What's new

FedEx Freight | The Union Debate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redracer3136 said:
And I will also add that since this is a private sector negotiation, the NLRB has no grounds to step in and force mediation on either side. BOTH sides MUST agree to an impasse and BOTH sides MUST agree to mediation BEFORE the NLRB can step in....and who really believes FedEx is going to agree to either?
Click to expand...

Wow, when did FedEx go private? You really shouldn't drunk post. I hope, for your sake, that was a drunk post. Otherwise, how do you explain it?
 
johndeere4020 said:
Do you have any antidotes to support this, because I do to the opposite. This may be on where we have to agree to disagree until the negotiations happen and we find out. I still say in my opinion FedEx will play hard ball if you ever get them to the table. Lets say I concede you have the stronger position, how do you plan to leverage it? I've said before and I'll say it again, I think some of you think you are going to push a sweetheart deal across the table, fold your arms and Fedex is going to cave. You can say you have the upper hand with the "driver shortage" but FedEx and you and I know 99% or more drivers won't quit or strike (which I don't blame them) so I say it will do you very little at negotiation time.
Click to expand...

Negotiation opportunities/examples could be made using the car buying experience. Few buyers interested. Those few buyers can likely gain significant concessions, giving up nothing. Premium option package (benefits)? Check. Price (wages)? Check. Extended warranty (retirement)? Check. All up to a point. The seller (FedEx) will not go so far as to loose money, but the profit margin will be reduced to continue the operation. Especially when the margin is considerably higher than the competition, and would remain so, even with the slightly reduced margin. See my favorite chart below:
wagescorrected.jpg


Now factoring in the lack of QUALIFIED buyers (CDL drivers), and the high current margin, there is plenty of room for positive gains to a united (represented) group of buyers. Now if that united group is made up of current customers (employees), they would have leverage, as long as reasonable margins were still there for the seller (employer).

This deserves being addresses separately.
johndeere4020 said:
You can say you have the upper hand with the "driver shortage" but FedEx and you and I know 99% or more drivers won't quit or strike (which I don't blame them) so I say it will do you very little at negotiation time.
Click to expand...

I think the fear of a strike is equal on both sides, thus making it a mute point, IMHO. As long as the Drivers are reasonable in their requirements, and it is clear that it would be in the Company's (stockholders) best interests to meet those requirements, thus avoiding turmoil, it is clear that all can be satisfied.

There are several options available, far short of a strike. Options that would "encourage" the Company to be reasonable, and negotiate in good faith.

The key to the whole solution, is being reasonable... I don't see FedEx drivers being unreasonable, as a group. Perhaps, too reasonable?
 
EX396 said:
While the party with the stronger position will usually come out on top (I agree), you can lose a lot of battles and still win the war.

How many "casualties" are you willing to accept? There are things that you would likely have to give up during negotiations to get other things you desire more. What you end up gaining may be much more important to others than to you and vice versa.

I'm not so sure that I believe the IBT has the stronger position. If we are talking employees, FedEx needs employees, but they don't need "you" (generic as you might be quite valuable). "You" need a job, but do you need FedEx? Probably not, if it came right down to it, who is more willing to go elsewhere?
Click to expand...

We can only speculate, as the above quoted words (in bold) infer opinion. It is reasonable to disagree, as to the results actually attainable. I do believe concessions have already been made (insurance/wage/bonus), so the only realistic direction to go is up.

On the topic of the stronger position: IBT's only position would be to assist the FXFE drivers, who do hold a strong position. IBT offers FXFE drivers realization of that strength. You are correct that FedEx does not need me, or any individual, thus the individual has little (zero?) bargaining power/strength. United, the drivers have quite a lot of power. In fact, as a group, I'd contend that FedEx does need the drivers more that the drivers need FedEx. Therein lies the benefit of bargaining as a group.
 
Redracer3136 said:
And I will also add that since this is a private sector negotiation, the NLRB has no grounds to step in and force mediation on either side. BOTH sides MUST agree to an impasse and BOTH sides MUST agree to mediation BEFORE the NLRB can step in....and who really believes FedEx is going to agree to either?
Legally, all FedEx is required by law to do is bargain in "good faith"...which is a very vague term.
Click to expand...
The truth is only the company declares an impasse. Then the Union would disagree, leaving the final decision up to the NLRB. Ultimately the Fed. Courts would decide.
http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-and-obligations

"If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain."

Again, as a group, the employees can make it"in the Company's best interest" to negotiate, and agree to reasonable demands. I believe, to please investors and maintain stability, FedEx would have little choice but to agree to bargain reasonably. Key word: reasonably.
 
Guardrail said:
Wow, when did FedEx go private? You really shouldn't drunk post. I hope, for your sake, that was a drunk post. Otherwise, how do you explain it?
Click to expand...
There are two kinds of unions, public sector and private sector.
Public sector unions consist of govt employees that are compensated by the taxpayers.
Private sector unions consist of companies, public and private, whose employees are compensated by their employers.
In public sector negotiations, a mediator CAN be brought in if an impasse is declared because they provide services to the public and they're compensated by the taxpayers.
In private sector negotiations, a mediator CANNOT be brought in unless BOTH sides agree to an impasse and BOTH sides agree to mediation because the employees provide a service to the employer and it's the employer who provides compensation, not the taxpayers.
 
Ok I'll use your car buying analogy. A couple of years ago I (driver) bought a used accord for my wife. I did a search and found in excess of 150 accords (employers) in a 200 mile radius of my house. I went and looked at the closest one in my price and mileage range. The salesman (company representative) held firm on his price as did I, I told him about the other accords but he held firm. What were my options? Well I could give in or walk away (quit/strike). I had the upper hand because of the glut of cars available, (trucking jobs) and he was at a disadvantage because I was the only guy interested in that car at that time. But the only way to leverage my position was to leave and look elsewhere (quit/strike) which I did. Three days later he called with a better deal but it was to late. Your car analogy falls apart a little because we are talking about people's livelihood and not a car. I personally think you overestimate your strategic advantage of the "driver shortage" but that's a mute point. My question how are you are going to use it to you advantage when you remove your primary lever (quitting/striking)? What happens when Fedex calls your bluff. Do you think they can't replace line haul with purchase tomorrow? You aren't in a strong position with only three terminals at the table if those three strike they can replace them easy.
 
ABFer said:
Much of what you say is true. But going into negotiations with a mindset that there can and will be no strike is a recipe for disaster all by itself. 1997 or so was a negotiating year for the National Master Freight Agreement during an era when many union companies were going out of business. We were all called in for a strike authorization vote near the expiration date of the contract. Strike authorization was somewhere around 90% and we had a contract in no time. The threat of a strike is the only tool available to the workers during negotiations use it or beg and accept what they give you. Aren't FedEx pilots union? If they are the company already deals with unions and they might not fight too hard to maintain labor peace within the company.
Click to expand...

Look, I agree with you that is my point to Swampy. I have never advocated a strike but I wouldn't take it off the table. I could go through countless posts in this site where it has been said they drivers wouldn't go for it (usually after a union buster brings it up) how can you play hardball without your biggest weapon? As far as the pilots union I would guess in the scheme of things they are small potatoes, I would bet Fedex would love to be rid of that union to but they know they're stuck with it.
 
SwampRatt said:
The truth is only the company declares an impasse. Then the Union would disagree, leaving the final decision up to the NLRB. Ultimately the Fed. Courts would decide.
http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-and-obligations

"If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain."

Again, as a group, the employees can make it"in the Company's best interest" to negotiate, and agree to reasonable demands. I believe, to please investors and maintain stability, FedEx would have little choice but to agree to bargain reasonably. Key word: reasonably.
Click to expand...
The truth is the union would also have to agree to an impasse and BOTH would have to agree to mediation. The NLRB has no grounds to just "step in" because one side ask them to in private sector negotiations. Both sides must agree...and I don't see FedEx ever agreeing to...they don't have to.

Please explain how employees can make it "in the company's best interest"?
The employees have NO leverage! The company holds all the cards, why would they ever agree to an impasse in the first place? Why agree to something they don't want just because the employee are asking for it?
I agree, the company would be reasonable while bargaining in "good faith", I just don't think they'll agree to anything the employees are asking for.
 
johndeere4020 said:
Ok I'll use your car buying analogy. A couple of years ago I (driver) bought a used accord for my wife. I did a search and found in excess of 150 accords (employers) in a 200 mile radius of my house. I went and looked at the closest one in my price and mileage range. The salesman (company representative) held firm on his price as did I, I told him about the other accords but he held firm. What were my options? Well I could give in or walk away (quit/strike). I had the upper hand because of the glut of cars available, (trucking jobs) and he was at a disadvantage because I was the only guy interested in that car at that time. But the only way to leverage my position was to leave and look elsewhere (quit/strike) which I did. Three days later he called with a better deal but it was to late. Your car analogy falls apart a little because we are talking about people's livelihood and not a car. I personally think you overestimate your strategic advantage of the "driver shortage" but that's a mute point. My question how are you are going to use it to you advantage when you remove your primary lever (quitting/striking)? What happens when Fedex calls your bluff. Do you think they can't replace line haul with purchase tomorrow? You aren't in a strong position with only three terminals at the table if those three strike they can replace them easy.
Click to expand...
I'll agree.
The threat of the union is more powerful than the union itself.
Without a first initial contract, there is NO threat of a strike! By striking, these employees would essentially be walking off the job only to be replaced with permanent employees. They would go onto a "list" and if the company were to hire again, then these employees would be brought back as necessary, but NOT necessarily in their former job capacity.
That's pure job *******!
 
johndeere4020 said:
Ok I'll use your car buying analogy. A couple of years ago I (driver) bought a used accord for my wife. I did a search and found in excess of 150 accords (employers) in a 200 mile radius of my house. I went and looked at the closest one in my price and mileage range. The salesman (company representative) held firm on his price as did I, I told him about the other accords but he held firm. What were my options? Well I could give in or walk away (quit/strike). I had the upper hand because of the glut of cars available, (trucking jobs) and he was at a disadvantage because I was the only guy interested in that car at that time. But the only way to leverage my position was to leave and look elsewhere (quit/strike) which I did. Three days later he called with a better deal but it was to late. Your car analogy falls apart a little because we are talking about people's livelihood and not a car. I personally think you overestimate your strategic advantage of the "driver shortage" but that's a mute point. My question how are you are going to use it to you advantage when you remove your primary lever (quitting/striking)? What happens when Fedex calls your bluff. Do you think they can't replace line haul with purchase tomorrow? You aren't in a strong position with only three terminals at the table if those three strike they can replace them easy.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your last sentence. I'm not speaking of today's bargaining position. I'm speaking of a potential group, large enough have significant impact.

In my car analogy, if a group of current customers organized to negotiate, they would have an advantage. Especially since this group is relied upon for dependable ongoing consistent profit. One guy walking is one thing. the whole base, is quite another. Would that dealer give up 2-3% to maintain a strong market position? I think Yes.

I never said to remove the strike option. Neither side wants it, therefore it is highly unlikely to be used, much like a nuclear option. There to keep both sides reasonable. As far as replacing line haul with purchase, if a strike did happen? Possible? Yes. Cost effective, efficient, and reliable? NO. Same goes for the city operation, but much more difficult to replace and train. There is no P/T available on the scale required to replace the current city drivers. FedEx cares deeply about Cost effective, but especially, efficient and reliable. Therein lies their achilles heel.
 
Last edited:
johndeere4020 said:
Do you have any antidotes to support this, because I do to the opposite. This may be on where we have to agree to disagree until the negotiations happen and we find out. I still say in my opinion FedEx will play hard ball if you ever get them to the table. Lets say I concede you have the stronger position, how do you plan to leverage it? I've said before and I'll say it again, I think some of you think you are going to push a sweetheart deal across the table, fold your arms and Fedex is going to cave. You can say you have the upper hand with the "driver shortage" but FedEx and you and I know 99% or more drivers won't quit or strike (which I don't blame them) so I say it will do you very little at negotiation time.
Click to expand...
What position do you hold in all this, what is your reason for always taking the company's side? What do you Stand to gain or lose? Just curious?
 
Redracer3136 said:
The truth is the union would also have to agree to an impasse and BOTH would have to agree to mediation. The NLRB has no grounds to just "step in" because one side ask them to in private sector negotiations. Both sides must agree...and I don't see FedEx ever agreeing to...they don't have to.

Please explain how employees can make it "in the company's best interest"?
The employees have NO leverage! The company holds all the cards, why would they ever agree to an impasse in the first place? Why agree to something they don't want just because the employee are asking for it?
I agree, the company would be reasonable while bargaining in "good faith", I just don't think they'll agree to anything the employees are asking for.
Click to expand...
I agree mediation would be highly unlikely FedEx would not agree because their position would be weak, IMHO... And even if so, would be a long, long way off.

Red, what exactly are the employees asking for that would be considered unreasonable, in the current market? How unreasonable do you really think FedEx drivers would be, as a group.

Why does everyone want me to spell out exactly, what would make it "in their best interest"? A little research and creative thought could go a long way. I'm not about to show all cards... Especially since they are not really MY cards to show.
 
Last edited:
Redracer3136 said:
I'll agree.
The threat of the union is more powerful than the union itself.
Without a first initial contract, there is NO threat of a strike! By striking, these employees would essentially be walking off the job only to be replaced with permanent employees. They would go onto a "list" and if the company were to hire again, then these employees would be brought back as necessary, but NOT necessarily in their former job capacity.
That's pure job *******!
Click to expand...
I missed the part, where you told us where all of these replacement employees would come from. Remember the stockholders, and customers, who like consistency? Efficiency? Reliability? That could be considered Corporate *******, no?
 
SwampRatt said:
I missed the part, where you told us where all of these replacement employees would come from. Remember the stockholders, and customers, who like consistency? Efficiency? Reliability? That could be considered Corporate *******, no?
Click to expand...
My guess is these replacement drivers would come from the stack of applications that are accumulated every time a job posting goes out. I would also guess that the requirements that FedEx uses when evaluating such applicants would probably be eased in order to find such replacements...not that hard to imagine.
Corporate *******, no...my guess is that the numbers in these areas would dip but not to the point to where the company wouldn't still be profitable...a small price to pay to keep a cancer out of your organization...especially in the eyes of the stockholders AND the customers.....seeing as how stockholders shy away from investing in union companies and 93% of customers are non-union as well and share the same sentiment.
 
Redracer3136 said:
My guess is these replacement drivers would come from the stack of applications that are accumulated every time a job posting goes out. I would also guess that the requirements that FedEx uses when evaluating such applicants would probably be eased in order to find such replacements...not that hard to imagine.
Corporate *******, no...my guess is that the numbers in these areas would dip but not to the point to where the company wouldn't still be profitable...a small price to pay to keep a cancer out of your organization...especially in the eyes of the stockholders AND the customers.....seeing as how stockholders shy away from investing in union companies and 93% of customers are non-union as well and share the same sentiment.
Click to expand...
Now you speak for the customers as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top