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

[peddlepusher]

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.

Educate,Mentor, ..suspend,put on probation...but don't fire...in regards to employees terminate themselves...everybody makes mistakes it all depends to what degree and how severe...dispathers&management don't walk on water altho some of them think they do..everything (all policies)should be in black&white period..

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

 

[peddlepusher]

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.

Educate,Mentor, ..suspend,put on probation...but don't fire...in regards to employees terminate themselves...everybody makes mistakes it all depends to what degree and how severe...dispathers&management don't walk on water altho some of them think they do..everything (all policies)should be in black&white period..

 

[222lifer]

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

Many times there is no need to put on the grievance. A good majority are settled in the steps meeting long before it goes to panel. Later on in the process there may be new findings such as a decision from an earlier date that negates the grievance in hand. Things of that nature. I have a file full of "Settled and withdrawn" by the company that were all paid claims. There was no point in them fighting a loser and wasting money and time. Does that make sense to you?

 

[222lifer]

Educate,Mentor, ..suspend,put on probation...but don't fire...in regards to employees terminate themselves...everybody makes mistakes it all depends to what degree and how severe...dispathers&management don't walk on water altho some of them think they do..everything (all policies)should be in black&white period..

Educate,Mentor, ..suspend,put on probation...but don't fire...in regards to employees terminate themselves...everybody makes mistakes it all depends to what degree and how severe...dispathers&management don't walk on water altho some of them think they do..everything (all policies)should be in black&white period..

Pretty simple.

 

[aflifer]

Many times there is no need to put on the grievance. A good majority are settled in the steps meeting long before it goes to panel. Later on in the process there may be new findings such as a decision from an earlier date that negates the grievance in hand. Things of that nature. I have a file full of "Settled and withdrawn" by the company that were all paid claims. There was no point in them fighting a loser and wasting money and time. Does that make sense to you?

Sure, I am picking up what you are putting down.........minor issues would be handled prior to the actual grievance hearing, basically "settling out of court".......no real issues with that other than the fact that the employee doesnt really have the sole discretion on acceptance for the settlement terms (i.e. the union has the right to settle the matter, whether the claimant is personally satisfied or not). Granted, I would assume that anything settled early would be on a more minor nature, probably not terminations, suspensions, etc..........guessing more comp claims, work rule violations and the like........where outcomes wouldnt necessarily be life altering.....

The big issue I was looking at is the "horse trading" that appears to happen in the Grievance Hearing process as I read it in that document.......that is what I was asking for your clarification on.......

As a self-aware individual, I know I am a pain, even pointed it out a couple of posts back. I am pretty confident that in the "quid pro quo" environment that the grievance process appears to be, I probably would end up as a sacrifical lamb, or the quid to someones quo so to speak.........

How can a system where my case wouldnt necessarily be heard, simply because I am a thorn in somebodys side, be "fair and satisfactory"?

The judicial justice system is far from perfect, but it appears to me that I would rather take my chances there.........versus my case ending up as cannon fodder for the sole reason of the other side happening to have someone that is as big of a burr under the saddle as I am......

 

[222lifer]

Sure, I am picking up what you are putting down.........minor issues would be handled prior to the actual grievance hearing, basically "settling out of court".......no real issues with that other than the fact that the employee doesnt really have the sole discretion on acceptance for the settlement terms (i.e. the union has the right to settle the matter, whether the claimant is personally satisfied or not). Granted, I would assume that anything settled early would be on a more minor nature, probably not terminations, suspensions, etc..........guessing more comp claims, work rule violations and the like........where outcomes wouldnt necessarily be life altering.....

The big issue I was looking at is the "horse trading" that appears to happen in the Grievance Hearing process as I read it in that document.......that is what I was asking for your clarification on.......

As a self-aware individual, I know I am a pain, even pointed it out a couple of posts back. I am pretty confident that in the "quid pro quo" environment that the grievance process appears to be, I probably would end up as a sacrifical lamb, or the quid to someones quo so to speak.........

How can a system where my case wouldnt necessarily be heard, simply because I am a thorn in somebodys side, be "fair and satisfactory"?

The judicial justice system is far from perfect, but it appears to me that I would rather take my chances there.........versus my case ending up as cannon fodder for the sole reason of the other side happening to have someone that is as big of a burr under the saddle as I am......

I humored you with my last reply as I knew exactly where your response was headed. Funny how you're so adamantly against the grievance machinery and simple aspects of our process yet you gladly accept our justice system as your only savior. "Horse trading" as you call it would equate to "plea bargaining" in our justice system. An attorney that has a weak case will do the best they can with what they have. You're "self awareness" also seems to have very narrow confines. Do you look through your binoculars from the big end also? If the grievant or (defendent) has no grounds, how do you expect to achieve anything? No different in a court case. The Business Agent or (attorney) will instruct the grievant or (defendent) what course of action should be taken. Either could result in a case not being heard or going to a trial.

 

[EX396]

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.

It doesn't matter what caused you to make the statement. You said, specifically: "I do have a problem with some lining their pockets at the expense of others."

So, who has your blessing to line their pockets at the expense of others?

 

[222lifer]

It doesn't matter what caused you to make the statement. You said, specifically: "I do have a problem with some lining their pockets at the expense of others."

So, who has your blessing to line their pockets at the expense of others?

A pinnacle of society such as yourself ex. You still offering "green cards" as an employment incentive?

 

[aflifer]

I humored you with my last reply as I knew exactly where your response was headed. Funny how you're so adamantly against the grievance machinery and simple aspects of our process yet you gladly accept our justice system as your only savior. "Horse trading" as you call it would equate to "plea bargaining" in our justice system. An attorney that has a weak case will do the best they can with what they have. You're "self awareness" also seems to have very narrow confines. Do you look through your binoculars from the big end also? If the grievant or (defendent) has no grounds, how do you expect to achieve anything? No different in a court case. The Business Agent or (attorney) will instruct the grievant or (defendent) what course of action should be taken. Either could result in a case not being heard or going to a trial.

I am so glad I could walk into the big bear trap that you set, you are so clever to entrap me.......

That is a pretty strong statement coming from you, whose "narrow mindedness" on the subject at hand would probably make me seem like most liberal of the liberals in the ACLU........

I am not adamantly opposed to much of anything..........will certainly listen to all arguments and weigh them as applicable against my own values. Your arguments thus far have not been sufficient for me to consider a change in my opinion. In other words, I aint buying what you are selling.....

To answer your question, yes....I work to have my vision look from as many angles as possible regarding a question. I know there are certainly warts with the justice system, but everything I have seen leads me to believe that I would personally prefer that route due to what I feel are bigger warts. From what I have seen, you seem to have a blind faith, fanaticism or personal stake/agenda associated with the subject that might render you incapable of varying your judgement.

Your comparison does not seem to me as valid due to one aspect........

An attorney cannot force the defendant to accept any proposed plea bargain whatsoever, they are always entitled to their day in court, whether it is the "best course of action" recommended by legal experts or not.........the BA can and will, if it is in the best interest of himself, the union or even the company without the grievants consent or even knowledge, or worse yet the rep may not even know the fix is in, as it appears the panel itself may just decide the outcome prior to even hearing the case.......either of those acts deprives the individual of their right to due process..........which is the whole point I have been trying to make........

That power is what turns me off regarding the grievance process versus what is currently available.....

 

[222lifer]

I am so glad I could walk into the big bear trap that you set, you are so clever to entrap me.......

That is a pretty strong statement coming from you, whose "narrow mindedness" on the subject at hand would probably make me seem like most liberal of the liberals in the ACLU........

I am not adamantly opposed to much of anything..........will certainly listen to all arguments and weigh them as applicable against my own values. Your arguments thus far have not been sufficient for me to consider a change in my opinion. In other words, I aint buying what you are selling.....

To answer your question, yes....I work to have my vision look from as many angles as possible regarding a question. I know there are certainly warts with the justice system, but everything I have seen leads me to believe that I would personally prefer that route due to what I feel are bigger warts. From what I have seen, you seem to have a blind faith, fanaticism or personal stake/agenda associated with the subject that might render you incapable of varying your judgement.

Your comparison does not seem to me as valid due to one aspect........

An attorney cannot force the defendant to accept any proposed plea bargain whatsoever, they are always entitled to their day in court, whether it is the "best course of action" recommended by legal experts or not.........the BA can and will, if it is in the best interest of himself, the union or even the company without the grievants consent or even knowledge, or worse yet the rep may not even know the fix is in, as it appears the panel itself may just decide the outcome prior to even hearing the case.......either of those acts deprives the individual of their right to due process..........which is the whole point I have been trying to make........

That power is what turns me off regarding the grievance process versus what is currently available.....

There was no "trap set" as you put it. I just knew where this was headed.

"Appears?" That is what you base your beliefs on? You are still looking through the wrong end of those binoculars. Your beliefs are based on an assumption that you linked to bolster your arguments? Was there proof that at any time the grievant was not conferred with prior to panel? Is there any proof of what was discussed? Purely assumption, nothing more. You do understand that the grievant has the right to attend the hearing?

I am fanatical because why? Did you ever stop to think it is because I have seen the process first hand and positive results from it? Beneficial to both parties.

Here is a good example of just how beneficial our process is for all. I will give you the names of two large companies. Walmart and Costco. One is adamantly anti union. The other prefers to use the benefits of a contract. Who has their name in the headlines concerning labor violations? Who has reported losses? Image is vitally important to success. But what do I know?

 

[aflifer]

There was no "trap set" as you put it. I just knew where this was headed.

"Appears?" That is what you base your beliefs on? You are still looking through the wrong end of those binoculars. Your beliefs are based on an assumption that you linked to bolster your arguments? Was there proof that at any time the grievant was not conferred with prior to panel? Is there any proof of what was discussed? Purely assumption, nothing more. You do understand that the grievant has the right to attend the hearing?

I am fanatical because why? Did you ever stop to think it is because I have seen the process first hand and positive results from it? Beneficial to both parties.

Here is a good example of just how beneficial our process is for all. I will give you the names of two large companies. Walmart and Costco. One is adamantly anti union. The other prefers to use the benefits of a contract. Who has their name in the headlines concerning labor violations? Who has reported losses? Image is vitally important to success. But what do I know?

Yes, "appears"..............I have based my comments on information that I have found readily available and processed as believeable in context through my own viewpoint......even produced links to what I was looking at...........I dont believe there is much assuming there on my part, the documents were written in pretty plain english and I can read. I didnt write the documents, just read them.

The link I provided was a published document intended to dissect the grievance process, you have given nothing but, "Trust me", "Because I said so", "Seen it with my own eyes" and "So and So told me" responses/rebuttals. Sorry, but between the two I choose the former to base any opinions off of....

Are you telling me that "back room side deals" that have nothing to do with the claimant do not occur within the process and affect the outcome of their hearings? Can you prove it? I am sure you can speak for your personal experience and I have no basis to question it (although you do seem to always want to broad brush me and my thought processes when you have no basis to do so), but are your eyes and ears all seeing enough to know that you possess a large enough sample size to make an all-reaching statement.

Never was confused on the right to attend the hearing, but I also conclude that it wouldnt matter if you were there or not if it is pre-determined to meet an agenda that has nothing to do with you. Is a person able to attend the meeting in which their grievance is traded for another one?

Not entirely sure what it has to do with the specific topic being discussed, but you base your perceptions of reality off of media reports, as in your Walmart and Costco example? Or is it just a union/non-union thing? I believe that Google is non-union and have also heard they are a pretty good outfit to work for...........how can that be?

FedEx is consistently listed in Fortune's Best 100 Companies to work for and generally in the top 20 on their World's Most Admired Companies list as well.............stark contrast to your normal commentary regarding FedEx, which to my knowledge couldnt even contain any first hand "seen it with my own eyes" statements. Which am I to believe? I could probably find some links to those media reports for your reading if you would like......

I am pretty much done with this topic..........I do appreciate your candor, you have given me things to think about which is the point of active discussion.....

 

[Cab Lizzard]

Lifer has sat through many a steps meeting and has the knowledge to back it up.
I have sat in on a few of these meetings over the years. I have witnessed a few terminations and some serious problems with ones mental condition and have seen these people returned to work with no back pay. One would have to be stupid to not take the deal. Why roll the dice again ?
I can also say our barn went 15 years and never had a termination the company could make stick. Pretty good record in my book .
Do you think that the company's labor people are incompetent ? I do and they proved it month after month to us.
Our biggest problem ? The young kids that can not seem to come to work or protect their bid once their.
If you file the grievance you are allowed to go to hearing and be heard but will be asked to leave while a decision is made.

 

[222lifer]

Yes, "appears"..............I have based my comments on information that I have found readily available and processed as believeable in context through my own viewpoint......even produced links to what I was looking at...........I dont believe there is much assuming there on my part, the documents were written in pretty plain english and I can read. I didnt write the documents, just read them.

The link I provided was a published document intended to dissect the grievance process, you have given nothing but, "Trust me", "Because I said so", "Seen it with my own eyes" and "So and So told me" responses/rebuttals. Sorry, but between the two I choose the former to base any opinions off of....

Are you telling me that "back room side deals" that have nothing to do with the claimant do not occur within the process and affect the outcome of their hearings? Can you prove it? I am sure you can speak for your personal experience and I have no basis to question it (although you do seem to always want to broad brush me and my thought processes when you have no basis to do so), but are your eyes and ears all seeing enough to know that you possess a large enough sample size to make an all-reaching statement.

Never was confused on the right to attend the hearing, but I also conclude that it wouldnt matter if you were there or not if it is pre-determined to meet an agenda that has nothing to do with you. Is a person able to attend the meeting in which their grievance is traded for another one?

Not entirely sure what it has to do with the specific topic being discussed, but you base your perceptions of reality off of media reports, as in your Walmart and Costco example? Or is it just a union/non-union thing? I believe that Google is non-union and have also heard they are a pretty good outfit to work for...........how can that be?

FedEx is consistently listed in Fortune's Best 100 Companies to work for and generally in the top 20 on their World's Most Admired Companies list as well.............stark contrast to your normal commentary regarding FedEx, which to my knowledge couldnt even contain any first hand "seen it with my own eyes" statements. Which am I to believe? I could probably find some links to those media reports for your reading if you would like......

I am pretty much done with this topic..........I do appreciate your candor, you have given me things to think about which is the point of active discussion.....

The one thing I can point out to you as you conclude. You continue to prop your arguments up with back door deals without consent of the grievant. The burden of proof has been on you from the onset. You want to prove your case for dirty dealings? No one argued on the process from this side. I gave you examples from my experience. Isn't that what you wished to draw from? I do believe you said that from the onset, did you not? Now you wish to deny the experience you wished to draw from? Grievance hearings 101. You just lost your case at panel aflifer. You have no proof whether or not the grievant agreed to or didn't agree to a deal. It is as simple as that.

By the way, the example I gave of Walmart and Costco shows just how effective having a CBA can be in reducing fallout from bad press. The financial reports of these companies is more than enough evidence that bad press regarding labor issues can hurt a company. Same market. Huge difference.

 

[johndeere4020]

The one thing I can point out to you as you conclude. You continue to prop your arguments up with back door deals without consent of the grievant. The burden of proof has been on you from the onset. You want to prove your case for dirty dealings? No one argued on the process from this side. I gave you examples from my experience. Isn't that what you wished to draw from? I do believe you said that from the onset, did you not? Now you wish to deny the experience you wished to draw from? Grievance hearings 101. You just lost your case at panel aflifer. You have no proof whether or not the grievant agreed to or didn't agree to a deal. It is as simple as that.

By the way, the example I gave of Walmart and Costco shows just how effective having a CBA can be in reducing fallout from bad press. The financial reports of these companies is more than enough evidence that bad press regarding labor issues can hurt a company. Same market. Huge difference.

You give no evidence to back up your claims you just expect us to take your word for it. Just like your west coast argument we are just supposed to believe you are the holder of such vast knowledge, I will here to point out your wrong when you are. But even then you won't have been wrong because a bunch of "cowards" changed their mind at the last minute because Fedex is to smart for them, so your covered either way. As far as your Costco/Walmart argument I get tired of that one. I'm no fan of Walmart I try to avoid it at all cost. And I am a member of Costco and I think it would be a great job for some people I've even directed people that way for a job. But to compare the two is not a fare comparison, Costco and Sams club would be more fare. But that's a hard comparison to make since Walmart and Sams are linked. However I do think a business can be union and successful there are many that are.

 

[aflifer]

The one thing I can point out to you as you conclude. You continue to prop your arguments up with back door deals without consent of the grievant. The burden of proof has been on you from the onset. You want to prove your case for dirty dealings? No one argued on the process from this side. I gave you examples from my experience. Isn't that what you wished to draw from? I do believe you said that from the onset, did you not? Now you wish to deny the experience you wished to draw from? Grievance hearings 101. You just lost your case at panel aflifer. You have no proof whether or not the grievant agreed to or didn't agree to a deal. It is as simple as that.

By the way, the example I gave of Walmart and Costco shows just how effective having a CBA can be in reducing fallout from bad press. The financial reports of these companies is more than enough evidence that bad press regarding labor issues can hurt a company. Same market. Huge difference.

Actually, I would prefer facts to support your arguments, but I am now resigned to the premise that I am not going to get any.....

Pretty sure that the analysis I read regarding the grievance process was not a work of fiction...........why would the author have devoted a whole section of it to the very topic you are saying does not exist?

Seems my burden of proof is much, much more stringent than yours...........your pronouncement of me losing the case at panel is the very definition of what I would dislike about the system. Judgment based on factors outside of the issue at hand..........you dont really like my opinion and have a predisposition in opposition, therefore any arguments I make are not relevant and I lose. Thank you for presenting such a good example of this for me.

If I told you that in 25 years with this company I have never been witness to an unjust termination, would you believe it?

Then if I made the statement that..........because of my experience........there are no unjust terminations at FedEx, would you believe that?

True or not, you wouldnt believe it..........but you expect me to use that same logic to digest your arguments as facts when other information is available in direct contradiction to your statements......

Not sure why you are so adamant in this conversation to keep pushing it to union vs non-union........the topic is civil court versus grievance/arbitration process..........there are plenty of non-union companies that utilize grievance processes as well..........my feelings about the process and its flaws would be unchanged either way.....

I dont believe I am not going to change your beliefs, nor are you going to change mine at this point..........

 

[222lifer]

Actually, I would prefer facts to support your arguments, but I am now resigned to the premise that I am not going to get any.....

Pretty sure that the analysis I read regarding the grievance process was not a work of fiction...........why would the author have devoted a whole section of it to the very topic you are saying does not exist?

Seems my burden of proof is much, much more stringent than yours...........your pronouncement of me losing the case at panel is the very definition of what I would dislike about the system. Judgment based on factors outside of the issue at hand..........you dont really like my opinion and have a predisposition in opposition, therefore any arguments I make are not relevant and I lose. Thank you for presenting such a good example of this for me.

If I told you that in 25 years with this company I have never been witness to an unjust termination, would you believe it?

Then if I made the statement that..........because of my experience........there are no unjust terminations at FedEx, would you believe that?

True or not, you wouldnt believe it..........but you expect me to use that same logic to digest your arguments as facts when other information is available in direct contradiction to your statements......

Not sure why you are so adamant in this conversation to keep pushing it to union vs non-union........the topic is civil court versus grievance/arbitration process..........there are plenty of non-union companies that utilize grievance processes as well..........my feelings about the process and its flaws would be unchanged either way.....

I dont believe I am not going to change your beliefs, nor are you going to change mine at this point..........

I thought you had concluded? Not the case? Sir, your arguments were based on only using the court system as a means of righting that wrong. I showed you another avenue. You argued that the grievants rights would be traded away without any say. You linked a source that has no proof of that, only the process. You feel there is only one way. I showed you two. The benefit. I gave examples of how different companies utilize each avenue and one that utilizes both. Quite simple. The rest just appears to be of a personal nature that has no bearing on your original thought. You never gave me the opportunity of your experience. Why would you think it doesn't have value?

 

[Cab Lizzard]

aflifer who is included when a termination is made at Freddies X ?

 

[EX396]

A pinnacle of society such as yourself ex. You still offering "green cards" as an employment incentive?

Silly of me to expect some resemblance of a legitimate answer out of you.

Never did offer green cards as an employment incentive. What we do offer is more than 2 1/2x your hourly rate as starting pay...that's proven to be enough for us to attract and retain the quality employees we desire.

 

[Redracer3136]

aflifer who is included when a termination is made at Freddies X ?

The last time a road driver was terminated from my center that I remember, they first attended a conference call...with his immediate supervisor, the center mgr, HR, Regional Safety Manager, and the RVP all present, while their superiors from HRO were conferenced in, giving him a chance to plead his case. After the call, the driver was sent home while they made their decision. He was called back 3 days later and was terminated.
This same process has occurred several times with the drivers actually keeping their jobs.

 

[johndeere4020]

Silly of me to expect some resemblance of a legitimate answer out of you.

Never did offer green cards as an employment incentive. What we do offer is more than 2 1/2x your hourly rate as starting pay...that's proven to be enough for us to attract and retain the quality employees we desire.

You won't get anything out of him, hes way smarter than you and me and he has a card to prove it.