getting a little boring" thread...
I think you know more than you are willing to share, DD's real job is dipping the bottles in the red stuff to seal the cap.
His part time job is Dave's hat blocker.
Just too much about Makers Mark to not know!
You don't have to have 51 percent to file, exactly what I'm talking about your clueless.
I thought that was the point of this thread, to create some interest to break the monotony??
Yup, a thread about a horse named Lazarus.
The last paragraph of your post is hilarious. Just saying you haven't had credibility on here since you stated our insurance would fall under the Cadillac tax and all the other lies you have told.
And yet our insurance did fall under the Cadillac tax under Obummercare.
Sad to hear you either lack the financial resources or the sophistication to appreciate a more refined selection, such as a single malt Scotch. Anything by Lagavulin, Oban, Balvenie or Macallan would be a significant improvement.
I was never a fan of Scoth....unless I was using it to chase a smooth bourbon followed up by a cold beer!!
Separate names with a comma.