Quote:
Originally Posted by x475  Thank you for giving credit where credit is due. Most non-unions are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the fact their wages are upheld by union scale.
However, I find find it puzzling, to say the least , how you can be "staunch non-union" yet credit the union for your high wages?
You opine that the union has failed to "evolve". If by evolve, you mean give up job classifications and work rules and policies, I'd say we did just that in this last contract via the velocity and UE language.
You did not want to delve into politics, so suffice to say this: I am a member of two large organizations that are adamantly supporting opposing candidates. My vote is not beholden to either group, I vote what I feel is the best for my country. Not best for selfish me or the special interest groups I belong to, but best for my country.
You say the union offers too much "employment (not job) protection". Unless you've sat in a greivance hearing and heard both sides, I doubt you have enough facts to render judgement. But union membership not only protects those you deem unfit for employment, it protects hard working men like yourself. It protects you from at will employment status, so your load, your job cannot be taken from you on a managers whim, and given to a brother-in-law, or buddy or the omnipresent brown-noser.
You urge the union members to "make it work...For all of us...".
In response, I ask you to reject your staunch anti union mindset and look at all the benefits of union membership. Don't sit on the sidelines and ask union members to do the hard work and sacrifice and the heavy lifting so you can ride our coattails to a better standard of living.
x475 |
First of all, good fair reply to my initial post.
I think you answered your own question of how as a "staunch non-union" driver, I can give credit to the union. It is very simple. I'm giving credit where it is due. To not acknowledge this is ignoring the facts.
As far as my view on evolving, you know much more about the contract than me so I'll take your word on the contract. My point is there seems to be a lot of resistance to the Velocity. With the razor-thin margins in the LTL industry these days, you simply cannot have drivers classified to only work certain freight. Filing a grievance because someone is working freight they are not classified to work is like digging your own grave in 2008's LTL industry. As far as the sleeping driver, we have those too. This is not unique to any company.
Too much employment protection is also simple. Two of those fired during my time here were due to a combination of attendance and job performance issues. One senior and one junior to me. Both were nothing more than a drain on the company. The company did not owe these guys a job. One other was fired covering up a small accident. That is a pretty big no-no. Another was three serious accidents. I suppose I don't know all the details, but all three were the types we all shake our heads at. Where I agree with you on this point is where the line is drawn. We have knee-jerk reactions to one incident that costs the next guy who makes the mistake his job.
As far as my wish for Velocity to succeed.. Lets be clear here.. I want my company to remain non-union and believe it always will because of the things I have mentioned above. As far as wages, I think we have now reached a point where all the decent non-unions will pay a good wage with or without a big union presence in the industry. You can argue that point but that is my belief. I want it to succeed because it creates a check and balance system across the entire industry. With no big union companies, there would be nothing stopping the out-sourcing off all linehaul. With no non-union setting the bar on transit times, you would become stagnant and loose out to truckloads hauling your non-time sensitive freight for next to nothing. The two balance each other out.
Hope that clears up some of what I said..