What's new

FedEx Freight | new work rules at EPH

aflifer said:
Lol.....apparently 94% of those folks didn't agree with your assessment of their situation. Wonder who would know better about what they have and are being offered......the ones that voted, or the good 'ol "truth monster"?
Click to expand...

Well to be qwite honest unless you can prove my post to be untrue why even comment?
 
aflifer said:
Prove what? That 94% of those folks might tend to disagree with your assessment of their situation? I believe the vote tally speaks for itself.....
Click to expand...
That would be 94% of one terminal! That is not all UPS terminals. The Louisville hall could have struck by itself if it wanted to and should have. The majority of members in the hall are the UPS workers, look it up if you don't believe me. The National wasn't waiting on them stating it was the best they were getting and you cannot hold a national contract up for just one group. Most of this was political anyways. Fred Zuckerman was the president of local 89. He is running against Hoffa as we speak. This not striking thing could actually end Hoffa's career. And I think it should.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Trucker said:
Yeah if you consider highest pay, best insurance, and best retirement getting the shaft. :biglaugh:
Click to expand...
aflifer said:
Prove what? That 94% of those folks might tend to disagree with your assessment of their situation? I believe the vote tally speaks for itself.....
Click to expand...

You quoted my post from above lets see a delivery company that makes more you claimed i wasn't telling the truth. The majority ruled 1 terminal doesn't trump the rest of the company. Pretty simple for most to understand.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
You quoted my post from above lets see a delivery company that makes more you claimed i wasn't telling the truth. The majority ruled 1 terminal doesn't trump the rest of the company. Pretty simple for most to understand.
Click to expand...

Where did I say you weren't telling the truth as YOU see it (a.k.a. opinion)? The purpose of my post was to point out that there is evidence that you may not be in a position to have all the facts to claim that truth as absolutely as you did. Are you disputing the FACT that 94% of those folks found something about their deal that they didn't feel was the "highest" or the "best"? I certainly understand the majority rules concept, but I also know that it works both ways, and your expressions do not seem to show such blind support for the majority rules concept when you reside in the 1%.
 
aflifer said:
Where did I say you weren't telling the truth as YOU see it (a.k.a. opinion)? The purpose of my post was to point out that there is evidence that you may not be in a position to have all the facts to claim that truth as absolutely as you did. Are you disputing the FACT that 94% of those folks found something about their deal that they didn't feel was the "highest" or the "best"? I certainly understand the majority rules concept, but I also know that it works both ways, and your expressions do not seem to show such blind support for the majority rules concept when you reside in the 1%.
Click to expand...

Your all over the place with that post. First of all you quoted my post about UPS having the best pay, best retirement, and best insurance that is not an opinion it's a fact if you can prove me wrong lets see it. Second your talking about the majority at 1 terminal for UPS which is probably less than 1 percent nationwide, that did not agree with the new contract. Third you mixed in nationwide numbers when talking about fed ex as to which you have no idea what the actual Numbers would be unless you took an unbiased poll of the actual support that exists.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
Your all over the place with that post. First of all you quoted my post about UPS having the best pay, best retirement, and best insurance that is not an opinion it's a fact if you can prove me wrong lets see it. Second your talking about the majority at 1 terminal for UPS which is probably less than 1 percent nationwide, that did not agree with the new contract. Third you mixed in nationwide numbers when talking about fed ex as to which you have no idea what the actual Numbers would be unless you took an unbiased poll of the actual support that exists.
Click to expand...

Which brings up back full circle......YOU might believe it to be fact, but you can't dispute that the majority in local 89 disagreed with you. I am actually using the same assumptive math you are for the other piece......when you claim that 1 local shouldn't hold up the majority. So you think an "unbiased" poll (whatever that is) would show that only that 94% in LOU felt that way? I agree that the numbers aren't ideal, but they are the only ones we got......you don't seem to mind their inaccuracies when they serve your purpose.

Carry on......will go back into hibernation mode now....
 
aflifer said:
Which brings up back full circle......YOU might believe it to be fact, but you can't dispute that the majority in local 89 disagreed with you. I am actually using the same assumptive math you are for the other piece......when you claim that 1 local shouldn't hold up the majority. So you think an "unbiased" poll (whatever that is) would show that only that 94% in LOU felt that way? I agree that the numbers aren't ideal, but they are the only ones we got......you don't seem to mind their inaccuracies when they serve your purpose.

Carry on......will go back into hibernation mode now....
Click to expand...

You lost me your bouncing around between us and ups. Did red hack your account, because your posts aren't making sense like his.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
You lost me your bouncing around between us and ups. Did red hack your account, because your posts aren't making sense like his.
Click to expand...

To simplify, I am only trying to point out that it seems like when you apply a certain logic to a situation, you view your assessment as "fact". However, when I apply that same logic to a similar situation, that contradicts your conclusions, you find it to be faulty reasoning.

I already have that kind of arrangement with my wife, mom and mother-in-law, so that list is full, I will have to say "no, thank you" to your application to join it at this time.....
 
aflifer said:
To simplify, I am only trying to point out that it seems like when you apply a certain logic to a situation, you view your assessment as "fact". However, when I apply that same logic to a similar situation, that contradicts your conclusions, you find it to be faulty reasoning.

I already have that kind of arrangement with my wife, mom and mother-in-law, so that list is full, I will have to say "no, thank you" to your application to join it at this time.....
Click to expand...

Again UPS has the best benefits package in the game it is a fact. No logic just a fact, if you can prove otherwise i would like to see it.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
Again UPS has the best benefits package in the game it is a fact. No logic just a fact, if you can prove otherwise i would like to see it.
Click to expand...
What he's saying, CT, is that obviously 94% of UPS LOU do not agree with your assessment that UPS has the best deal. A majority of people at a single terminal feel UPS is screwing them over. A majority of people across UPS say otherwise.

In other words, as both you and he already said, one terminal does not get to speak above everyone else. That logic can apply to literally anyone anywhere. Just because a small group of people are pissed off, doesn't mean everyone is.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
What he's saying, CT, is that obviously 94% of UPS LOU do not agree with your assessment that UPS has the best deal. A majority of people at a single terminal feel UPS is screwing them over. A majority of people across UPS say otherwise.

In other words, as both you and he already said, one terminal does not get to speak above everyone else. That logic can apply to literally anyone anywhere. Just because a small group of people are pissed off, doesn't mean everyone is.
Click to expand...

You gotta admit his argument drops with irony.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
What he's saying, CT, is that obviously 94% of UPS LOU do not agree with your assessment that UPS has the best deal. A majority of people at a single terminal feel UPS is screwing them over. A majority of people across UPS say otherwise.

In other words, as both you and he already said, one terminal does not get to speak above everyone else. That logic can apply to literally anyone anywhere. Just because a small group of people are pissed off, doesn't mean everyone is.
Click to expand...

Just as an aside, the majority numbers don't really speak to whether they have (or thought they had) the "best package in the game". It merely says that they thought there was more on the table that "could be achieved", in their opinion.

Other than that, the debate is valid, but not really worth my participation, beyond my previously stated opinion. Carry on...
 
Canadian Flyer said:
What he's saying, CT, is that obviously 94% of UPS LOU do not agree with your assessment that UPS has the best deal. A majority of people at a single terminal feel UPS is screwing them over. A majority of people across UPS say otherwise.

In other words, as both you and he already said, one terminal does not get to speak above everyone else. That logic can apply to literally anyone anywhere. Just because a small group of people are pissed off, doesn't mean everyone is.
Click to expand...

Get all that it's not what were debating.
 
SwampRatt said:
Just as an aside, the majority numbers don't really speak to whether they have (or thought they had) the "best package in the game". It merely says that they thought there was more on the table that "could be achieved", in their opinion.

Other than that, the debate is valid, but not really worth my participation, beyond my previously stated opinion. Carry on...
Click to expand...
I was, admittedly, generalizing a bit, but you knew that. :poke:You make an excellent point though, and one worth bringing up.
 
SwampRatt said:
Just as an aside, the majority numbers don't really speak to whether they have (or thought they had) the "best package in the game". It merely says that they thought there was more on the table that "could be achieved", in their opinion.

Other than that, the debate is valid, but not really worth my participation, beyond my previously stated opinion. Carry on...
Click to expand...

Ah...... Swamp.....

I think you probably realize I am just being a bit cantankerous. I actually agree with your viewpoint on the matter, but would point out that their are two sides to that coin as well. How many of our folks aren't entirely dissatisfied with their package, but only "think" more is available.

Those premises aside. I find the most compelling issue about the situation being discussed is the thought that such a high majority, where the location represents the largest operation in the U.S., could get steamrolled like that. Certainly can understand the how's and why's behind it from a global perspective, but I know if I was part of that 94%, you would have to color me skeptical when terms like voice, representation and negotiation were used moving forward......

Carry on.....
 
aflifer said:
Ah...... Swamp.....

I think you probably realize I am just being a bit cantankerous. I actually agree with your viewpoint on the matter, but would point out that their are two sides to that coin as well. How many of our folks aren't entirely dissatisfied with their package, but only "think" more is available.

Those premises aside. I find the most compelling issue about the situation being discussed is the thought that such a high majority, where the location represents the largest operation in the U.S., could get steamrolled like that. Certainly can understand the how's and why's behind it from a global perspective, but I know if I was part of that 94%, you would have to color me skeptical when terms like voice, representation and negotiation were used moving forward......

Carry on.....
Click to expand...
Certainly a debatable situation, that highlights a flaw in the RULES.

I would be quite irritated if I was part of the "local" wanting to exert maximum leverage as the last holdout to a contract. On the other side, I would be highly agitated at the prospect of one or two locals holding up the wishes of the entire country. As previously stated, a tough call, but a decision that had to be made, one way or the other.

Again, there is/was a rules problem. requiring 100% of locals to come to agreement is a serious flaw in the rules. It gives huge incentive to be that last holdout. A better rule would be to require 3/4 of locals to agree, thereby providing "balance". Some incentive to seek the best result for your local, but also incentive to come to agreement and be among that 3/4 majority. Once the 3/4 mark is reached, the remaining locals would, in effect, lose that extra leverage. Such a correction to the rules would provide balance and avoid that Louisville situation.

If I were on the inside (a member), you can bet I would be pushing for just such a rules change, prior to the next contract negotiation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top