Of course you don't want to continue on. Those fair and satisfactory results do agree with my position of having another venue to correct matters. What they also agree with is a deck stacked entirely in the company's favor. Reaching? Far from it. A disgruntled employee cares not. Those shareholders do.
FedEx Freight | What is your main reason to vote in a union at FedEx Freight ?
- Thread starter SMOKESTACK
- Start date
- Status
You know this as well as I and it is quite simple. Another avenue is what we bring. It also works hand in hand with the company's policy. The difference is these rules are in the form of an written agreement that has very specific language. That specific language pertaining to the implementation of discipline is what makes a big difference. Do you wish to take her for a test drive?
I generally choose not to engage in wasteful uses of time and energy, which would explain my not continuing on with a discussion that is based purely on personal opinions.........what is fair in satisfactory to some, may not be to others. Nothing either of us can say will ever change that fact.
Are you trying to imply that the American Justice system is stacked entirely in the favor of Corporations? I would most certainly be interested in the information that leads you to that opinion. I am sure that CEO's and large corporation legal departments would disagree with your premise. Big settlement law suits and the words "class-action" most likely are pretty large concerns of theirs.
Your hypocrisy is truly beginning to frighten me...........did you just profess a concern for company shareholders? Not that that in itself is inherrently bad......just a pretty severe departure from the content of most of your posted opinions regarding share holders or anything else involved in the corporate heirarchy......
I am having trouble getting basic questions and concerns answered about the vehicle, so I would probably pass on the test drive at this juncture. My fear would be that it might leave me stranded on the side of the road with nothing to do but listen to more about the heated seats and how good the sound system is.....
In theory, your assessment sound good. In real life, it doesn't work that way.
I'll refer back to someone I know that was fired for refusing dispatch. He was asked to deliver a load after completing his 400 mile triples road run. He told dispatch that he was too tired to do it. The terminal manager had a hard on for him and terminated his employment, claiming he never stated he was too tired.
Two years later, after multiple delays, he was offered his job back and a settlement. He accepted the settlement, but was already employed elsewhere, so he turned down the position offered. During that two years, he applied at several companies and couldn't get past the initial employment verification phase of the application. He found out, through a friend at one of the companies he applied to, that FedEx was black balling him.
In this case, the employee was wrongly terminated. He did use the services available to him, but it was a long, drawn out process. I doubt there is anyone that could wait 2 years without severe financial hardship. A grievance process would have been much quicker and would have resulted in him retaining his position with the company.
Fair and satisfactory for those involved. The company will always deny this fact because it does take away their ability to squelch the voice of reason. I was not implying anything in regards to our justice system. I was implying that large corporations do have the power to intimidate. They do a fine job of it. You're company is proving it daily. My hypocrisy? I have my opinions just as you do. I also believe in working hard for my company. I do have a problem with some lining their pockets at the expense of others.
You're questions are being answered but the answers don't fall in line with your corporate mentality. Your fears should be lessoned knowing that whatever the problem is, we are here to help. Your selection of the wrong vehicle is all on you.
It sounds like that fairness the company spokesman professed has a bit of favoritism associated with it that would be addressed with a grievance.
Corporate Mentality? I have posted repeatedly that I would expect accountability towards the company in any unjust situation, so I am not sure where you are coming from with that or just what you are working to imply...........
Answers? Most of your responses have actually created more questions for me than answers. What little research I have done and posted earlier regarding the grievance process infringing on ones basic right to due process hasnt been addressed at all.
Unfortunately, these type of "answers" do not give me the warm and fuzzies.........too easy to say, "we helped, sorry, nothing more can be done, read the fine print and have a nice life"........
You are correct, ones selection of a vehicle is on them.............mine is currently getting me where I feel I need to go, in a manner I currently am comfortable with getting there...........
You are the one telling me that your vehicle is better than sliced bread and trying to make a sale..........I am just asking you to give me tangible proof as to why.
Dont worry...........car salesmen cant stand dealing with me either............I ask far too many questions for their taste......
peddlepusher
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
peddlepusher
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Thanks,I agree..two years is a long time ..do you remember who he needed to contact to start that procedure??I've been off over a year,it's tough out here..
You line your pockets every week, where do you think that money came from?
Cant diasgree with you there.......but I cant think of many things that work as well in real life as they do in theory.........
This is what I have an issue with..........no one can say they "know" that it would have happened that way........furthermore, if it didnt turn out that way the options he did use would have no longer been available to him according to what I have read regarding the contractual law regarding the grievance process.
Does sound like he got something out of the deal, even though the road was probably pretty bumpy to get there.
You feel that employees terminate themselves? Never have seen an employee fill out that pink slip and hand it to themselves. That duty would fall on the company after the determination on how to proceed with discipline. Accountability to whom? Those that can manipulate the company policies to unjustly terminate? Uncle Fred did just that at a center in the LA area awhile back. All the guy wanted was a voice and he was nit picked to death until they terminated him. According to "company policy" it was just cause. Another word for dotting the "I's" and "T's" to cover their ass. It would not have stuck in a union barn. I can understand why you don't appreciate our strict observance and enforcement of progessive discipline. It makes management accountable. A far cry from what is in place now. You feel we relenquish all rights to due process under contract? Says who? Did you fail to understand the simple phrase regarding other avenues? To my knowledge there is nothing preventing a member from pursuing legal action. That goes for all parties involved. The suits can fly in any direction. I would also like to point out once again that our contract does lesson the threat of civil action more often than not. Settling "out of court" if you will is much better for the company image.
You missed by a mile with that one X. He was referring to a comment I made some time ago regarding "equal sacrifice" and those that feel they can "vote" themselves a raise.
Keep reading. The avenue is still open. It can't be addressed until after the grievance process is completed.
I didnt say employees terminate themselves........companies will always reserve that right, union or non-union. I said employees generally initiate the process by putting themselves in position to be terminated.............believe I even added that this isnt always intended or necessarily justfied. Grievance processes may hold accountability against the company for unjust terminations, they may not, no guarantees......just like the court system.
Your simple phrase regarding "other avenues" answers nothing.............basically akin to saying, "because I said so". You dont strike me as a person that would accept that answer as a fact, why should I?
I presented written, public information stating that once a grievance is processed, it is legally binding and further legal action is not possible..........your response referenced vague "other avenues" but doesnt list what they are or how they might help. The only other possible avenue I saw was suing the union........how would that hold the company accountable for what a person felt was an unjust decision?
How do you KNOW that the LA situation would have turned out differently in your example? I would assume you are not that persons legal representative and can be assured you have every fact of that case. I know........more, "because I said so", logic.......
Your extensive experience within the FXF operation qualifies you to make broad judgments about the overall accountability that its management is held to? I know....."because you said so".......
I do apologize for assuming you had an idea what we were discussing. I believe it was your assumption that there are no other means of recourse for a contractual employee through our justice system. You beat that horse to death in several replies did you not? I will type very slowly this time so we can keep on the same page. Let's just say that the grievance was lost. At that point, the member has every right to take further action through the court system up to and including suing the company or the union. If the grievance is still pending, they can not pursue through the courts. Simple enough?
That particular individual I spoke of happens to be a friend of mine and I do know all the circumstances regarding his termination. I also know under the scope of our agreement he would not have been terminated. I know this because I deal with these cases frequently at my own barn. We have true progressive discipline that coincides with very specific language in our labor agreement. His particular termination would have more than likely been settled in the "steps" meeting and never even made it to panel. They had nothing under the scope of our agreement in other words.
I did not assume that there were no other means..........I read it in the link I posted. It does go on to say that in cases that involve discrimination and a few other areas might be able to be handled in court (which could happen regardless of a contract or not), but that contract matters generally could only be settled through the established process. You seem to profess a lot of knowledge on the subject matter, so I thought maybe you could provide some tangible evidence that would refute what I had read.........
I have been doing a little more research on the subject of Grievance processes and would like to hear your thoughts on "trading of grievances" and where that would stand within the "fair and satisfactory" results that you were referring to in one of the earlier posts? I will leave it at that and retire to the background until I come up with other questions regarding subjects you might be able to help me find an answer to.......appreciate your help.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=bjell
Trading of Grievances
The hearing process is well adapted and used for the purpose of
trading grievances under the guise of adjudicating each case on its merits.
Elliot Azoff, in his article on joint committees, pointed out that "the joint
committee is structured so as to insure maximization and exploitation of
opportunities for wheeling and dealing."32 The large number of cases
withdrawn from the agenda demonstrate the usefulness of the meeting
for settling grievances, and on that I venture no comments. The focus
here is on the use of the adjudicatory form to disguise consensual settlement
or trading of grievances.
Prehearing discussion of grievances invites disguised settlements and
trades. If one or more panel members agree to vote for the other side,
there is, in effect, a settlement, but it will take the form of a decision by
the panel. The quid pro quo for such an agreement may be a reciprocal
vote on another grievance so that two decisions, one for the employer
and one for the union, may be the implementation of a single trade.
Even though there are no advance agreements, prescreening enables
the panel members to know the cases which will come before them, and
to establish priorities as to those which must be won and the those which
can, or ought to, be lost. As individual cases are heard and decided there
can be implicit or explicit understandings among the panel members that
agreement by one side on one case will be reciprocated with agreement
by the other side on a later case. Azoff has observed that "n the constant
quid pro quo of the committee system, there is always a suspicion
that an employee is being sacrificed to appease an employer, to buy his
good will for future negotiations or in return for past favors rendered." 33
Trading of grievances is also invited by the changing roles of the
players. Grievance committee rules generally prohibit a panel member
from sitting on a case which involves his or her local union or employer.
Individual panel members may thereby be required to step down in particular
cases, and when they do they often become-the representative of
their local union or employer in presenting the case. They thus act as an
advocate in a case decided by the panel on which they sit for other cases.
The inducement for implicit or explicit trading becomes obvious.
In some joint grievance committees, decisions are not handed down
- Status