Simple math?

Discussion in 'Oak Harbor' started by v for vendetta, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. majortrucker

    majortrucker Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    You are not to bring this stuff up it could be a llegal problem.

    I stand behind that the VP's and Oakh is a good and fair place to work. I don't have to prove anything. These are my feelings from my experiences with them as my bosses and working for them. And there are a few rotton teamsters that are full of hate, anger and bent on distruction. And that does not serve anyone.
     
  2. westdriver

    westdriver Member

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I dont think so. just smart enough to see the writing on the wall
    how long have they wanted you gone ?
    since the last contract ?
    the only way you guys are going to win is to go back
    they dont want you there, the economy sucks, every trucking co is down right now
    If you had been working, you'd be layed off
    it cost them less to have you on strike........
     
  3. silvertooth

    silvertooth Member

    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Doesn't matter what they want, all that matters is the law and their actions. If the Teamsters return, not one replacement worker will be working if even the lowest seniority union member is laid off.

    If you really think this labor action has cost less then laying off some guys you have to bee insane, remember all that freight you used to have? That's why USF and UPS Freight have such minimal layoffs even though the market is trashed.
     
  4. silvertooth

    silvertooth Member

    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yea they must treat people fair that why they are being forced into compliance by the NLRB. the NLRB is notorious for siding with companies. You don;t know what would happen to compensation and you would have no control over it as a non union employee. If it were a fair place to work the NLRB would have never filed charges against the company.

    The union is protecting their interests and those of their members, the company has brought this upon themselves they had the most liberal contract in all of freight, and they still weren't happy, always taking and wanting more. The union members anger is just and was provoked. Good, honest, and fair people do not retain union busting firms they are trying to slither out of their obligations to their employees,and they can't be allowed to get away with it. A few Sc@3by fairy's and company suckasses with bonehead opinions doesn't change a f@#$king thing.
     
  5. foster1662

    foster1662 Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Your comments are based on your feelings?:wtflol:

    Look at some facts and think of someone besides yourself.
     
  6. majortrucker

    majortrucker Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    I know the facts and having emotions is a good thing. So clean up your own act and think of others yourself.
     
  7. silvertooth

    silvertooth Member

    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Major trucker here's you sign:loser:
     
  8. truckchick1

    truckchick1 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You are wrong here.... they VP's would treat you fair, just like they are doing in Calif and in the NW terminals That is if you are now working for them. They have always treated their employees fair. Conditions and compensation would remain fair even if the unions weren’t involved. A good and fair place to work.

    I have seen even with the union in place where the company is trying to thin out the old guys. When you are responsible for elderly parents the company will try to write you up about missing work to care for them. With Henry being 90+ we do not have the advantage like the VP's do to just call in to take care of our parents. They have tried to fire me twice for this. So tell me again what a great caring company they are?
     
  9. familyman8

    familyman8 Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Quote:
    You are wrong here.... they VP's would treat you fair, just like they are doing in Calif and in the NW terminals That is if you are now working for them. They have always treated their employees fair. Conditions and compensation would remain fair even if the unions weren’t involved. A good and fair place to work.
    A lot of the things the union is doing are cutting their own throats and those of their bothers and sisters with so much anger, hate and with the decision to just see what they can destroy…A few rotten apples in the union pool--- That serves no one[/QUOTE]

    Come on, how nieve. I use to LOVE working here ed and dave could care less what we are going through out here. all they want is to eliminate the union. they used to have my respect but have since lost it because they just do not care. My wife needed me at home after MAJOR SURGERY C-section to be precise. and they refused to allow me time off with the pay i had coming as a result i had to return to work 4 days after surgery while my wife had to care for 7 children 4 DAYS AFTER SURGERY. so you will never convince me they care for me or you. wait till your wife has this happen and see how much they care. THIS IS THE REASON THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE THE SICK PAY. Have fun trying to be at home with your family when ths happens. Icould have lost my wife from the complications from this but by Gods grace I still have her.
     
  10. happyltlguy

    happyltlguy New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    that is BS, FMLA is a federal law that requires employers to let you off. if you go on FLMA your vacation pay is applied. Ed and David don't make those decisions, your TM or supervisor do. had you contacted HR they or ED would have told you that you have a right to take the time off up to 5 weeks. your a LIAR who is just trying to fling dirt that isn't even there.
     
  11. Day Tripper

    Day Tripper Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Liar as well as whiner. He created his lumpy bed now does not want to lay in it with the discomfort. He calls me a moron. Take a look at yourself, a guy who lets his entire family and assets go down the tube. Now you want to blame the company for you pathetic stupidity. Quote from you "Oh we would have stayed with the contract status quo". The company offered you way more and remember this was ULP not economic, Yea Right. Led to the edge of the cliff and pushed off, way to go smart boy! By the way, this moron's bank account looks pretty good, how about yours?
     
  12. silvertooth

    silvertooth Member

    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    The contract was not more than the previous agreement. It was a concessionary deal losing control of the medical is a huge thing. The company wanted more control and concessions while they were very profitable. If they had a problem and needed concessions the union would have gladly helped, had the VP' been willing to share the books with the union, that is standard practice in concessionary contract deals, the VP's were defiant, they didn't like being held accountable by union officials, and they made a decision to play hardball. That's the reason for this whole mess that is why they paid a union busting firms retainer why else would you do that unless you knew you were looking to screw someone? Certainly, not because you hoped to bargain in good faith.
     
  13. familyman8

    familyman8 Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Stupid as well as IGNORANT. FMLA is FEDERAL, OFLA is Oregon Family Leave Act, which supplements the Federal regulations by allowing employees to use accrued sick leave.
    You must be part of the office there because they still do not know how to apply the rules and regulations. The company was caught with their pants down on this one and were forced to pay this when people took family leave. so the ONE AND ONLY REASON THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE SICK PAY is they do not want to pay this anymore. Wha!!
    Wha!! Wha!! cry babies!!!!!
     
  14. silvertooth

    silvertooth Member

    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    They just want to steal you sick pay, and never give anyone a day off. Can't blame them I guess from a business standpoint, but from a moral view it's about par for their course.
     
  15. truckchick1

    truckchick1 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    According to the new pres he believes that every employee in the nation should have 7 paid sick days a year.
     
  16. silvertooth

    silvertooth Member

    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I agree, and they should be paid on the 1st day out, and a company should have no business asking what or why you use them for. It's personal and NOTFB. If it's a "mental health day" or a contagious flu it's you sick pay and you should be able to use it at will.
     
  17. foster1662

    foster1662 Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    There have been some employees that were not treated fairly
    including some of the replacement workers.

    October 26, 2006
    Coburn v. Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc OR Hubel Employment Job Discrimination (Race)

    January 12, 2004
    Gibson v. Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc OR Brown Employment Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim

    4. Discrimination Against African-American and Female Temporary Employees
    Many of the temporary replacement workers recruited by MSSC to work on the
    strike are African-American drivers, a large number of whom are from the Southeastern
    US. The panel received consistent reports, from multiple sources, that some of these
    drivers have complained of receiving inferior work assignments on account of their race.
    Such acts of discrimination violate not only Title VII, but also ILO Convention 111,
    another “core” labor standard.51 In one particularly extreme case, one African-American
    driver reportedly was terminated and sent home after he refused an order to load a
    personal item belonging to a white driver onto the latter’s truck. Other African-American
    drivers reportedly complained that they were being given dirtier and more physically
    demanding delivery assignments than were their white counterparts.
    Finally, and perhaps most significantly, a group of five African-American female
    drivers who were recruited by MSSC to operate tractor-trailers, were reassigned from
    Auburn to Portland, where they were assigned to drive passenger vans transporting other
    replacement workers instead of driving trucks. These African-American women – who
    were the only African-American women drivers at the Auburn facility -- all had been
    originally hired as truck drivers.
    Although the women reportedly did not receive a cut in pay, the transfer and
    reassignment was clearly a demotion. Driving a passenger van is a less prestigious job
    than driving a tractor-trailer. The reassignment meant that these African-American
    women would not be entrusted with driving Oak Harbor equipment, handling Oak Harbor
    freight, or interacting with Oak Harbor customers -- and, moreover, that no African-
    American woman would be performing these tasks for the company at the struck
    50 See Idaho Code Ann. § 45-613; Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.355; Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.100.
    51 See ILOLEX: English display cgi.
    18
    terminals the strike. The incident is consistent with a broader pattern noted by multiple
    observers, that as black temporary drivers have been dismissed and sent home and the
    company has hired white drivers as permanent replacements, the driver workforce at Oak
    Harbor during the strike has become steadily more white.
    Oak Harbor, again, claims to have no knowledge of these particular incidents, and
    maintains that the company operates on a non-discriminatory basis. The company
    acknowledges that it historically has had very few black or women drivers, though it
    claims this has been a product of the demographics of the available pool of licensed and
    qualified applicants rather than of discriminatory intent on the company’s part. Oak
    Harbor’s assertions are belied, however, by information received from longtime
    employees concerning the company’s treatment of female and minority drivers.
    Longtime employees indicate that the company has employed no more than four
    African –Americans and four women as drivers in its Pacific Northwest operations over
    the past ten years, in a company whose total workforce of 720 drivers. Historically,
    longtime African-American employees report, the company has tended to assign black
    drivers to dirtier and more physically strenuous deliveries over their white counterparts.
    This past record of disparate treatment appears to exist in regard to women drivers
    as well. It has been reported that in previous years some Oak Harbor managers made
    comments to the effect that truck-driving was not an appropriate job for women. More
    recently, the company has become the subject of a charge now pending with the EEOC
    and the Washington State Human Rights Commission that concerns an incident in 2007
    where one of the company’s only female drivers was physically grabbed by a male
    manager for attempting to leave a company meeting; and the subsequent termination of
    the driver on what were, reportedly, pretextual grounds.52 Oak Harbor denies that the
    termination was retaliatory, states that it hired an outside investigator to look into the
    incident, and reports that it disciplined the manager involved – though he continues to
    serve in the same position at the company.
    Given this context, it is all the more important that Oak Harbor management not
    allow the treatment of minority and female temporary workers during the strike to
    reinforce the impression that the company currently pursues discriminatory practices.
    This is the case regardless of whether it is Oak Harbor or MSSC whose managers have
    been responsible for the disparate treatment of temporary replacement employees that has
    been reported during the strike. Under US employment discrimination laws, both a
    staffing company and its client can face potential liability if a temporary employee
    performing work for the client is discriminated against on account of race or gender.53
    From the standpoint of ethical business practices, Oak Harbor, as the company which
    hired MSSC to recruit and manage this temporary workforce, has a special responsibility
    to ensure that such discriminatory conduct is immediately corrected and that no
    recurrences of it are permitted.
    52 Charge of Discrimination Presented to EEOC and Wash. State Human Rights Comm’n, Charge No. 551-
    2008-02246 (Sept. 22, 2008) (copy on file with ILRF).
    53 See, supra, at 15 and n. 33.
    19
    5. Oak Harbor’s Position on the Treatment of Temporary Employees
    Oak Harbor Labor Relations Director Braun has stated that the company has
    received no complaints of wage violations, discrimination, or retaliation from MSSC
    employees working on the strike. Braun has indicated that the company is willing to
    investigate any such claims that are brought to its attention by a worker. One reason this
    may not have not happened, however, may be that drivers reasonably fear that MSSC will
    terminate and send them home if they raise any of these issues. While working during the
    strike, these drivers are dependent upon MSSC for not only employment and pay, but
    also their lodging and eventual transportation home. It is not surprising that allegations
    of non-payment of wages and retaliation for complaints about unpaid wages should
    surface after a replacement worker is dismissed and sent home.
    When a temporary staffing company fails to pay its temporary workers legallyowed
    wages, legal liability can extend past the staffing company itself to the firm for
    which the work was performed, if the latter is considered a “joint employer.”54 Without
    stating a legal conclusion regarding Oak Harbor’s status as a joint employer of the
    temporary replacement employees in this strike, it is worth noting that state laws may
    provide for liability for unpaid wages on this basis.55 As a matter of both business ethics
    and legal prudence, Oak Harbor must take a proactive approach to the issue of MSSC’s
    treatment of these temporary employees.
     
  18. imported_8ball

    imported_8ball Member

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Yea, and he also believes that someone who does not pay taxes should be given a $600.00 stimulus check. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs a hand up from time to time but that is nothing other that Marxism, redistributing wealth. Because it's the fair thing to do. Just because someone has done well and they should not be punished by having their hard earned money taken from them.. Familyman8 says its no ones buisness and no one should tell him how many kids he can have. I agree. So don't tell me that just because someone thinks you should have 7 days that its right. Don't just think about Oak Harbor here. Every employer is saddled with expenses, and everytime they are told they have to provide something, it becomes more and more difficult for a company to be viable. If you don't think our whole country (and world) is not changing because of all these things our governments are tell us are required. You are not paying attention to the big picture. Massive layoffs, bancruptcies, buisness' folding, markets financial and real estate in the tank, pay attention, it's not just in the US. And it isn't just Oak Harbor.
     
  19. truckchick1

    truckchick1 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Absoluty i agree but I refuse to give up everything my grandparents worked for in work conditions. The economy sucks but should we all be working for $10 and hour with no benefits so people like the vp's can maintain their lifestyle? I think not!!!!
     
  20. imported_8ball

    imported_8ball Member

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Work conditions I thought were not the issue here. And working for $10 and no benifits is a long stretch. Wages and benifits are still good and the economy will shake things out. Just like the working conditions that our grandparents and before fought for. Common sense dictated that if you were not happy you went somewhere else, and either the companies recognized that they could not maintain quality emloyees and the buisness suffered and were forced to do better or fail. If you don't want them to live at a standard their family has established over the last 90 years then don't work for them. By the way, speaking of what your grandparents lost that they worked hard for. Try having your parents losing a farm that has seen 5 generations before taken because the government wants there cut off the top. And when I say off the top, I mean 50% + and even with all there siblings mortgaging their homes couldn't save it. Tell me about whats fair!
     

Share This Page