What's new

FedEx Freight | What is your main reason to vote in a union at FedEx Freight ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SwampRatt said:
My opinion? On a state road/highway, the direction of travel should have no bearing. The expectation of significant clearance clearly exists.
Click to expand...
The weird thing about all this is there are 4-5 other younger drivers with more serious violations and more of them,makes me think ???
 
aflifer said:
Are you really that naive or do you just believe everyone else is?

Are you saying that union operations do not have published driving standards that would cause a driver to be disqualified from driving?

Are you saying that veteran drivers should not have the same accountability for their performance as newer drivers?

Are you saying that there is not favoritism in union operations or within the union itself?

Are you saying that the burden of proof is lesser in union operations or that the union holds some magic "get out of jail free" card that would absolve a company from liability for the drivers in its employ?

It all boils down to accountability and liability..........a company is liable and accountable for the drivers operating it's equipment......that fact never changes. What if the next accident is not "minor"? Do you think a company is less liable for allowing the driver to operate its equipment in contradiction to its own policies just because he has several years of service? Pretty sure that the driver's years of service would not be the main issue discussed in the court case resulting from a catastrophic event. If a driver has too many accidents/events, the end result would be the same, union or not. Since you realistically are not familiar with all the details in this case, your statement about job retention is probably pretty irresponsible, but then again you wouldnt necessarily be accountable for a result. The union environment might be good for a little more elaborate dog and pony show (dues got to pay for something) but any company will only open themselves up for so much liability and the result in most cases would be the same.

Your statement expresses the exact issue............no accountability..............the dispatcher? Next would be the manager, then the safety manager, then corporate safety..............ultimately the person could eventually shift the accountability to the union for failing to "save" their job. What would happen then?

I have been here nearly 25 years and expect to be held accountable for my actions/performance, just as I would expect a new hire would. I havent seen any black helicopters chasing me around because I am at the higher pay scale, so I aint buying that either................besides, if I wasnt providing a good return on investment to the company, I would expect to be held accountable.
Click to expand...
One word comes to mind. Panel. The burden of proof squarely on the company's shoulders. A "fair" hearing, rather than a rail out of town. That is what my brother was speaking of.
 
222lifer said:
One word comes to mind. Panel. The burden of proof squarely on the company's shoulders. A "fair" hearing, rather than a rail out of town. That is what my brother was speaking of.
Click to expand...

That option is currently available to all american citizens, just under a different name.........Jury..........doesnt really fit your agenda though, so I could see how this Constitutional right could be overlooked.....

The "burden of proof" is currently always on the company for all employment decisions as well as liability for their employee's actions.......three are several agencies in place to ensure accountability.....EEOC being the main one, as well as the civil court system.

If I were to be terminated in a wrongful manner, I believe I would prefer a random jury to determine my fate than a group that may or may not always have my personal best interests in mind....
 
aflifer said:
That option is currently available to all american citizens, just under a different name.........Jury..........doesnt really fit your agenda though, so I could see how this Constitutional right could be overlooked.....

The "burden of proof" is currently always on the company for all employment decisions as well as liability for their employee's actions.......three are several agencies in place to ensure accountability.....EEOC being the main one, as well as the civil court system.

If I were to be terminated in a wrongful manner, I believe I would prefer a random jury to determine my fate than a group that may or may not always have my personal best interests in mind....
Click to expand...
Thanks..
 
aflifer said:
That option is currently available to all american citizens, just under a different name.........Jury..........doesnt really fit your agenda though, so I could see how this Constitutional right could be overlooked.....

The "burden of proof" is currently always on the company for all employment decisions as well as liability for their employee's actions.......three are several agencies in place to ensure accountability.....EEOC being the main one, as well as the civil court system.

If I were to be terminated in a wrongful manner, I believe I would prefer a random jury to determine my fate than a group that may or may not always have my personal best interests in mind....
Click to expand...

Agenda? More along the lines of pointing out facts that continue to elude most that post on this forum.

Ah yes, the court system. It most certainly is available to all American citizens. Just how many have the funds to take on a corporation? How many would actually proceed?

The benefit of a panel hearing is we can try to satisfy the grievance without undo delay. Sadly, that is not always the case. On the bright side, many times it may not go to panel and the situation is resolved in the "steps" meeting. If there is not adequate resolve through the grievance process the member may exercise the right to pursue through the court system.

I do agree with you in that I would much rather have those with my best interests in mind deciding my fate. Specifically, it is interesting to note that the grievance panel is comprised of both company and union. I completely agree with you that the company can't be trusted and we must have balance on the panel. The union isn't the reason I am fighting for my job. That would be company initiated.
 
222lifer said:
Agenda? More along the lines of pointing out facts that continue to elude most that post on this forum.

Ah yes, the court system. It most certainly is available to all American citizens. Just how many have the funds to take on a corporation? How many would actually proceed?

The benefit of a panel hearing is we can try to satisfy the grievance without undo delay. Sadly, that is not always the case. On the bright side, many times it may not go to panel and the situation is resolved in the "steps" meeting. If there is not adequate resolve through the grievance process the member may exercise the right to pursue through the court system.

I do agree with you in that I would much rather have those with my best interests in mind deciding my fate. Specifically, it is interesting to note that the grievance panel is comprised of both company and union. I completely agree with you that the company can't be trusted and we must have balance on the panel. The union isn't the reason I am fighting for my job. That would be company initiated.
Click to expand...


If a person was truly wrongfully terminated, why would they not proceed?

If the person has a legitimate case, the EEOC would come at no cost to them (outside of the taxes we all pay every week)........if they have a legitimate case I would also think there would probably be a personal lawyer that would take them on at no cost in anticipation of a positive settlement.

Seems to me that the only person that might benefit from the grievance process would be one that had minimal grounds towards a wrongful termination claim in the first place. If you take those folks out, the whole grievance process idea becomes a redundancy to other agencies/sources that are already in place to ensure corporate responsibility/accountability.

Disagree with your last sentence.......in my opinion most terminations are initiated by the employee (though not necessarily intentional).........the validity of the termination decision is what will always be debateable. If the employee is providing value in return for the company's dollar spent, why would termination ever enter their thought process?

It would be silly to deny the fact that there are legitimate cases out there, but I feel that there are more viable and effective options available to achieve the desired accountability than any grievance process could provide.
 
Purple Hammer said:
I wonder what his idea of "minor" infractions are. No response when I asked him. One of the things some of the union pushers have bragged about are events where drivers jobs were saved even when they screwed up royally multiple times. I don't want my family on the road with "cowboys" who have no concept of safety. I,m not advocating firing for one or even two offenses, but 3 in less than a year means you need to be in another line of work. Our policy is just that and it is fair. Like you said Racer he fired himself.
Click to expand...

Now Fredrick a has quite a few " Cowboys" running up and down the zipper to ya know.
Oh and that Fedx ground truck is on the side of the road again in Raceland La as of yesterday. Almost the same place as when it broke down and sat their for over a week last month.
 
aflifer said:
If a person was truly wrongfully terminated, why would they not proceed?

If the person has a legitimate case, the EEOC would come at no cost to them (outside of the taxes we all pay every week)........if they have a legitimate case I would also think there would probably be a personal lawyer that would take them on at no cost in anticipation of a positive settlement.

Seems to me that the only person that might benefit from the grievance process would be one that had minimal grounds towards a wrongful termination claim in the first place. If you take those folks out, the whole grievance process idea becomes a redundancy to other agencies/sources that are already in place to ensure corporate responsibility/accountability.

Disagree with your last sentence.......in my opinion most terminations are initiated by the employee (though not necessarily intentional).........the validity of the termination decision is what will always be debateable. If the employee is providing value in return for the company's dollar spent, why would termination ever enter their thought process?

It would be silly to deny the fact that there are legitimate cases out there, but I feel that there are more viable and effective options available to achieve the desired accountability than any grievance process could provide.
Click to expand...

Why not proceed? The answer is fear and little knowledge of one's rights. You make a good case for burdening our already over taxed population and filling our courts with cases that could be delt with effectively elsewhere. The avenue that comes with our CBA at no additional cost to the member. You discount the effectiveness of our grievance machinery? It is methodical and has saved many jobs over the years that had been in jeopardy. Best of all it renders those like yourself virtually powerless when it comes to unjust terminations. The like minded "terminations are initiated by the employee" following finds this quite disturbing along with progressive discipline. It's quite easy to pound one's chest and proclaim Constitutional rights regarding law yet you try to undermine one of our most cherished and important. The right to form a union.
 
Last edited:
222lifer said:
Why not proceed? The answer is fear and little knowledge of one's rights. You make a good case for burdening our already over taxed population and filling our courts with cases that could be delt with effectively elsewhere. The avenue that comes with our CBA at no additional cost to the member. You discount the effectiveness of our grievance machinery? It is methodical and has saved many jobs over the years that had been in jeopardy. Best of all it renders those like yourself virtually powerless when it comes to unjust terminations. The like minded "terminations are initiated by the employee" following finds this quite disturbing along with progressive discipline. It's quite easy to pound one's chest and proclaim Constitutional rights regarding law yet you try to undermine one of our most cherished and important. The right to form a union.
Click to expand...

Fear........doubtful, what is to fear after termination. Little knowledge of one's rights........possibly, but I would think a true injustice would lead a person to seek out and obtain that knowledge where warranted.......

You dont know me from Adam, so to assume that I would support unjust terminations is irresponsible, presumptuous and borderline slanderous on your part. It doesnt take much logic to understand that not even the most foolish of organizations would make habit of taking an employee that is producing good value to them, pick their name out of the hat and select them for termination with no basis whatsoever. I never said that I felt all "employee initiated" terminations were always necessarily driven by valid reasons, you just presumed that.

I support everyone's rights that are guaranteed to them by the US Constitution, which would include the right to form a union..............if I have posted anything in contradiction to that premise I would challenge you to produce it and I will gladly retract the offending statement. With that said, I certainly dont have to agree with people who choose to exercise that right or their reasons why. People have the right to join cults as well.........that doesnt mean I have to join one, agree with someone else joining one or not speak out to what I see as flaws with their premise.

Since we are on the subject of rights, it would appear you would like to remove my my 1st amendment rights, simply because my views are in opposition to your own. Is that what someone could expect from the representation that you, to use your words, "pound your chest" about daily?

For such a supporter of basic rights, your support of any established grievance procedure seems to present quite a contradiction. Unless I am mistaken, most contract rules can be challenged only through the established grievance procedures written into the contract..................once the union files the grievance they have sole discretion how far to take it and have the right to settle it without your permission. In essence, not allowing one to exercise their inherent right of due process to fight what they might feel is unjust in a court of law. Again, unless I am mistaken, in most cases the grievance decision is also legally binding for the individual, whether they agree with it or not. It appears to me that the only recourse at that point would be to file a complaint about the union to the NLRB or to directly sue the union in Federal District Court, neither of which would provide accountability regarding the original issue. Again, seems pretty redundant to me.......

I am obviously not a lawyer..................nor do I presume to know everything there is to know about labor law..............but I do know that I personally would not choose a process that limited or infringed whatsoever on my rights/actions/ability to pursue whatever course I would feel necessary to bring about accountability to what I felt was an unjust situation.
 
Cab Lizzard said:
Now Fredrick a has quite a few " Cowboys" running up and down the zipper to ya know.
Oh and that Fedx ground truck is on the side of the road again in Raceland La as of yesterday. Almost the same place as when it broke down and sat their for over a week last month.
Click to expand...
Ground trucks are O/O, it's up to the owner of the truck to get it moved, not the company. No different than a broke down shiny wheel on the side of the road.
 
Cab Lizzard said:
Just a guess but the truck don't even look road worthy.
The O/O can't afford to keep it running.
Click to expand...
I think that Ground has a policy stating that their trucks can't be over 5 years old....that may be when they sign on, not sure. It's been a couple years but used to run with two Ground drivers daily, pretty cool guys.
And yes, some do drive what we call "road commodes"!!!

Also, may not be his truck...some O/O have several trucks signed on at Ground and pay guys to drive for them.
 
aflifer said:
Fear........doubtful, what is to fear after termination. Little knowledge of one's rights........possibly, but I would think a true injustice would lead a person to seek out and obtain that knowledge where warranted.......

You dont know me from Adam, so to assume that I would support unjust terminations is irresponsible, presumptuous and borderline slanderous on your part. It doesnt take much logic to understand that not even the most foolish of organizations would make habit of taking an employee that is producing good value to them, pick their name out of the hat and select them for termination with no basis whatsoever. I never said that I felt all "employee initiated" terminations were always necessarily driven by valid reasons, you just presumed that.

I support everyone's rights that are guaranteed to them by the US Constitution, which would include the right to form a union..............if I have posted anything in contradiction to that premise I would challenge you to produce it and I will gladly retract the offending statement. With that said, I certainly dont have to agree with people who choose to exercise that right or their reasons why. People have the right to join cults as well.........that doesnt mean I have to join one, agree with someone else joining one or not speak out to what I see as flaws with their premise.

Since we are on the subject of rights, it would appear you would like to remove my my 1st amendment rights, simply because my views are in opposition to your own. Is that what someone could expect from the representation that you, to use your words, "pound your chest" about daily?

For such a supporter of basic rights, your support of any established grievance procedure seems to present quite a contradiction. Unless I am mistaken, most contract rules can be challenged only through the established grievance procedures written into the contract..................once the union files the grievance they have sole discretion how far to take it and have the right to settle it without your permission. In essence, not allowing one to exercise their inherent right of due process to fight what they might feel is unjust in a court of law. Again, unless I am mistaken, in most cases the grievance decision is also legally binding for the individual, whether they agree with it or not. It appears to me that the only recourse at that point would be to file a complaint about the union to the NLRB or to directly sue the union in Federal District Court, neither of which would provide accountability regarding the original issue. Again, seems pretty redundant to me.......

I am obviously not a lawyer..................nor do I presume to know everything there is to know about labor law..............but I do know that I personally would not choose a process that limited or infringed whatsoever on my rights/actions/ability to pursue whatever course I would feel necessary to bring about accountability to what I felt was an unjust situation.
Click to expand...

Struck a nerve or two? Nice to see your morning coffee has purpose today. The message you send in your previous posts is much different than this latest offering. Subliminal, but the "anti" message is there. Should you be given specific instructions to terminate an employee, regardless of the offense, your example of "value" holds zero water in the corporate world. Will you take their place? Not in this lifetime. That is why we have a discipline progression. Don't ever discount the effectiveness of our grievance process. It has a purpose and keeps those promises that are so often forgotten. The proccess? The member has the right to be present and does have a say. Further action? There are avenues one may pursue if so chosen.
 
222lifer said:
Agenda? More along the lines of pointing out facts that continue to elude most that post on this forum.

Ah yes, the court system. It most certainly is available to all American citizens. Just how many have the funds to take on a corporation? How many would actually proceed?

The benefit of a panel hearing is we can try to satisfy the grievance without undo delay. Sadly, that is not always the case. On the bright side, many times it may not go to panel and the situation is resolved in the "steps" meeting. If there is not adequate resolve through the grievance process the member may exercise the right to pursue through the court system.

I do agree with you in that I would much rather have those with my best interests in mind deciding my fate. Specifically, it is interesting to note that the grievance panel is comprised of both company and union. I completely agree with you that the company can't be trusted and we must have balance on the panel. The union isn't the reason I am fighting for my job. That would be company initiated.
Click to expand...
222lifer said:
Struck a nerve or two? Nice to see your morning coffee has purpose today. The message you send in your previous posts is much different than this latest offering. Subliminal, but the "anti" message is there. Should you be given specific instructions to terminate an employee, regardless of the offense, your example of "value" holds zero water in the corporate world. Will you take their place? Not in this lifetime. That is why we have a discipline progression. Don't ever discount the effectiveness of our grievance process. It has a purpose and keeps those promises that are so often forgotten. The proccess? The member has the right to be present and does have a say. Further action? There are avenues one may pursue if so chosen.
Click to expand...
If two get into a physical altercation and only one is let go is that right?....Why would there be others with worse incidents be still working there is my question..they say 3 in one year your gone regardless of what they are,but there are others with 4-5 in one year???
 
222lifer said:
Struck a nerve or two? Nice to see your morning coffee has purpose today. The message you send in your previous posts is much different than this latest offering. Subliminal, but the "anti" message is there. Should you be given specific instructions to terminate an employee, regardless of the offense, your example of "value" holds zero water in the corporate world. Will you take their place? Not in this lifetime. That is why we have a discipline progression. Don't ever discount the effectiveness of our grievance process. It has a purpose and keeps those promises that are so often forgotten. The proccess? The member has the right to be present and does have a say. Further action? There are avenues one may pursue if so chosen.
Click to expand...


Your hypocrisy continues to astonish me and I am beginning to believe it knows no bounds....

My nerves are just fine........as is my moral conscience........

You have no idea what I would do in your terminate an employee scenario, but you continue to make assumptions based on no facts and only your perception of reality. I assume if you were in a leadership position for your union, you would probably figure out a way to take a bullet for someone that you felt was getting railroaded either by the union or by the company?

Anti? For this company, at this point in history I sure am.......I dont believe that the union is the answer to what ails this company, as some of the possible positive qualities would be outweighed by the negatives.

I can discount the grievance process all I care to........I believe it to be contradictory to a basic human right that was granted to all citizens by the founders of our country. Purpose? It could be argued that the purpose would simply be to gain power through limiting members rights to ensure that they were reliant on the union in all things.

You sure soft shoed the rights limitations, so I will post some factual information that I came across that might help show my viewpoint.....

I am just an old Freight guy and definitely not a lawyer, but Google is my friend and I read pretty well......maybe I am misunderstanding some of this and you can help me out, as your post made it seem I was incorrect in my views.....

http://www.uniondemocracy.org/Legal/yourjobyourrights.htm

These are some highlights in case you dont want to read the whole thing....

Union's role. One important thing to remember is that when the union files a grievance for you, they take over your case. The union officials will decide how far to go with your grievance, including whether to take it to arbitration or not. And, they can settle your grievance without your permission.

If the union won't help Manuel, can he go to court and fight on his own? Usually not. Most contract rules can only be challenged through the grievance procedure established in the contract.
 
aflifer said:
Your hypocrisy continues to astonish me and I am beginning to believe it knows no bounds....

My nerves are just fine........as is my moral conscience........

You have no idea what I would do in your terminate an employee scenario, but you continue to make assumptions based on no facts and only your perception of reality. I assume if you were in a leadership position for your union, you would probably figure out a way to take a bullet for someone that you felt was getting railroaded either by the union or by the company?

Anti? For this company, at this point in history I sure am.......I dont believe that the union is the answer to what ails this company, as some of the possible positive qualities would be outweighed by the negatives.

I can discount the grievance process all I care to........I believe it to be contradictory to a basic human right that was granted to all citizens by the founders of our country. Purpose? It could be argued that the purpose would simply be to gain power through limiting members rights to ensure that they were reliant on the union in all things.

You sure soft shoed the rights limitations, so I will post some factual information that I came across that might help show my viewpoint.....

I am just an old Freight guy and definitely not a lawyer, but Google is my friend and I read pretty well......maybe I am misunderstanding some of this and you can help me out, as your post made it seem I was incorrect in my views.....

http://www.uniondemocracy.org/Legal/yourjobyourrights.htm

These are some highlights in case you dont want to read the whole thing....

Union's role. One important thing to remember is that when the union files a grievance for you, they take over your case. The union officials will decide how far to go with your grievance, including whether to take it to arbitration or not. And, they can settle your grievance without your permission.

If the union won't help Manuel, can he go to court and fight on his own? Usually not. Most contract rules can only be challenged through the grievance procedure established in the contract.
Click to expand...
I do apologize for not being able to sit at my desktop and touch on every aspect of your post. I'll leave that up to you. I try to do my best at break and lunch. Citing the legal obligations was a good choice to prop up your case. BUT, it does not properly defend your position. Buried in all the legal jargon to lesson the liability remains one simple fact. We do have the right to attend and voice our opinions. We do have protection against retaliation. We do have a true discipline progession. We do have grievance machinery that frustrates more than only you. If there is any aspect of your previous posts I neglected, by all means, let me know.
 
aflifer said:
Your hypocrisy continues to astonish me and I am beginning to believe it knows no bounds....

My nerves are just fine........as is my moral conscience........

You have no idea what I would do in your terminate an employee scenario, but you continue to make assumptions based on no facts and only your perception of reality. I assume if you were in a leadership position for your union, you would probably figure out a way to take a bullet for someone that you felt was getting railroaded either by the union or by the company?

Anti? For this company, at this point in history I sure am.......I dont believe that the union is the answer to what ails this company, as some of the possible positive qualities would be outweighed by the negatives.

I can discount the grievance process all I care to........I believe it to be contradictory to a basic human right that was granted to all citizens by the founders of our country. Purpose? It could be argued that the purpose would simply be to gain power through limiting members rights to ensure that they were reliant on the union in all things.

You sure soft shoed the rights limitations, so I will post some factual information that I came across that might help show my viewpoint.....

I am just an old Freight guy and definitely not a lawyer, but Google is my friend and I read pretty well......maybe I am misunderstanding some of this and you can help me out, as your post made it seem I was incorrect in my views.....

http://www.uniondemocracy.org/Legal/yourjobyourrights.htm

These are some highlights in case you dont want to read the whole thing....

Union's role. One important thing to remember is that when the union files a grievance for you, they take over your case. The union officials will decide how far to go with your grievance, including whether to take it to arbitration or not. And, they can settle your grievance without your permission.

If the union won't help Manuel, can he go to court and fight on his own? Usually not. Most contract rules can only be challenged through the grievance procedure established in the contract.
Click to expand...
Something else worth mentioning would be the fact that the grievance machinery does produce fair and satisfactory results while protecting the image of the company. Since you are quite adept at including links to this discussion, see if you can acquire any that are headline news from our last panel compared to those of any court cases where your company is mentioned.
 
222lifer said:
I do apologize for not being able to sit at my desktop and touch on every aspect of your post. I'll leave that up to you. I try to do my best at break and lunch. Citing the legal obligations was a good choice to prop up your case. BUT, it does not properly defend your position. Buried in all the legal jargon to lesson the liability remains one simple fact. We do have the right to attend and voice our opinions. We do have protection against retaliation. We do have a true discipline progession. We do have grievance machinery that frustrates more than only you. If there is any aspect of your previous posts I neglected, by all means, let me know.
Click to expand...


If you are trying to intimate that I have nothing better to do than sit at a computer and flame you on a message board, or that I am a professional consultant, your argument is pretty weak. Just a comparison of post volume on a daily basis would let all the air out of that balloon.

I'm in no hurry for your response to any questions I may have posed that you can answer.....I do have an open mind and will certainly give your response the attention it is due....

We do have the right to attend and voice our opinions.
Click to expand...

Currently we do as well.........the right to due process is protected under the 5th amendment for all American citizens

We do have protection against retaliation
Click to expand...

Currently we do as well........the EEOC and civil court provide protections against discrimination and wrongful termination

We do have a true discipline progession.
Click to expand...

Currently we do as well..........FXF has published progressive corrective action policies.....if they are not followed it could be considered wrongful termination

What would you be offering that we dont already have? I currently dont have to worry about the "legal jargon" you seem to dismiss as nothing in your post. If feel I am in an unjust situation, no one has the power to circumvent my pursuit of justice or accountability for any reason.

You kind of remind me of a used car salesman.......I ask what that oil puddle under the car is and you say it's nothing and immediately move on to point out that the car is equipped with heated seats......
 
222lifer said:
Something else worth mentioning would be the fact that the grievance machinery does produce fair and satisfactory results while protecting the image of the company. Since you are quite adept at including links to this discussion, see if you can acquire any that are headline news from our last panel compared to those of any court cases where your company is mentioned.
Click to expand...

Fair and satisfactory results would be subjective to someones opinion/viewpoint and arguing it would be a complete waste of time....

If I feel the company has treated me unjustly, would I really care about its image at that point? Nope......you are certainly reaching there.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top