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

[EX396]

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.

They'd be silly to not want to know the sentiment and possible process improvement suggestions from the rank and file.

The impression, up to this (recent) point, as 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.

That's often an issue in very large corporations.

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.

Well, I've certainly been wrong before. Seek and acquiring representation will provide you a sounding board....but at what expense (and I'm not talking about dues)...remember my suggestion qualified that liaison as a disinterested 3rd party. :)

 

[Redracer3136]

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.

Both sides as in city and road drivers.
Again, I respectively disagree. The drivers would/should only elect someone whom they feel would represent them, the frontline employees. Management would have to choose from those who were elected by the drivers, therefore, managements options for a filtered representative would be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

 

[aflifer]

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.

I dont think we really disagree at all.......communication needs to continue to improve......how that happens is really immaterial to me in the overall scheme of things.

When I speak of local management involvement, I am not advocating that they select reps for the committee, your point is well taken and understood in that respect. My thought would be that folks volunteer for the task.....and some sort of selection process implemented from that point. Maybe something like selections for the diversity council or something similar, but I am sure something could be found that would work.

That said, my thought would be that center level management should be selected to serve as well, quite possibly through the same process. Exclusion of any group in the process would weaken it in my opinion. A supervisor or manager from XYZ center might have some fairly good ideas that are working in their center that could be discussed and possibly contribute to an overall solution to widespread problems. There are surely some places out there that dont experience certain issues.......to not get that feedback into the discussion would leave a lot of opportunity out of the mix.

You used a very good word there.........uncomfortable.........those conversations are the ones that actually create progress and cause real change......

Carry on.........

 

[SwampRatt]

Both sides as in city and road drivers.
Again, I respectively disagree. The drivers would/should only elect someone whom they feel would represent them, the frontline employees. Management would have to choose from those who were elected by the drivers, therefore, managements options for a filtered representative would be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Why would a manager need to choose. Secret ballot, Corporate counts the ballots. Whoever the drivers "elect goes". Next in line could be alternates, in case the selected couldn't attend. No grey area, no opportunity for management involvement...Local, Regional, or otherwise. Simple, honest, beyond question.

Most drivers selected, (I would expect) would also point out the constraints/demands placed on the managers (local, regional, etc.) and it's contribution to our current situation. Managers too are under a heavy burden. One that at times is totally unrealistic. So don't think that just because they don't have a hand in selection, that their concerns won't be mentioned. Their situation is also a factor, that should be addressed.

 

[SwampRatt]

I dont think we really disagree at all.......communication needs to continue to improve......how that happens is really immaterial to me in the overall scheme of things.

When I speak of local management involvement, I am not advocating that they select reps for the committee, your point is well taken and understood in that respect. My thought would be that folks volunteer for the task.....and some sort of selection process implemented from that point. Maybe something like selections for the diversity council or something similar, but I am sure something could be found that would work.

That said, my thought would be that center level management should be selected to serve as well, quite possibly through the same process. Exclusion of any group in the process would weaken it in my opinion. A supervisor or manager from XYZ center might have some fairly good ideas that are working in their center that could be discussed and possibly contribute to an overall solution to widespread problems. There are surely some places out there that dont experience certain issues.......to not get that feedback into the discussion would leave a lot of opportunity out of the mix.

You used a very good word there.........uncomfortable.........those conversations are the ones that actually create progress and cause real change......

Carry on.........

Fair input...
I would still stress the need for unfiltered communications from Top to Bottom/Bottom to Top. Any middle management involvement would taint/hamper the process, in the EARLY stages.

I would envision, after initial information was gathered and patterns noted, as far as what is working and what is not, then managers/dispatchers/supervisors etc. from the centers with positive patterns & feedback, could/should be brought in to share how they are doing whatever it is they're doing right. Patterns in the other (wrong) direction could also be addressed, as the Company sees fit.

I just think there are stages for working together, and stages for getting to the root issues. Once identified, then a team effort would be called for to "fix" them.

Reasonable? Far fetched? Remember, it's not up to me... It'll be up to a committee, somewhere in Harrison or Memphis.

 

[222lifer]

I wonder if this representative would have much of an employment future should he constantly be the voice of opposition towards the company.

 

[Redracer3136]

I wonder if this representative would have much of an employment future should he constantly be the voice of opposition towards the company.

Not just a voice of opposition but rather a voice of solutions as well.

 

[SwampRatt]

I wonder if this representative would have much of an employment future should he constantly be the voice of opposition towards the company.

Fair observation...

My position has always been, they shouldn't ask the questions, if the answers might make them uncomfortable.

 

[222lifer]

Not just a voice of opposition but rather a voice of solutions as well.

Tell them want they want to hear and the career continues.? Continually oppose? Update your resume'.

 

[Redracer3136]

Tell them want they want to hear and the career continues.? Continually oppose? Update your resume'.

I disagree, I've often opposed management in my 20 years and I'm still here.
As I've stated before, when you offer solutions to your opposition, you're taken more seriously. When all you do is complain, no one listens!

 

[222lifer]

I disagree, I've often opposed management in my 20 years and I'm still here.
As I've stated before, when you offer solutions to your opposition, you're taken more seriously. When all you do is complain, no one listens!

So exactly how many solutions to your opposition have been taken into consideration? How many implemented? It seems that a united front got the most attention without uttering much more than HELL NO!

 

[aflifer]

Fair input...
I would still stress the need for unfiltered communications from Top to Bottom/Bottom to Top. Any middle management involvement would taint/hamper the process, in the EARLY stages.

I would envision, after initial information was gathered and patterns noted, as far as what is working and what is not, then managers/dispatchers/supervisors etc. from the centers with positive patterns & feedback, could/should be brought in to share how they are doing whatever it is they're doing right. Patterns in the other (wrong) direction could also be addressed, as the Company sees fit.

I just think there are stages for working together, and stages for getting to the root issues. Once identified, then a team effort would be called for to "fix" them.

Reasonable? Far fetched? Remember, it's not up to me... It'll be up to a committee, somewhere in Harrison or Memphis.

Premise seems feasible to me.............one thing I would add would be that it would probably have to be regionalized down to a manageable headcount level. The whole point in my mind would be to have a few people listening and the group giving feedback. In a large group setting you would end up with a few people talking to the group as a whole and the opportunity that we are talking about trying to create would be lost.

I think it would all be moot unless a more effective device was implemented to disseminate the information. I know you have discussed different mediums, but we currently have or have had most all of those. The question is, "How do we get Tom Driver, Richard Manager and Harry Supervisor, none of whom currently take the time to read the bullentin board, attend meetings, watch the quarterly update video or listen to the mile marker cd, to pay attention to what the group is discussing and what progress might have been made"?

Finding a good answer to that one is key to the effectiveness of any plan............

Obviously, we have differing thoughts on some subjects.............I do value your opinion, as it is apparent that you have thoroughly researched things and given solid thought towards finding your conclusions. I respect that even if they differ from mine..............now, how do we get a higher % of our folks the information they need to avoid issues simply caused by communication gaps in order that more time and resources can be dedicated to bigger issues?

Carry on sir.........

 

[aflifer]

Fair observation...

My position has always been, they shouldn't ask the questions, if the answers might make them uncomfortable.

I think "yes men" are part of the problem.............I think I said it in an earlier post, but here goes again.............if you arent having uncomfortable conversations, you arent making any progress........

 

[SwampRatt]

Premise seems feasible to me.............one thing I would add would be that it would probably have to be regionalized down to a manageable headcount level. The whole point in my mind would be to have a few people listening and the group giving feedback. In a large group setting you would end up with a few people talking to the group as a whole and the opportunity that we are talking about trying to create would be lost.

I think it would all be moot unless a more effective device was implemented to disseminate the information. I know you have discussed different mediums, but we currently have or have had most all of those. The question is, "How do we get Tom Driver, Richard Manager and Harry Supervisor, none of whom currently take the time to read the bullentin board, attend meetings, watch the quarterly update video or listen to the mile marker cd, to pay attention to what the group is discussing and what progress might have been made"?

Finding a good answer to that one is key to the effectiveness of any plan............

Obviously, we have differing thoughts on some subjects.............I do value your opinion, as it is apparent that you have thoroughly researched things and given solid thought towards finding your conclusions. I respect that even if they differ from mine..............now, how do we get a higher % of our folks the information they need to avoid issues simply caused by communication gaps in order that more time and resources can be dedicated to bigger issues?

Carry on sir.........

Thanks, af!
The only solution, again with some cost: Go back to the old way of presenting the official word from Corporate, via unfiltered video communication, during driver meetings... Everyone required to show up 30 min-1 hour early, however much time required to view. Now the only way to get the "adults" in the back to pay attention, rather than yack about nonsense, would be to have a supervisor/manager sit in. That would be the weak link, and tough to ensure. Still, it would be the best bet, and offers the only way to be sure the intended information accurately reaches the intended audience.

 

[SwampRatt]

I think "yes men" are part of the problem.............I think I said it in an earlier post, but here goes again.............if you arent having uncomfortable conversations, you arent making any progress........

Agreed! I think that's how we got where we are today. No one throughout the management chain willing to speak to their superiors on the negative effects on the employees (and managers too) farther down the chain.

 

[aflifer]

Agreed! I think that's how we got where we are today. No one throughout the management chain willing to speak to their superiors on the negative effects on the employees (and managers too) farther down the chain.

I dont believe I would be willing to say "no one" in the chain provides feedback...........I have confidence (i.e. trust) in several leaders I know that they will work to stand up for what they feel is right for everyone.

Regardless........leadership also doesnt need to give appeasing answers and be "yes men" to their employees either......IMO that can be just as big a problem. I would rather hear the truth and the reasoning behind the decision...........

Much like I was kind of referencing in the earlier post...........I ask that they please tell me the "whys" behind it............I may not necessarily agree with it, but if the logic and thinking is halfway sound, I can then accept it and move on...........from what I see and hear, this is one of the bigger communication "gaps" that I continually refer to as necessary to close up........

 

[SwampRatt]

I dont believe I would be willing to say "no one" in the chain provides feedback...........I have confidence (i.e. trust) in several leaders I know that they will work to stand up for what they feel is right for everyone.

Regardless........leadership also doesnt need to give appeasing answers and be "yes men" to their employees either......IMO that can be just as big a problem. I would rather hear the truth and the reasoning behind the decision...........

Much like I was kind of referencing in the earlier post...........I ask that they please tell me the "whys" behind it............I may not necessarily agree with it, but if the logic and thinking is halfway sound, I can then accept it and move on...........from what I see and hear, this is one of the bigger communication "gaps" that I continually refer to as necessary to close up........

Agreed on all 3 counts. "Few" would have been more accurate on the 1st count.