FedEx Freight | The Union Debate Thread

[Twice Pipes]

Your argument ends with a whole helluvalot of people not making enough to survive without govt assistance. Our economy was much stringer when people did NOT differentiate themselves. Thats fact. You preach the Bankers' mantra that somehow EVERYBODY should be a businessman and own their own. Nice plan for them too keep loaning my money out. College is in the zame plan. Keep loaning my money to losers who dont pay it back.......but they keep unions conceding and keep competiotion high, sinking companies who pay so nobody makes money but banks.
..........the gigs up. It dont work. Go back to unions. That worms better and no more printing money for banks too loan just so I pay in every way.

I've got the 300K house, but I guess that's average for SoCal. 2 newer MB's, one ton pickup truck I pull my 40 foot toy hauler with, couple of quads, and my 5 car garage. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood, all paid for by my nonunion pension, 401k, and SS. Didn't have any family help, just a great job with Viking/FXF. Enjoying my retirement. TP

 

[runawaytrain]

My mortgage is the only debt I have. It's over $700/ mo. I have 2 Buick's. The newest a 2004. No loan.
3 kids. 1 almost a year out of school. My home is half a home. Built in 1850. Not a $300,000 Fannie and Freddy. It's my belief that alot of taxes I pay go to pay for alot of stuff that would have been paid for with union paychecks...
..
but somewhere along the line people went for stupid nonunion ideology of allowing the businessmen to be sole participant/dictator/tyrants and the working schlubb takes the hit from every possible direction whilst the rich man makes more money from every possible direction.

Slave you can call me stupid all you want. It won't change the unions demise in today's America. Blame whoever you want.

 

[Guardrail]

Somehow I don't think you listen or evaluate any other opinions if it comes from a union member.

Please explain how calling someone stupid or implying that working for a non union company is a stupid decision will convince anyone that your position is the right choice.

The sales pitch comes from your employer as well as from the union.
It is up to the individual to decide what is best.

The employer doesn't have to give a sales pitch. The non union employee already agreed to the terms of employment when they agreed to work for that employer.

If I own a Chevy and you come to me claiming that a Cadillac is a much better choice, just give me the reasons that it is. Don't call me stupid for driving a Chevy. Don't bad mouth or run down my Chevy. Doing this will just put me on the defense because you are saying I made a bad choice. Human nature is just that way. Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong or made bad decisions.

If you can't get your point across without making the other person feel inferior, you are doing your position a disservice.

Bottom line, there are many of us that have worked in the industry and retired with a comfortable pension.
It that still possible ?

Thousands of people retire without a pension. It isn't the end all to be all. Personal financial responsibility is needed, but it is possible.

I say it is, but it would be dependent on those thinking that positive change can result from a united effort on all those that do the same job.
The corporations control the show now. They control your wages, your healthcare and your ( possible ) retirement.
Wouldn't it make sense that a united front of all professional drivers would show the company that "you" have some input, some control on your own destiny ?

I do control my own destiny. I choose where I want to work. If that employment doesn't fit my financial needs, I will find one that does. The market determines wages and benefits. If a company doesn't pay enough or have good enough benefits, employees will seek employment elsewhere.

You may not agree, but "united we stand, divided we fall".
Couldn't that be a summation of the current state of the wages and benefits in the trucking industry today ?

It's more about what someone is comfortable dealing with. I left FedEx because I can make just as good of a living at another company without all the bullshit that was going on at the time I left. I averaged .70 a mile (including profit sharing) last year, working 4 days a week at my non union company.

I weigh the pro vs. con of union vs. non union and made my decision. You'll never convince me to change my opinion. Would my decision be different if I was still at FedEx? Maybe, but reading all the condescending and belittling opinions of the pro union crowd (not everyone, but far too many), I doubt it.

 

[fxstc07]

Please explain how calling someone stupid or implying that working for a non union company is a stupid decision will convince anyone that your position is the right choice.

I'll chime in.
It won't.
Some people are more passionate and can't fully articulate their feelings, like many that comment on this board.
It is a 2 way street.
Bottom line is we fight amongst ourselves telling the other side that they have what is best.
What is best is what has worked for you in your life. Could it be better, maybe.
In my opinion, this is exactly what the companies want ... division among their employees.
Even companies join ranks to defeat what they feel may harm their business strategy.
Yet the workers can't seem to agree that a united front could return better benefits for all.

 

[Redracer3136]

I'll chime in.
It won't.
Some people are more passionate and can't fully articulate their feelings, like many that comment on this board.
It is a 2 way street.
Bottom line is we fight amongst ourselves telling the other side that they have what is best.
What is best is what has worked for you in your life. Could it be better, maybe.
In my opinion, this is exactly what the companies want ... division among their employees.
Even companies join ranks to defeat what they feel may harm their business strategy.
Yet the workers can't seem to agree that a united front could return better benefits for all.

I'll disagree, many of our centers have shown just that, a united front against the union with the plethora of NO elections and pulled petitions. Many believe their united fronts will lead to better benefits for all by staying with the company and voting against union representation.....and with the numbers pointed out by AFlifer, many believe better things are yet to come...without the union.

I'll also disagree with your 7th sentence, the last thing the company wants is division...yet this division was brought fourth by those who sought representation and voted yes (which is their right). Without seeking representation, we ALL could've remained united together instead of the division that exists today...and will continue to exist for years to come regardless of the final outcome.
Remember, it was those that exercised their right to seek representation that caused this divide, not the company...and it's time for those drivers (and you know who you are) to own up to what you've caused.

 

[fxstc07]

I'll disagree, many of our centers have shown just that, a united front against the union with the plethora of NO elections and pulled petitions. Many believe their united fronts will lead to better benefits for all by staying with the company and voting against union representation.....and with the numbers pointed out by AFlifer, many believe better things are yet to come...without the union.

I'll also disagree with your 7th sentence, the last thing the company wants is division...yet this division was brought fourth by those who sought representation and voted yes (which is their right). Without seeking representation, we ALL could've remained united together instead of the division that exists today...and will continue to exist for years to come regardless of the final outcome.
Remember, it was those that exercised their right to seek representation that caused this divide, not the company...and it's time for those drivers (and you know who you are) to own up to what you've caused.

Don't blame those wishing for a better workplace, a better wage and compensation package, and a fair seniority system that doesn't reward a select few.
Better things to come won't be decided by the few, it will play out in the long term.
Already Fedex has seen that things need to improve and have instituted changes to make your workplace better.
Without a challenge to the status quo, you would not have seen these changes.
Allowing people to speak freely is the true definition of freedom.
Or would you rather stifle it ?

 

[Redracer3136]

Don't blame those wishing for a better workplace, a better wage and compensation package, and a fair seniority system that doesn't reward a select few.
Better things to come won't be decided by the few, it will play out in the long term.
Already Fedex has seen that things need to improve and have instituted changes to make your workplace better.
Without a challenge to the status quo, you would not have seen these changes.
Allowing people to speak freely is the true definition of freedom.
Or would you rather stifle it ?

I'm just blaming those that ARE responsible for the divide that you pointed out exist, everyone wants what you've described at every place employment, not just FedEx.
Correct, better things to come will be decided by everyone, not just a select few who have ulterior motives within the said representation.
Yes, changes have been made because the threat of the union is more powerful than the union itself. Could these changes have been made without this threat, maybe, it's happened in the past.
Correct again, allowing people to speak freely is an example of freedom of speech and in no way would I ever want to stifle that freedom, but one must also realize that that freedom does come with consequences...and in this case, that consequence has caused an irreverent divide that may prove to be impossible to overcome.

 

[EX396]

Your argument ends with a whole helluvalot of people not making enough to survive without govt assistance.

I disagree. One person can own a company with 200+ employees, all making a good living and none of them receiving any government assistance.
I know people who enjoy working for someone-else. They don't believe the additional risk, responsibility and stress is worth the reward.

Our economy was much stringer when people did NOT differentiate themselves. Thats fact. You preach the Bankers' mantra that somehow EVERYBODY should be a businessman and own their own. Nice plan for them too keep loaning my money out. College is in the zame plan. Keep loaning my money to losers who dont pay it back.......but they keep unions conceding and keep competiotion high, sinking companies who pay so nobody makes money but banks.
..........the gigs up. It dont work. Go back to unions. That worms better and no more printing money for banks too loan just so I pay in every way.

Two kids through college and plenty of toys---not a penny borrowed to do so. I know several business owners who didn't borrow a single penny to start or grow their businesses. You don't have to borrow money to get through school, you don't have to borrow money to start/grow a business.

 

[aflifer]

and a fair seniority system that doesn't reward a select few.

So you are saying that the union can change human nature? Are you saying that the union doesnt have its "favorites" as well? Namely those that help get them in power and more importantly, keep them there?

Better things to come won't be decided by the few, it will play out in the long term.

Agreed.......but it will be decided by the 38000 employees of FXF working together to provide more value for their products than their competitors, not by a select few sitting around a negotiating table........

Without a challenge to the status quo, you would not have seen these changes.

Agree again..........however, there are many ways to challenge the status quo other than the one you are advocating.......

Allowing people to speak freely is the true definition of freedom.
Or would you rather stifle it ?

Currently our employees are able to walk straight up to any member of management and express their opinion..........are you saying that the union provides more freedom than that? I have a hard time believing that an organization that requires/encourages a representative be present at any time an employee is speaking with management and uses terms like scab and rat towards those that utilize independent thoughts in contradiction to the organization; as one that would have any right to wave the flag of freedom in anyone elses face.......

 

[runawaytrain]

I edited my long anti-union rant because sometimes it's really best to take the high road. Mostly because most of it has been said a thousand times in a thousand different ways.

 

[joes bar and grill]

I edited my long anti-union rant because sometimes it's really best to take the high road. Mostly because most of it has been said a thousand times in a thousand different ways.

And once again you feel compled to tell everyone you are on the "HIGH" ground. Does your arm get sore from constantly patting yourself on the back?

 

[fxstc07]

So you are saying that the union can change human nature? Are you saying that the union doesnt have its "favorites" as well? Namely those that help get them in power and more importantly, keep them there?

Yes, the union would have favorite's. Those that help at the union hall, perform charitable work from the union hall, those that volunteer time driving food trucks to the needy, etc., to demonstrate that the big bad Teamsters are not all union bums.
Sure, they have those favorites.
Favorites at your place of employment is from the management, not the union. The union strictly adheres to the seniority of the person to determine bids and work.
Those in "power" are voted into those positions, and can be voted out again too. Shop stewards in most locations are voted on also, some are placed by the union. Different area, different rules.

Agreed.......but it will be decided by the 38000 employees of FXF working together to provide more value for their products than their competitors, not by a select few sitting around a negotiating table........

Never say never. I am sure if the employees feel they are getting the same "value" in return, things will change. If some, or a majority, continue to feel that things have not improved enough, you may see the tides change.

Agree again..........however, there are many ways to challenge the status quo other than the one you are advocating.......

Many ways ? How can change be made from the viewpoints of a few ? With the strength and voices of many combined.
Sure, a man can always voice his complaint or challenge, but will the management think of it as constructive ? Or will it be viewed as disruptive ?

Currently our employees are able to walk straight up to any member of management and express their opinion..........are you saying that the union provides more freedom than that? I have a hard time believing that an organization that requires/encourages a representative be present at any time an employee is speaking with management and uses terms like scab and rat towards those that utilize independent thoughts in contradiction to the organization; as one that would have any right to wave the flag of freedom in anyone elses face.......

You union representative is present any time management wishes to speak with an employee so that you have protection of knowing a third person hears the what management position is in regards to discipline or work conditions.
A one on one meeting will never benefit the employee as management will always prevail in any dispute.
No arbitration is ever by 2 people, there must be a third, or more people to fairly decide the outcome.
Finally, any employee can walk up and discuss whatever they want with management. The reason for that third party present for usually for discipline or other infractions the company may want to "discuss" with an employee. Would you want only the judge and the police officer present for your hearing, or would you want a third party to help protect your interests ?
As for those terms and names you say a union member may use ... have you read any of the posts on this board that are against us ? Seems a few people use terminology against union members too.

 

[Jim Carville]

Yes, the union would have favorite's. Those that help at the union hall, perform charitable work from the union hall, those that volunteer time driving food trucks to the needy, etc., to demonstrate that the big bad Teamsters are not all union bums.
Sure, they have those favorites.
Favorites at your place of employment is from the management, not the union. The union strictly adheres to the seniority of the person to determine bids and work.
Those in "power" are voted into those positions, and can be voted out again too. Shop stewards in most locations are voted on also, some are placed by the union. Different area, different rules.
Never say never. I am sure if the employees feel they are getting the same "value" in return, things will change. If some, or a majority, continue to feel that things have not improved enough, you may see the tides change.
Many ways ? How can change be made from the viewpoints of a few ? With the strength and voices of many combined.
Sure, a man can always voice his complaint or challenge, but will the management think of it as constructive ? Or will it be viewed as disruptive ?

You union representative is present any time management wishes to speak with an employee so that you have protection of knowing a third person hears the what management position is in regards to discipline or work conditions.
A one on one meeting will never benefit the employee as management will always prevail in any dispute.
No arbitration is ever by 2 people, there must be a third, or more people to fairly decide the outcome.
Finally, any employee can walk up and discuss whatever they want with management. The reason for that third party present for usually for discipline or other infractions the company may want to "discuss" with an employee. Would you want only the judge and the police officer present for your hearing, or would you want a third party to help protect your interests ?
As for those terms and names you say a union member may use ... have you read any of the posts on this board that are against us ? Seems a few people use terminology against union members too.

Thank you for my laugh of the day. This union is run by these elected representatives

 

[fxstc07]

Thank you for my laugh of the day. This union is run by these elected representatives.

Well thanks for your input Joe.
Weren't you one of those elected at one time ?
Who runs the corporate boardrooms ?

 

[SwampRatt]

FAIR WARNING: This is a long post. If you are not interested in rather extensive facts, figures, and perspectives, you may want to skip this one.

Not much for math, I know just about enough to be a danger to myself...........not a big numbers guy either, usually just use them to validate what my gut feelings are.....that is what I am fixing to do........

Current top scale at my center is 23.68, which IIRC from some of your earlier posts would mean we are on the same scale. Funny how no one could remember what top scale was then though. Of course, it is much easier to remember what ones starting rate was (my first position at Arkansas Freightways paid 7.50/hr, but I couldnt tell you what I made 5 years ago). Did find a guy that started in 2010 though and he remembered his starting rate.......

2015 (current) driver starting hourly rate: 20.68
Driver starting hourly rate, circa 2010 : 18.59
2.09 increase/18.59= 11.2% wage increase over the past 5 years.........pretty much right in the middle of my estimate.......
Furthermore, 2.09 x 2080 hours would equate to 4347.20 increase in yearly earnings. While I certainly understand that some folks may have seen their health insurance out of pocket increase more than 4347.20 per year, I would still contend that most did not, I know for a fact that mine didnt. This doesnt even take into account that both the 401k and PPA contributions increased by 11.2% as well because of the higher wage.

AF, I'll concede to an extent, that your 10% figure over 5 yrs. was not too far off. Based on an average 2%x5 =10% (actually 10.4%). I can't currently disprove the average rate of increase.

I do recall since the FedEx take over, raises always lagged slightly behind inflation (at my location and yours). Again, since I can't prove it (at this time), you can either take my word for it (until I obtain proof), or chalk it up to swampratt babble. I'm good either way. One day I'll come across an old check stub (or two) to provide historical reference.

Even based on our (low) pay scale, our most recent increase of 80 cents (3.5%) was for 17 months (1.413 years), due to the delayed increase. That equates to 2.47% on an annual basis. That increase does inflate the 5 year average, especially as it relates to inflation, as 2014 showed the lowest inflation of the 5 years (.8%)


Also, I'm not certain, but they may have increased starting driver wages, to be more competitive in the difficult recruiting market. That would skew the numbers just a bit, while costing very little. That same 80 cent raise, based on (their prior) 19.88, equates to a 4.02% increase. 2.85% on an annual basis. Talk about skewing the average!



Inflation/COL

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm

5 year 2009-2014 8.8 (average per year 1.76)


10year 2005-2014 21.6 (average per year 2.1)


In the AF days, I seem to recall, annual raises ALWAYS exceeded inflation, even if by just a bit. That is how they became among the highest paid non-union carriers.

Watkins must have had similar formulas due to the fact that many watkins guys actually took a bit of a pay cut to remain with (be hired by) FedEx.

Insurance: I'll also agree that most never meet, let alone, exceed their deductible. Again, I think the VALUE of the plan should be the plan, regardless of whether or not one uses it. Example: Life insurance has considerable value, even though very few will use it in a given year. The benefit has a specific value, and is a part of our compensation package. Reduce or eliminate it, and you reduce the value of the compensation package to all. Not just few those who use it.

I and the numbers disagree with this premise as well.........

The way I look at it, FedEx Freight has 3 groups that it has to provide value to: Customers, Employees and the Corporation. Obviously, I used some comparisons for value provided to employees above. Lets look at FXF Operating Income (profit) numbers to see what the value provided to the corporation was..............I put the "line in the sand" in 2009, when the economic crunch began in full force, going to compare the 6 years before the downturn and the 6 years after.....these numbers are millions, off of the earnings reports........
2003-2008 2009-2014
FY03 - 193 FY09 - -44
FY04 - 244 FY10 - -153
FY05 - 354 FY11 - -175
FY06 - 485 FY12 - 162
FY07 - 463 FY13 - 251
FY08 - 329 FY14 - 319
6 yr avg - 345 millon 6 yr average - 60 million
Basically a 82.6% decrease in value provided to the corporation.............regardless of what value loss might have been put on us employees, it pales in comparison to the value loss the corporation endured in these timeframes.

If you really look at the numbers, it does show reason for optimism and helps explain the much larger increase this year. FY12 and FY13 pretty much filled up the hole created in the previous 3 years. FY14 basically was back within shouting distance of the performances that were commonplace in the pre-2009 era. The even better news is that through 2 quarters of FY15, we are sitting at 280 million in Operating Income, which barring exceptionally poor performances in these final 2 quarters would put us in the 400 million-ish range and open up a lot of possibilities for that high water to cover up some stumps........

Got a headache now after looking up all those numbers........

Carry on sir........

Fair observation, BUT I feel compelled to add:
While I understand the argument you make regarding the ratio between profit and wages, that is not really the point. Did our wages soar during the '03-'08 period, to coincide with soaring profits? NO. Gross Revenue is, therefore, a more accurate gauge as to the VALUE we provide.

Just because the Company chooses to lower their margin (much like how Walmart succeeds), is it reasonable for the Company to also lower employees' profit margin? We haul a lot more freight, a lot more efficiently. That equates to a lot more work done. At a lower margin for us, the employees. We can't help it if profit didn't coincide with revenue. Our job is to provide the service that brings revenue, while doing so efficiently, and safely. That service demands market value. Preferably at the higher end of the range of acceptable, based on our excellence in providing that service.

Let's look closely at the REVENUES (in Millions), and the trends.


2003/$2120 (that is 2.12 Billion)

2004/$2689

2005/$3217

2006/$3645

2007/$4586

2008$4934

2009/$4415*(1)

2010/$4321*(1)

2011/$4911*

2012/$5282

2013/$5401

2014/$5757 (that is 5.757 Billion)


* the only 3 years with a negative operating ratio (loss).

*(1)Only in the 2 years noted, did revenues fall year over year.


Note that the only negative OR years were related to recession, cost associated with the Watkins acquisition, and the negative impact of the 90/90 program (90% disc. for 90 days) during YRC's darkest days.


2011 was the last year they showed any residual costs associated with Watkins.


Source for all of the above? FedEx own annual reports, all of which can be found here: http://investors.fedex.com/financial-information/annual-reports/

Supply and demand, as well as the Union movement, seem to be the only driving factors effecting our compensation package. Profits and/or gross revenue have had absolutely no impact, IMHO. Government regulation and the appearance thereof, provided an opportunity to reduce costs and VALUE of our benefit package.


The driver shortage has caused other carrier to raise wages in excess of FedEx freight. Significantly higher in some areas. Just a bit higher in others. FedEx seems to be following that trend (rather than leading it), though MUCH more slowly than others. Is this by design? Is this an effort to eek out every possible advantage, by being behind the competition (even by one year)? On that we can only speculate.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[runawaytrain]

And once again you feel compled to tell everyone you are on the "HIGH" ground. Does your arm get sore from constantly patting yourself on the back?

If I was a CEO and I had employees go on strike because of pay cuts ( i.e.) because their demands forced me to fire all my additional employees and prevented my company from growing, I'd much rather outsource. Unions are contradicting their purpose.

 

[SwampRatt]

I'll disagree, many of our centers have shown just that, a united front against the union with the plethora of NO elections and pulled petitions. Many believe their united fronts will lead to better benefits for all by staying with the company and voting against union representation.....and with the numbers pointed out by AFlifer, many believe better things are yet to come...without the union.

I'll also disagree with your 7th sentence, the last thing the company wants is division...yet this division was brought fourth by those who sought representation and voted yes (which is their right). Without seeking representation, we ALL could've remained united together instead of the division that exists today...and will continue to exist for years to come regardless of the final outcome.
Remember, it was those that exercised their right to seek representation that caused this divide, not the company...and it's time for those drivers (and you know who you are) to own up to what you've caused.

IMHO, you shouldn't knock the efforts of your co-workers. They have contributed greatly to opening up lines of communication that simply did not exist prior to their effort.

I'll even cite most recent communications FROM Corporate via video, as well as the return of the employee survey. It would be very difficult to argue that they are not listening. And,I might add, listening very closely.

Please don't discount the effort put forth by some, to re engage the company. We used to talk about engaged employees. Now we're actually talking about FedEx, as an engaged employer. Think about it...

 

[SwampRatt]

If I was a CEO and I had employees go on strike because of pay cuts ( i.e.) because their demands forced me to fire all my additional employees and prevented my company from growing, I'd much rather outsource. Unions are contradicting their purpose.

HUH? Not exactly sure what point is made by strikes due to pay cuts, forcing firings, while preventing growth.

Do you really want to work at a Company who's primary advantage comes from lower than market compensation to their employees?

 

[runawaytrain]

HUH? Not exactly sure what point is made by strikes due to pay cuts, forcing firings, while preventing growth.

Do you really want to work at a Company who's primary advantage comes from lower than market compensation to their employees?

Just messing with the clueless idiots

 

[Redracer3136]

IMHO, you shouldn't knock the efforts of your co-workers. They have contributed greatly to opening up lines of communication that simply did not exist prior to their effort.

I'll even cite most recent communications FROM Corporate via video, as well as the return of the employee survey. It would be very difficult to argue that they are not listening. And,I might add, listening very closely.

Please don't discount the effort put forth by some, to re engage the company. We used to talk about engaged employees. Now we're actually talking about FedEx, as an engaged employer. Think about it...

Not knocking their efforts per say, just knocking the road they chose to travel and the consequences that those roads have caused. Your center hasn't joined the campaign, so you haven't seen firsthand the divide their efforts have caused.
The revolving reasons for them seeking representation has proven it's not about representation at all, but rather ulterior motives of a few that have nothing to do with the masses but everything to do with themselves. Many have now begun to see these motives for what they are and are disgusted with the few for causing such a division for their own personal gain.

Again, you're proving my point that the threat of the union is more powerful than the union itself. Just the mere threat could've accomplished everything that has occurred, just as standing up and voicing our opinions without representation could have accomplished these things as well, we've done it that way for years...with success.

I'll agree, it takes engaged employees to engage a company, but this could've been accomplished without a third party.