What's new

FedEx Freight | Paid Oganizer vs. Union Buster

Starkravinloon said:
Sir, you are sounding like you do need a contract.. Why should you have to work harder than you do now, to keep your job... As long as you do your job, why should you be pressured because of your age? Under contract, they can't do that and the fear is gone.... A workplace should be enjoyable and a safe place to work.. In my experience of the younger driver, they wouldn't drive for me.. Grabbing 5 gears before they get to the gate.. Dragging tires around the yard, flat-spotting them.. Who do you think has to buy those tires? Yes, you, because the raise you didn't get, pays for those who screw things up for the rest... Am I discriminating, no, just stating fact...

Everyone has to start somewhere, just like we did.. We were young at one time, but having seniority gave me the reason to stay.. Thinking, one day I'll be where that 20 year guy is..
Click to expand...
Actually be wants at will so he can push you out without cause.
 
EX396 said:
Yes.

However, I wouldn't push a valuable employee out, so anybody I "pushed out" would be with cause. Just not one that I would need to defend, explain, justify.
Click to expand...

That's right no need to defend, explain, or justify, just don't let a younger employee work faster than you or your gone.
 
EX396 said:
Yes.

However, I wouldn't push a valuable employee out, so anybody I "pushed out" would be with cause. Just not one that I would need to defend, explain, justify.
Click to expand...

So, an older employee that has been loyal to the company for many, many years that is not as fast and efficient as he once was (because of the natural ageing process) and because the new younger employee is much faster and more efficient is no longer valuable in your eyes? Wow, your true colors really shine through. Maybe we need some more of those Obama programs because with that mind set, there would be allot more people out of work needing help from the government. You are part of the problem!
 
I would imagine this particular language has always bothered ex396.... "A fair days work for a fair days pay." His twisted ideals are the reason it was needed.

Sent from my SGH-T399 using Tapatalk
 
EX396 said:
It's not a contradiction. Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Do you have seniority over anybody older than you? How about any body younger than you with more seniority? If so, it will be clear to you that age and seniority don't have to correspond.
Click to expand...


......
Bottom line - Age has nothing to do with it!!!!! Seniority always prevails!!!!!! ALWAYS. I don't know why you have such a hard time with that!!!
 
EX396 said:
No, if my theories were in place the free market would be determining who survives and who doesn't. Corporate and Employee Darwinism.
Click to expand...

The free market does say who survives and don't, the customer, in my world.... I'm in business for myself, and if I don't keep up or revitalize, I'm done..
 
droppingaduece said:
Actually be wants at will so he can push you out without cause.
Click to expand...

This right here just about sums it up.. I thought you said you were a Conservative EX, you're sounding more like Obama and not caring about tenure or time accumulated.. Just fire'em and put'em out to pasture... Let'em die on ObamaCare...


EX396 said:
Yes.

However, I wouldn't push a valuable employee out, so anybody I "pushed out" would be with cause. Just not one that I would need to defend, explain, justify.
Click to expand...
 
EX396 said:
We have an employee over 60 with less seniority than one of our 35 year olds. So seniority and age don't always correspond.

Yes, I absolutely said that if a younger driver could make a run more efficiently, then seniority shouldn't matter. I am not discriminating against age, I am discriminating against the less efficient. If the old guy is more valuable to me I am not discriminating against him,i will give him work over the young guy even if the young guy has seniority.



It's that clearer? I don't think seniority should bear any weight in many de



cisions. Age has nothing to do with it.[/Q







Seniority has everything to do with it in a fair and compliant work force!!
Click to expand...
 
BusterNite said:
So, an older employee that has been loyal to the company for many, many years that is not as fast and efficient as he once was (because of the natural ageing process) and because the new younger employee is much faster and more efficient is no longer valuable in your eyes?
Click to expand...

Where did I say the older employee wasn't valuable? Many of you seem to see what you want to see.

222lifer said:
"A fair days work for a fair days pay."
Click to expand...

Sounds great to me! It's the folks that want a fair days pay for less than a fair days work that are the problem.


Getoverit said:
Bottom line - Age has nothing to do with it!!!!! Seniority always prevails!!!!!! ALWAYS. I don't know why you have such a hard time with that!!!
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't prevail at my employer and won't prevail anywhere I chose to work.


Starkravinloon said:
I thought you said you were a Conservative EX, you're sounding more like Obama and not caring about tenure or time accumulated.. Just fire'em and put'em out to pasture... Let'em die on ObamaCare...
Click to expand...

Ha! Ha! Trying to compare me to Obama just to get me riled. In my eyes tenure or time accumulated leading to preferential treatment is akin to handouts, living off the company teat, receiving benefits without merit. I don't want to fire old people or long time employees. I want them to remain valuable to employ.

Getoverit said:
Seniority has everything to do with it in a fair and compliant work force!!
Click to expand...

I disagree. A fair work environment would reward you based on your value to your employer. However your employer wishes to determine your value. If a chimp can be trained to do my job in an afternoon and paid in bananas, it doesn't matter that I have been here 20 years as my longevity here isn't of much value. If my employer would have to search for months and then train that replacement for months, then the fact that they haven't had to do that for 20 years provides some value.
 
The problem would be who,...exactly,...is doing the quantifying as to how...."valuable" ...an employee is to an employer. It would be a rare employer who didn't let personal feelings about employees cloud his rational opinion concerning an employees...."worth"...to an employer. Seniority may not be perfect,......but it sure beats a godlike, all-powerful dispatcher, or terminal manager, having the final say-so as to whether an employee gets to continue feeding his family, or not,.............with no appeal, by the way........Seniority,....in Union barns,.....probably keeps a few guys from "offering" to wash the dispatcher's car on the weekend.........perhaps to prove how ...."valuable"...they are?
 
EX396 said:
I disagree. A fair work environment would reward you based on your value to your employer. However your employer wishes to determine your value. If a chimp can be trained to do my job in an afternoon and paid in bananas, it doesn't matter that I have been here 20 years as my longevity here isn't of much value. If my employer would have to search for months and then train that replacement for months, then the fact that they haven't had to do that for 20 years provides some value.
Click to expand...

If.....ahh......you replaced the word "chimp" with "illegal alien",.....and the word "bananas" with "substandard and under-the-table wages",.....isn't that the national dialogue we're having right now? Are you seriously proposing it is morally and ethically proper for an employer to take advantage of whichever population group in the world desperate enough to be willingly exploited,....because it is "profitable" for the employer?.....because a more...."expensive"...employee isn't as ....valuable?
 
I wished I worked where you do EX, you said "tenure or time accumulated leading to preferential treatment is akin to handouts".. Damn... It's that way where you work? I've never had the pleasure of being located next to the boss's office.. And I been top dog at two different LTL companies.. Didn't give me no special treatment..
 
EX396 said:
I disagree. A fair work environment would reward you based on your value to your employer. However your employer wishes to determine your value. If a chimp can be trained to do my job in an afternoon and paid in bananas, it doesn't matter that I have been here 20 years as my longevity here isn't of much value. If my employer would have to search for months and then train that replacement for months, then the fact that they haven't had to do that for 20 years provides some value.
Click to expand...

So in your world if the company was to over hire, then when all of the new personnel where trained to do the jobs, the boss decides to start laying off people, then it is ok to lay off the guys with seniority, because they cost the company profit so their value has gone down. And even though the younger guys make mistakes, their speed with which the finish the tasks makes up for it, plus they are younger and in better health. I mean after all the old farts won't have a problem finding a job that will pay all their bills, or a company that doesn't think its to bad to have and older work force.....................hmmmm.......
I see. Do you see the need for protection of our seniority? If you don't then you are the problem.
 
EX396 said:
Agreed.

You can't say you won't hire them because they are young ,that's discrimination. You are not hiring them, because in your experience, they don't care.

Same with my situation. I don't care how old, or how much seniority. I only care about their value to the company.




Not really apropos to the topic, but I'll follow you down that path. They are not stealing anything. It's the Actuaries and the Politicians that screwed the pooch. Too much coming out and not enough going in. Simple as that. If I could opt out I would. I can't. So, I am paying for the people a generation before me, who paid for the generation before them. Not counting on any benefits when I retire, if it is there it will be icing on the cake.

Currently we are putting in 15.3% of the first 117K we make per year. A maximum annual contribution of $17,900, yet pulling out a max annual benefit of $31,704. That is unsustainable if you have the same amount of folks contributing as those receiving benefits.
Click to expand...

I can say anything I want to my employees, but I choose not to.. Not for legal reasons, it's just I'm not an ******* to them...
 
canaryinthemine said:
The problem would be who,...exactly,...is doing the quantifying as to how...."valuable" ...an employee is to an employer.
Click to expand...

The employer of course. If I have undervalued my employees I will have a turnover problem and/or I won't be able to attract the quality of employee I am seeking. As the employer I will determine what the job is worth, as the employee you can determine what your time, skills and effort are worth. If we agree, we have a mutually beneficial relationship. If we disagree, we don't work together.

canaryinthemine said:
It would be a rare employer who didn't let personal feelings about employees cloud his rational opinion concerning an employees...."worth"...to an employer.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and if their judgement proves to be skewed their value to their employer has just decreased ;).

canaryinthemine said:
....but it sure beats a godlike, all-powerful dispatcher, or terminal manager, having the final say-so as to whether an employee gets to continue feeding his family, or not?
Click to expand...

I disagree on both counts. One, I don't believe seniority is the better option. If I don't have dispatchers or terminal managers making decisions in the best interest of the company then I have the wrong people in those positions. Last thing I want is good leaders with their hands tied. Only you determine whether you get to continue feeding your family. If they starve, it's on you, not your employer.

canaryinthemine said:
If.....ahh......you replaced the word "chimp" with "illegal alien",.....and the word "bananas" with "substandard and under-the-table wages",.....isn't that the national dialogue we're having right now?
Click to expand...
Yes sir.

canaryinthemine said:
Are you seriously proposing it is morally and ethically proper for an employer to take advantage of whichever population group in the world desperate enough to be willingly exploited,....because it is "profitable" for the employer?.....because a more...."expensive"...employee isn't as ....valuable?
Click to expand...

If we limit the discussion to employers in the United States and all the related OSHA and EEOC regulations, then as long as the employee has the legal right to do the job in question; yes, that's exactly what I am proposing.
 
Starkravinloon said:
I wished I worked where you do EX, you said "tenure or time accumulated leading to preferential treatment is akin to handouts".. Damn... It's that way where you work? I've never had the pleasure of being located next to the boss's office.. And I been top dog at two different LTL companies.. Didn't give me no special treatment..
Click to expand...

Not everybody would consider being located next to the boss' office a pleasure ;)


Starkravinloon said:
It's looking more and more like he's the "younger guy".... I know he said he was "getting older", but so is my 22 year old son..
Click to expand...

Younger is relative. I have a daughter older than your son.
 
EX396 said:
Not everybody would consider being located next to the boss' office a pleasure ;)




Younger is relative. I have a daughter older than your son.
Click to expand...

I have 3 daughters older than my son... 34,33, and 26.... Your getting sleepy... Very, very sleeeeepy.... The only relativity to being younger to people my age, is watching them **** up just like I did... And laughing my ass off.. Because they know I taught them better... That's known as Humorous Relativity...
 
droppingaduece said:
So in your world if the company was to over hire, then when all of the new personnel where trained to do the jobs, the boss decides to start laying off people, then it is ok to lay off the guys with seniority, because they cost the company profit so their value has gone down. And even though the younger guys make mistakes, their speed with which the finish the tasks makes up for it, plus they are younger and in better health. I mean after all the old farts won't have a problem finding a job that will pay all their bills, or a company that doesn't think its to bad to have and older work force.....................hmmmm.......
I see. Do you see the need for protection of our seniority? If you don't then you are the problem.
Click to expand...

In my world it is okay for the boss to lay off whoever he/she wants. I never said younger guys are more valuable, yet many seem to draw that conclusion.

So you don't think I am making my arguments up as I go along, here's what I posted 10 days ago in response to a civil debate I was having with SwampRatt. Specifically post #102


"Early in our career we aren't as valuable to our employer because of our learning curve and their need to recoup their investment in us. We may be willing and able to work hard, but not necessarily as smart.

In our later years, we are about as knowledgeable of our job as we can be. We are likely working smarter and safer than the others, but we can't produce as much in the day. We could almost do our jobs with our eyes closed, so to speak.

The in-between years, we know our job well. Likely don't need much hand-holding. We are probably the best balance of working hard and working smart there is. High turn-over rate for this age group for a multitude of reasons.

So, every stage of the job is worth about the same for various reasons.

As to merit pay, bumps in wage for safe driving record milestones is one fairly objective measure."

With a link to the thread here: http://www.truckingboards.com/forum/fedex-freight/110947-vancouver-center-closing-11.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top