Discussion in 'Fedex Freight' started by SMOKESTACK, Jul 6, 2014.
Ex, my kids have all the intelligence. No shame there at all. They stayed out of trucking.
Redracer, you seem very well versed with all of this.... wish you were on the appeal with my incident ...have a question for you but feel it could jeopardize your status there unless you feel otherwise..???Thanks..
Feel free to PM me.
How could you forget the face ?
Ya he fits under the boss's desk at Freddie's just as well as he did at YRC. They deserve him...........
He gets the same as anybody else when it comes to representation.
That was pretty harsh. I wouldn't wish him on any company.
Just call him little mack.
Hey you forgot to put lol or lmao in your post, sorry it threw me a little!
Kind of disappointed (but not surprised), that no one seems willing to suggest how to establish real, unfiltered communication, from the bottom up.
So the example I gave of the KY drivers having a Driver Rresentative from each class that's chosen my management and the drivers, that represents those drivers from that class on a state level, and those representatives reporting their complaints/solutions straight to HRO not a good enough suggestion?
Is it perfect, no, but it's a start.
My impression was that you were sharing what IS being done, rather than what COULD/SHOULD be done.
If that was your suggestion, kudos to you! Although management having a hand in "selecting" the drivers, seems unproductive. IMHO
My bad, misunderstood you I guess. The focus grouped ARE being done, the Driver Representative positions are still in the development stages, still taking the names of those who are interested.
No, NOT my suggestion by any means although I do like it. I feel we should've never done away with our Regional Road Driver Managers, they were the only voice we had. By doing away with that position and moving everything in house was a mistake IMO.
What's so wrong with management having a say, along with the drivers, with who's selected for that position?
Well again, my opinion, management already has paths for unfiltered communication. The drivers (and Commpany) need unfiltered communication. Having managers help select, places a "filter" at the very first stage.
So are you suggestion that because management has a hand in selecting someone for these positions that the driver's message will be "filtered" through these representatives?
Man, you don't show a lot of faith in your co-workers.
I would think that the drivers would only select those with whom they feel confident, someone who would represent both sides, and someone who's not afraid to speak up to management, thus eliminating managements options of a "filtered" representative.
The solution as I see it is you need a disinterested 3rd party liaison. The problem is finding a 3rd party liaison that will both be disinterested AND appear disinterested (somebody has to pay them).
I believe that the squeaky-wheels of the rank and file so distrust management that the conversations won't be fruitful. Any driver- appointed representative is likely to be labeled a "kiss-ass" when they come back presenting managements' side. The more solutions that drivers' present that management ignores, the greater the disdain the rank and file will feel. Just because they don't implement a solution doesn't mean your opinions' aren't valued or that they were ignored, though that is what many will "hear".
As a rule, I generally try to spend more time listening than talking, which I guess bleeds through into this format as well......(tough sometimes though, especially when I get on a topic that I feel strongly about).......not sure if it was a dig at me or what, but I will take it as an inquiry into my thoughts......
Honestly, I believe a lot of the parts are already in place and are either poorly utilized or ineffective in their current state......in my mind, we must further improve the feedback mechanisms.......it is vital that people get more and better information back to them. How many frustrations are simply because they have not been properly informed about a particular subject? I see it all the time........ those should be the easiest issues to eliminate. Perfect example would be a while back when we were talking about the videos and such..........you were frustrated simply because you werent aware what was out there and should be available. How many of the daily issues are due to similar things............I would say a bunch.
Your idea about the committee type approach has promise.........the only thing I would knock against it would be the exclusion of middle levels of leadership.......leaving them in the dark wouldnt help close up the trust gap and might limit its effectiveness by not having their buy in to the process........I agree that it would have to have some sort of executive involvement to give access and provide a solid foundation, however, local leadership would need to have some involvement to ensure they could effectively exist as that vital feedback mechanism back to the folks at the centers......
Another thought might be to mix drivers, dock and leadership all from different parts of the country into the groups........minimal historical baggage while putting different backgrounds, perspectives and experiences together would most likely be effective in the problem solving process.......
Ideally the process would have a lot of transparency back to the field groups.........which the lack of, I feel, has probably contributed to the state in which we find ourselves.......
Seems to me that this company was built through folks working together to find solutions to problems that help the whole, it turn helping themselves......if certain groups are excluded, the whole thing becomes very frustrating and utlimately ineffective. The absolute key is finding the way to get back to that........
Ultimately, I feel that what we do isnt nearly as important as how we do it......
Some may need to listen more.........some may need to talk more (effectively)...........some may need to do both........
Lots of different ways to do it, more people will have to want to than dont, which is a challenge in itself........
Yes, I am saying that management having a hand in the selection of participants could/would "filter" the voice. This whole exercise would be to gain feedback from the front line workers. Why would it not be preferred to let the workers decide who spoke for them? Remember, this is said to be a Corporate listening exercise, not a debate forum. Nothing to do with faith in co-workers. I do have faith in them.
As to your comment about someone to represent both sides. What on earth does that mean? This would not be a union (for and against) forum. It would/should be a driver/employee forum. There would only need to be one side, the driver's/employee's side.
The purpose of this communication would be to get feedback from the local drivers/employees. Something that most think is currently lacking. Managers already attend meetings, conferences, forums etc, as well as have access to voice their perspective.
As far as being labeled a "kiss-ass", I think that would be avoided by results of the process being shared directly from Corporate (not through the attendees) through another format. Either printed, audio, or video, would work well, as to be (again) "unfiltered".
Management at all levels could receive feedback from the corporate level, through the same means a everyone else. I would also expect them to receive even more detailed feedback, through additional avenues, as they do now. There would likely be info not intended for public consumption. Remember, this whole suggestion is to provide a new, more direct, feedback/communication method. Most agree that the messages (going both ways) get lost in the translation. Corporate can communicate directly to the local level, in print, video, and audio. At this point all communication going the other way is filtered at multiple levels. I think the Company would benefit by getting around those filters. While perhaps uncomfortable, that could benefit everyone. IMHO
Not a dig at you af, but feel free to disagree, or add to it. Just my opinion, but I stand by it.
How would drivers (or anybody for that matter) feel after being asked for feedback, perhaps repeatedly, and after provided not see any real change. If the response is generally something along the lines of "thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated" or "thank you for your input, while that may seem like a worthwhile change we can't do it at this time because x, y, and z.".
Realize there will be somewhere around 98 of those responses for every 2 that come back with "Great idea! That's why we need input from those in the field"
Is somewhere around that ratio going to do more harm than good with morale?
Remember, I prefaced this suggestion with the note that the Company would 1st have "want" the information. Otherwise the effort would be a waste of time and money.
The impression, up to this (recent) point, has been that the Company was unaware of the sentiment and conditions at the local level. A situation local mgmt. can do little to correct. Most all agree, there are issues.
If things are going to go down as you suggested, there is little point. The result would be little more than theater. I think differently. I hope the desire exists to fix things, for the benefit of all concerned.
Again, if you're correct, we'd be better off with a letter writing campaign or something less costly. Same unimpressive result. Or, perhaps, the only real solution is to seek and aquire representation, in order to have our voices heard.
I do know it's not up to me... I'm just a casual observer.