What's new

FedEx Freight | Louisville results

Getoverit said:
Wait till God forbid some day you have an accident and poof your fired!!!!! You might change your story then!!! Hopefully for your sake it never happens, but fate rears its head in different ways!!! Just Saying.........
Click to expand...

Really?? so your telling me that if I vote for the union and I rear end some poor schmuck I can't get fired. WOW sign me up toady Hell I will vote twice maybe even 3 times.
 
222lifer said:
Johhny on the spot with everything else and now you're asking questions?
Click to expand...

Just one of the differences between you and I. If I don't know the answer, I don't pretend like I do. I am willing to learn based on information new to me.


I don't have every Teamster contract memorized verbatim. What I have learned from different sources indicates that those who opt out of union representation may be required to pay fees (not dues). Further, even in RTW states it would depend on where you were performing your duties as to whether or not you, again may be required to pay fees.


Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.

Beck makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the NLRA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

--and--

Teamsters: "This authorization shall be irrevocable for a period of one (1) year from the date I sign it, until I can timely choose another membership status,...and it shall continue in effect thereafter unless I withdraw this authorization in writing to the employer and the local union within the two (2) week period immediately preceding the end of any such period."

Dues check off cards used by almost every union contain similar language limiting when workers can stop dues deductions. In most cases, this purposefully confusing language is legally binding and enforceable, even if you work in a RTW state and resign your union membership.

from: National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
 
Starkravinloon said:
That is correct.. But, if you got 75 drivers and all of them are union, and you're not, prepare to be the black sheep, juss sayin'... But, you probably will score points with management though..:butt kiss:er.....
Click to expand...
Under your scenario, yes, I would agree but since Clt has 223 drivers, 110 voted yes, and since many of those only did so for the free bennies, it's quite possible that you could end up with only 50 dues paying members and 173 non-union members. Under this possible scenario, who would you consider to be the "black sheep?"
 
Redracer3136 said:
Under your scenario, yes, I would agree but since Clt has 223 drivers, 110 voted yes, and since many of those only did so for the free bennies, it's quite possible that you could end up with only 50 dues paying members and 173 non-union members. Under this possible scenario, who would you consider to be the "black sheep?"
Click to expand...
Number one, if you voted yes, you're gonna pay your dues, why vote YES for something you're just going to sit around and look at... My scenario is much more realistic than what you've managed to drum up.. Number two, why would you face these guy every day and go home thinking "Man, did I just **** you"..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Starkravinloon said:
Number one, if you voted yes, you're gonna pay your dues, why vote YES for something you're just going to sit around and look at... My scenario is much more realistic than what you've managed to drum up.. Number two, why would you face these guy every day and go home thinking "Man, did I just screw you"..
Click to expand...
 
Redracer3136;1463788 said:
Everyone's insurance is going up in 2018, the unions will no longer be exempt. Would you rather step up every year until 2018 or have a bomb dropped on you in four years like the union members will experience? I personally have no problem with the profits and bonuses for the top execs going up, the markets and shareholders dictate that...and I don't have wealth envy. Our insurance decreases are due to the govt. Could the company pay 100% of our benefits, yes, but they don't....and I'm ok with that.
Click to expand...


The "problem" is being misled that, our most recent increases in cost (and reduction in coverage) are due to Gov. mandates. Some past increases could be attributed, such as "free" preventative care and coverage for "children" up to age 26.


The Company is now using the ACA as a vehicle for higher profit, under the guise of Gov.requirements, and the penalties for exceeding allowable thresholds (Caddilac tax). In fact, it has been shown that the coverage (and cost to Company), have been reduced by amounts far greater than are (or will be) required. When looking at the Value of your insurance as listed on your W-2, and when compared to the legal limits, it is clear that the Company has taken it far beyond what is required.


Quick search shows this:


"A 40 percent excise tax will be assessed, beginning in 2018, on the cost of coverage for health plans that exceed a certain annual limit ($10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for self and spouse or family coverage). Health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-funded group health plans must pay the tax of 40 percent of any dollar amount beyond the caps that is considered "excess" health spending."

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=99


For reference, My coverage (2013), listed in box 12b on W-2, was ,$12,548.40. Premium Family plan.


I know, you're OK with that. Still, it's good to know that FDX chooses to reduce our benefit more than is,was, or, will be, required.


It’s just something to know when assessing the FedEx (Taking care of our people) mantra.
 
Black dog Mafia said:
I really get a kick out of you PRO union guys whining about Corporate GREED and the Bonus's that the big wigs get. Y'all sound like a bunch of little girls. Wealth envy. You could make that kind of money. Go get a degree or two and start from the bottom like all the big wigs have done. And you too could make there kind of money and bonus's. And there is NOT one of you that if you where in Upper management's positions when that big bonus where put on your desk would say OH I didn't earn that lets give it to that peons and the little people. YOU made your choice in life to be in the position your in. NOBODY put a gun to your head and made you drive a truck and work for FXF. If you love the IBT that much I'm sure YRC or UPSF would love to have you. OH wait that means you would have to start over again. Heaven forbid you should do that. It's easier to whine and complain about how bad FXF treats you and beg the teamsters to come and save you. I have never been talked down to or disrespected once in the 15 years I have been with AF/FXF. Do I like all there bull crap rules NO. But you know I come to work I do my job and I go home. Do I like our health insurance NO. Thank OBAMA and the DEMS for that.Because the teamsters are about to get a big eye opener with that. And isn't it funny that when OBAMA care came out a bunch of special interest groups where not part of it. ( Teamsters and other Unions)
Click to expand...

See above post for "facts" on the healthcare topic.

As for the rest,

1)Just because you have not been pushed, or shown disrespect, doesn't mean others have not. Some of us do stand up, others do not. Does that mean those "others" should be put in such a position, and taken advantage of? Pressure to pull overweight trailers, comes to mind... It still happens today.
2)Doesn't it seem reasonable (fair, even) to try to "fix" the issues here, before, "moving on"? The problems we want to address, were not always the case. They were NOT the terms we agreed to, when hired.

I know you have personal reasons, for voting NO. I understand that. Do you, at least understand, the position of the other side? Shouldn't they/we stand up, and seek corrections? Is it not a noble cause?
 
Redracer3136 said:
As I've stated before, had the union offered to pay me for attending their meetings like the company did, I may have attended.
I did my research, I got all 3 sides.
The cost of insurance has gone up b/c the overall cost of healthcare continues to rise. Our coverage has decreased due to govt regulations. I challenge you to take the coverage we've got and compare it to the open markets, you'll find that our coverage isn't as bad as you think and what we pay for our coverage isn't that bad either. Could it be better, yes, but everything can always be better...is it the worst, not by a long shot!
I agree with Black Dog, if you were in their shoes, would you turn down those bennies and bonuses? I think not!
Agreed, the first few meetings were mandatory but less than half way through, attendance at those meetings continued to dwindle. My last meeting, with Pat Reed, had maybe 10 people attending, while the first meeting was standing room only.
So you think its sad that 97 people that voted disagree with your opinion? Actually, a lot more than 97 disagreed, there were many that voted yes with no intention of joining the union.
Never refused to be open to the union, you forget as was with you in the beginning. My homework convinced me that the union wasn't the answer.
A 13 year track record with FedEx tells me I've got a lot more now than I had in 2001....and that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Click to expand...


You lost me on that last part... Unless you have moved up via seniority, to a better position/road run, then your overall compensation has, in fact, declined, when factoring in inflation. My area, lags greatly behind the competition, as well.

I'd still like to get a hold of someone with a 2002 check stub, and run that number. Regardless, we know the insurance was better, we were the highest paid non-union LTL, and THAT is not the case today.
 
EX396 said:
Just one of the differences between you and I. If I don't know the answer, I don't pretend like I do. I am willing to learn based on information new to me.


I don't have every Teamster contract memorized verbatim. What I have learned from different sources indicates that those who opt out of union representation may be required to pay fees (not dues). Further, even in RTW states it would depend on where you were performing your duties as to whether or not you, again may be required to pay fees.


Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.

Beck makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the NLRA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

--and--

Teamsters: "This authorization shall be irrevocable for a period of one (1) year from the date I sign it, until I can timely choose another membership status,...and it shall continue in effect thereafter unless I withdraw this authorization in writing to the employer and the local union within the two (2) week period immediately preceding the end of any such period."

Dues check off cards used by almost every union contain similar language limiting when workers can stop dues deductions. In most cases, this purposefully confusing language is legally binding and enforceable, even if you work in a RTW state and resign your union membership.

from: National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Click to expand...
I gave you the answer ex. Didn't you read the reply? On has to opt in before they opt out.
 
You guys are the smart ones that know everything!! Yes I'm telling you if you have a fender bender you will be off for a week or so but you're than likely get your job back... Now your next question is well crap I can just wreck every day and get my job back, while they will be able to help you for true ACCIDENTS there is not much they can do for a True dumbutt!!!!!!
 
Black dog Mafia said:
Really?? so your telling me that if I vote for the union and I rear end some poor schmuck I can't get fired. WOW sign me up toady Hell I will vote twice maybe even 3 times.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much true. We were shown a safety video about 18 months ago and it discussed how more than half of the drivers involved in a roll over accident had had one previously. I asked, "How many do we get?", but didn't really get an answer.
 
Getoverit said:
You guys are the smart ones that know everything!! Yes I'm telling you if you have a fender bender you will be off for a week or so but you're than likely get your job back... Now your next question is well crap I can just wreck every day and get my job back, while they will be able to help you for true ACCIDENTS there is not much they can do for a True dumbutt!!!!!!
Click to expand...
In 20 years I had two chargeable accidents, one non-chargeable jackknife and zero days off for discipline. None of those were major accidents and there were no injuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top