FedEx Freight | Why do you NOT want the union

Status
Not open for further replies.
The topic of this thread is "why do you NOT want the union", can we please stay on topic for once?

There's already a thread for "why do you want the union", can you post this wealth envy garbage over there please?

And you nay sayers always hi jack our Pro UNION threads, so right back at you.

But to be fair, I'll play along....
Why I DON'T want the Union ( I would have to organize a decertification election to get them out of EPH.) I would quit first. But...

1) I like being an at will victim.
2) I like the empty promises of we are getter better, just hang in there while my raises DECREASED, and health benefits soared.
3) I don't want any organization protecting myself or my coworkers from unjust termination. Like the one that STILL IS in place, just laying low. Why, the dastardly fellow employess deserved to lose their jobs over non events and ridiculous unfounded allegations.
4) I like having my work ethic scrutinized with route evaluations and being pushed to take lunch late in the day while working through the off lunch period.
5) Shareholders should be first, big corporate bonuses second, and anything leftover put back in to executives and shareholders. They are the most crucial element of the company.
6) I am grateful for my 17 dollar bonus check in 2012, while in that same year top execs saw an average of 80% increase in compensation at Fedex (google it). They need that money more than I, so I am grateful to forego..
7) I don't want any outside party interfering with our abrasive and belittling corporate environment. I think our constant abuse we have endured since 09 or so is a appropriate and puts a spring in my step.
8) I like making $1.40 an hour less than UPS Freight and Conway
9) I like being coached because a bill said LB instead of LBS
10) I am happy to contribute 80 dollars a week in medical and thousands for a trip to a hospital. I am also happy to pay 80 dollars for medicine that should be covered by our garbage insurance.
 
And you nay sayers always hi jack our Pro UNION threads, so right back at you.

But to be fair, I'll play along....
Why I DON'T want the Union ( I would have to organize a decertification election to get them out of EPH.) I would quit first. But...

1) I like being an at will victim.
2) I like the empty promises of we are getter better, just hang in there while my raises DECREASED, and health benefits soared.
3) I don't want any organization protecting myself or my coworkers from unjust termination. Like the one that STILL IS in place, just laying low. Why, the dastardly fellow employess deserved to lose their jobs over non events and ridiculous unfounded allegations.
4) I like having my work ethic scrutinized with route evaluations and being pushed to take lunch late in the day while working through the off lunch period.
5) Shareholders should be first, big corporate bonuses second, and anything leftover put back in to executives and shareholders. They are the most crucial element of the company.
6) I am grateful for my 17 dollar bonus check in 2012, while in that same year top execs saw an average of 80% increase in compensation at Fedex (google it). They need that money more than I, so I am grateful to forego..
7) I don't want any outside party interfering with our abrasive and belittling corporate environment. I think our constant abuse we have endured since 09 or so is a appropriate and puts a spring in my step.
8) I like making $1.40 an hour less than UPS Freight and Conway
9) I like being coached because a bill said LB instead of LBS
10) I am happy to contribute 80 dollars a week in medical and thousands for a trip to a hospital. I am also happy to pay 80 dollars for medicine that should be covered by our garbage insurance.

Isn't it so great that we live in this great entitlement country. Go back up and read the article blade posted about health care where it cost Fedex 1.5 billion in health care. I guess that's just chump change to you there smurf. So if we get this grand contract the pro guys claim where is the money going to come from to pay for these awesome bennies. Let me guess you want someone who went to college got their degree in business or economics to take a pay cut so we can have a lucrative contract. You tell me where you can go be a truck driver and be home every day/night and still make 60-100k a year please enlighten me I might go apply.
 

Interesting read. Really. And I do respect the Heritage Foundation, but know that this is an article by one guy. He effectively uses words like many, some, often, Numerous and typically...

The article states lots of facts as well as opinions, mixed well, while not always distinguishing which is which.

This seems to be fact
"Numerous economic studies compare the average earnings of union and non-union workers, holding other measurable factors--age, gender, education, and industry--constant. These studies typically find that the average union member earns roughly 15 percent more than comparable non-union workers.[10] More recent research shows that errors in the data used to estimate wages caused these estimates to understate the true difference. Estimates that correct these errors show that the average union member earns between 20 percent and 25 percent more than similar non-union workers."

This seems like opinion:
"They are cartels that work by keeping employment down to raise wages for their members."

Several conflicting assertions are made:

"Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees"

Followed by this:

" One Canadian study expressly examined how much of the difference between union and non-union wages was caused by unions and how much came from unmeasured individual skills. Over three-fifths of the higher wages earned by union members came from having more valuable skills, not from union membership itself"

Also, the article fails to mention what the state of the labor market might be like without labor unions. Labor Unions are a critical component of Capitalism. Even for those that choose not to be a member, the value of (and the presence of) private sector Labor Unions, provide balance in the industries where they exist.

 
Interesting read. Really. And I do respect the Heritage Foundation, but know that this is an article by one guy. He effectively uses words like many, some, often, Numerous and typically...

The article states lots of facts as well as opinions, mixed well, while not always distinguishing which is which.

This seems to be fact
"Numerous economic studies compare the average earnings of union and non-union workers, holding other measurable factors--age, gender, education, and industry--constant. These studies typically find that the average union member earns roughly 15 percent more than comparable non-union workers.[10] More recent research shows that errors in the data used to estimate wages caused these estimates to understate the true difference. Estimates that correct these errors show that the average union member earns between 20 percent and 25 percent more than similar non-union workers."

This seems like opinion:
"They are cartels that work by keeping employment down to raise wages for their members."

Several conflicting assertions are made:

"Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees"

Followed by this:

" One Canadian study expressly examined how much of the difference between union and non-union wages was caused by unions and how much came from unmeasured individual skills. Over three-fifths of the higher wages earned by union members came from having more valuable skills, not from union membership itself"

Also, the article fails to mention what the state of the labor market might be like without labor unions. Labor Unions are a critical component of Capitalism. Even for those that choose not to be a member, the value of (and the presence of) private sector Labor Unions, provide balance in the industries where they exist.
Heritage foundation tells you all you need to know. They're an antiunion "thinktank" who's sole purpose is to push procorporate agenda and try to crush all union activity as that is really all the opposition they have. Unions are they're #1 enemy because if they pay the workers more that will directly effect executive compensation. It all started in the mid 70's by the chamber of commerce and business roundtable and thecwar on workers still rages on. Pitifull how so many hourly employees believe these executives deserve this kind of compensation just because they went to college. Without drivers and dockhands the company would be nothing
 
Heritage foundation tells you all you need to know. They're an antiunion "thinktank" who's sole purpose is to push procorporate agenda and try to crush all union activity as that is really all the opposition they have. Unions are they're #1 enemy because if they pay the workers more that will directly effect executive compensation. It all started in the mid 70's by the chamber of commerce and business roundtable and thecwar on workers still rages on. Pitifull how so many hourly employees believe these executives deserve this kind of compensation just because they went to college. Without drivers and dockhands the company would be nothing


And the main reason for the Unions being a number one enemy, is the $$$. It's a multi-billion dollar industry, which surprises me, in that a company would rather hire these clowns and **** over their own work force with continued low wages, high health insurance and hardly any kind of retirement. But then again, the masses have been known to be led to their demise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting read. Really. And I do respect the Heritage Foundation, but know that this is an article by one guy. He effectively uses words like many, some, often, Numerous and typically...

The article states lots of facts as well as opinions, mixed well, while not always distinguishing which is which.

This seems to be fact
"Numerous economic studies compare the average earnings of union and non-union workers, holding other measurable factors--age, gender, education, and industry--constant. These studies typically find that the average union member earns roughly 15 percent more than comparable non-union workers.[10] More recent research shows that errors in the data used to estimate wages caused these estimates to understate the true difference. Estimates that correct these errors show that the average union member earns between 20 percent and 25 percent more than similar non-union workers."

This seems like opinion:
"They are cartels that work by keeping employment down to raise wages for their members."

Agreed with all of the above.

SwampRatt said:
Several conflicting assertions are made:

"Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees"

I agree with above generalization and don't see it as conflicting to the statement quoted below. Generally, the "best" at any particular skill/trade/job, don't want their careers to be stymied.

SwampRatt said:
Followed by this:

" One Canadian study expressly examined how much of the difference between union and non-union wages was caused by unions and how much came from unmeasured individual skills. Over three-fifths of the higher wages earned by union members came from having more valuable skills, not from union membership itself"

An underwater welders' skills are more valuable than a ditch diggers' skills. If almost all underwater welders are union and the ditch diggers are fairly evenly split, then you can say that over 60% of the higher union wages are attributed to their skills being more valuable. If you look at the non-union and union ditch-diggers you may find that the union ditch-diggers make 20-25% more. If you look at underwater welders you may find that the very best of the underwater welders aren't union, but rather sole proprietors where they can make more, because they are the very best at what they do, than the union welders. Hope that made it clearer how all the above can be true at the same time.
 
Heritage foundation tells you all you need to know. They're an antiunion "thinktank" who's sole purpose is to push procorporate agenda and try to crush all union activity as that is really all the opposition they have. Unions are they're #1 enemy because if they pay the workers more that will directly effect executive compensation. It all started in the mid 70's by the chamber of commerce and business roundtable and thecwar on workers still rages on. Pitifull how so many hourly employees believe these executives deserve this kind of compensation just because they went to college. Without drivers and dockhands the company would be nothing
Without the executives, there wouldn't have been driving and dockhand jobs in the first place!
Has a poor man every offered you a job?
 
Agreed with all of the above.



I agree with above generalization and don't see it as conflicting to the statement quoted below. Generally, the "best" at any particular skill/trade/job, don't want their careers to be stymied.



An underwater welders' skills are more valuable than a ditch diggers' skills. If almost all underwater welders are union and the ditch diggers are fairly evenly split, then you can say that over 60% of the higher union wages are attributed to their skills being more valuable. If you look at the non-union and union ditch-diggers you may find that the union ditch-diggers make 20-25% more. If you look at underwater welders you may find that the very best of the underwater welders aren't union, but rather sole proprietors where they can make more, because they are the very best at what they do, than the union welders. Hope that made it clearer how all the above can be true at the same time.

Fair assessment, Ex. I can see that as possible. Some trades do almost require membership, for significant contracts, etc. I see said the blind man :smilie93c peelout:
 
Fair assessment, Ex. I can see that as possible. Some trades do almost require membership, for significant contracts, etc. I see said the blind man :smilie93c peelout:

It doesn't help when the author mixes opinion and fact without clearly identifying them as such. Writing using a number of subjective words tends to alert the skeptics. I know first-hand ;)

For a blind man you sure seem to be able to see things for what they are. If life experiences didn't put your bs detector in the sensitive mode then I would worry about your observational skills.
 
Without the executives, there wouldn't have been driving and dockhand jobs in the first place!
Your executives are just doing a job just like you. They didn't start fedx frt or reinvent the wheel. Only difference is they have a contract and you don't, your a fire at will employee; if they get fired (never happen) they'll get they're golden parachute you'll get a cinder block. Ceo pay 331 times the avg worker ya think that might be a little out of balance?
 
Actually, a lot of the TOP execs did start the company...with FedEx and AF.
No, not really. I was hired to provide a service just like them...their service just pays more than mine...I knew that going in, didn't you?
 
Actually, a lot of the TOP execs did start the company...with FedEx and AF.
No, not really. I was hired to provide a service just like them...their service just pays more than mine...I knew that going in, didn't you?
Really amazing how thoroughly this trickle down Reaganomics bs has permeated our economy. No i dont believe they are worth 331 times what the avg worker is making, thats why the economy has dried up and will only get worse because hourly wages are not keeping up with inflation and one of the mainreasons their not is because of the attacks on unions
 
Really amazing how thoroughly this trickle down Reaganomics bs has permeated our economy. No i dont believe they are worth 331 times what the avg worker is making, thats why the economy has dried up and will only get worse because hourly wages are not keeping up with inflation and one of the mainreasons their not is because of the attacks on unions
So my guess is you don't believe professional athletes are worth the money they're making either?
And I'm guessing you believe minimum wage should be $15 an hour too?
 
Actually, a lot of the TOP execs did start the company...with FedEx and AF.
No, not really. I was hired to provide a service just like them...their service just pays more than mine...I knew that going in, didn't you?
You really bought into
So my guess is you don't believe professional athletes are worth the money they're making either?
And I'm guessing you believe minimum wage should be $15 an hour too?
Professional athletes a perfect example for our discussion so glad you brought them up. Pro athletes are all union employees who have negotiated they're fair share of they're leagues revenue. I have no problem with how much the players(workers) make as long as they get they're share. And as far as the minimum wage im more concerned about workers getting they're fair share. Mcdonalds for example has the highest exec/worker ratio at over 700 times they can afford to pay they're workers better, because after all its me and you that pay the rest of they're salary through food stamps, emergency room visits, rent assistance and other govt benefits. I would like to see the minimum wage tied to the inflation rate tho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top