XPO | Xpo Union Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOT JUST MY OPINION. THIS IS FROM THE GUARDIAN.

Pay particular attention to the bold paragraph as a huge consideration when companies try to increase profit. Another way unions can help companies become more profitable.

For workers, the value of joining a trade union is obvious. Union members tend to earn more than non-unionized employees for the same sort of work. They’re more likely to have secure contracts, sick pay and other benefits. Union reps make sure bosses don’t cut corners on health and safety, which is why there are up to 50% fewer accidents in unionized workplaces.

From the perspective of the employer, things are a bit more ambiguous. Collective bargaining increases the power of workers, allowing them to make demands that management might otherwise be unwilling to meet. It’s not surprising, then, that companies often fight tooth and nail to avoid recognizing a union in their workplace. I recently heard about a factory in the US that displayed baby formula and nappies – worth the equivalent of a year’s union dues – to deter employees from signing up. Though unionising would probably increase workers’ income in the long run, committing to the initial outlay is difficult when you’re barely earning enough to get by.

Arguing that trade unions help their members isn’t going to win everyone round, especially if they work somewhere without union representation. Because of the power of collective bargaining, wages and terms of employment tend to be better in public sector jobs. Instead of seeing this as evidence that more private sector work forces should unionize, organizations like the Tax Payers’ Alliance want to encourage jealousy and resentment.

The thing is, trade unions don’t only benefit workers. Unionization also has some knock-on advantages for employers, which serve to undermine the Tax Payers’ Alliance claims. That £15m was allegedly calculated by adding up the paid working hours that union reps spend on union duties. This includes things like representing workers in disciplinary and grievance cases, improving health and safety protections, and providing training opportunities.

Far from being a waste, these activities save taxpayers money in the long run. Research undertaken on behalf of the Trades Union Congress found that, in the public sector, there are 8,000-16,000 fewer dismissals every year thanks to union reps. Unionized workers are also significantly less likely to quit, as they have a mechanism to sort out any problems. Recruiting and training new employees is expensive, and it’s estimated that £27m-£54m of public money is saved by reducing staff turnover. Union health and safety reps help save money too: fewer injuries mean less time off, and fewer compensation payments.

Instead of fighting their staff every step of the way, union-busting private sector employers should follow the lead of the public sector and recognize that trade unions have advantages for everyone. As a taxpayer, I’m happy to know my contributions are being spent sensibly on workers who are happy and protected. Beyond the attention-grabbing figures, all the Tax Payers’ Alliance is advocating is a race to the bottom.
 
NOT JUST MY OPINION. THIS IS FROM THE GUARDIAN.

Pay particular attention to the bold paragraph as a huge consideration when companies try to increase profit. Another way unions can help companies become more profitable.

For workers, the value of joining a trade union is obvious. Union members tend to earn more than non-unionized employees for the same sort of work. They’re more likely to have secure contracts, sick pay and other benefits. Union reps make sure bosses don’t cut corners on health and safety, which is why there are up to 50% fewer accidents in unionized workplaces.

From the perspective of the employer, things are a bit more ambiguous. Collective bargaining increases the power of workers, allowing them to make demands that management might otherwise be unwilling to meet. It’s not surprising, then, that companies often fight tooth and nail to avoid recognizing a union in their workplace. I recently heard about a factory in the US that displayed baby formula and nappies – worth the equivalent of a year’s union dues – to deter employees from signing up. Though unionising would probably increase workers’ income in the long run, committing to the initial outlay is difficult when you’re barely earning enough to get by.

Arguing that trade unions help their members isn’t going to win everyone round, especially if they work somewhere without union representation. Because of the power of collective bargaining, wages and terms of employment tend to be better in public sector jobs. Instead of seeing this as evidence that more private sector work forces should unionize, organizations like the Tax Payers’ Alliance want to encourage jealousy and resentment.

The thing is, trade unions don’t only benefit workers. Unionization also has some knock-on advantages for employers, which serve to undermine the Tax Payers’ Alliance claims. That £15m was allegedly calculated by adding up the paid working hours that union reps spend on union duties. This includes things like representing workers in disciplinary and grievance cases, improving health and safety protections, and providing training opportunities.

Far from being a waste, these activities save taxpayers money in the long run. Research undertaken on behalf of the Trades Union Congress found that, in the public sector, there are 8,000-16,000 fewer dismissals every year thanks to union reps. Unionized workers are also significantly less likely to quit, as they have a mechanism to sort out any problems. Recruiting and training new employees is expensive, and it’s estimated that £27m-£54m of public money is saved by reducing staff turnover. Union health and safety reps help save money too: fewer injuries mean less time off, and fewer compensation payments.

Instead of fighting their staff every step of the way, union-busting private sector employers should follow the lead of the public sector and recognize that trade unions have advantages for everyone. As a taxpayer, I’m happy to know my contributions are being spent sensibly on workers who are happy and protected. Beyond the attention-grabbing figures, all the Tax Payers’ Alliance is advocating is a race to the bottom.
England is a socialist county, just like Canada. Your apples to oranges. Xpo is unionized in Europe. So not sure if you picked the proper article to make your point.
 
England is a socialist county, just like Canada. Your apples to oranges. Xpo is unionized in Europe. So not sure if you picked the proper article to make your point.

Why do you think there is a difference? I am asking genuinely because I'm not sure the relationship between labor and management will differ based on the form of government in place, unless of course it's a communist country, which England is not.
 
Why do you think there is a difference? I am asking genuinely because I'm not sure the relationship between labor and management will differ based on the form of government in place, unless of course it's a communist country, which England is not.
We have way more rights for employees than you do. Same as in Europe. Two different playing fields.
 
We have way more rights for employees than you do. Same as in Europe. Two different playing fields.

I'm afraid I would have to agree with both you and Joe's on this. Yes, fewer workers rights here in the states, and, by that very reason, workers here would benefit more from a union.
 
Xpo employees are “at will employees” you only have basic rights in the work place such as discrimination, minimum wage and safety standards.
Xpo could turn your seniority list upside down, fire senior drivers without reason and guess what .... not a law on the books that could protect you.
 
Incorrect information...
The United Parcel Service strike of 1997, led by International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) President Ron Carey, started on August 4, 1997, and involved over 185,000 teamsters (IBT members).[1] The strike effectively shut down United Parcel Service (UPS) operations for 16 days [2] and cost UPS hundreds of millions of dollars.[3] The strike was a victory for the union, resulting in a new contract that increased their wages, secured their existing benefits and gave increased job security.[4]
Very true UPS did go on strike then. I was referring to just the LTL industry end of the Teamster. At that time UPS was small packages only. So it was my error not saying in my post that it was the last time any Teamster LTL company striked
 
I think that's what I said. The same expiration date would not be relevant.
In some of your post you talk about a trucker strike messed up the auto industry. So explain how the big 3 Teamster LTL carriers will screw up the LTL world when there their contract expiration dates are all different.
UPSF 31 July 2023
ABF 30 June 2023
YRC 31 March 2024
So what you are saying is if on 30 June 2023 ABF goes on strike the other will follow. To me it sound like a violation of there contract with their respected companies. The only way to hurt the LTL system it if they all went on strike at the same time. We all know that wont happen
 
Xpo employees are “at will employees” you only have basic rights in the work place such as discrimination, minimum wage and safety standards.
Xpo could turn your seniority list upside down, fire senior drivers without reason and guess what .... not a law on the books that could protect you.
Why do you keep making this "at will employees" a thing. You have been at will since you first day working here. CCX, and Con-way both had the same policy. Now it a big issue
 
In some of your post you talk about a trucker strike messed up the auto industry. So explain how the big 3 Teamster LTL carriers will screw up the LTL world when there their contract expiration dates are all different.
UPSF 31 July 2023
ABF 30 June 2023
YRC 31 March 2024
So what you are saying is if on 30 June 2023 ABF goes on strike the other will follow. To me it sound like a violation of there contract with their respected companies. The only way to hurt the LTL system it if they all went on strike at the same time. We all know that wont happen

Think YRC will make it to 2024 ? They will need to find a way to start making money.
 
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/federal-labor-board-ruling-seen-as-win-for-ltl-employers
“This is a win for unionized trucking companies, because it makes it a little easier for the company to show when it has the power to make unilateral changes in employment policy, whereas prior to today’s decision they had a higher standard to overcome,” Finklea told FreightWaves. The Teamsters Union was not available to comment.

So, you think this is a good thing , that it may be a little bit easier now for companies to change policy to suit their whims at the expense of their employees, ignoring the terms of a contract that they signed in good will. Now, if they want to change terms in mid stream, that's fine with you. What's going on in your mind that makes this acceptable?
 
So, you think this is a good thing , that it may be a little bit easier now for companies to change policy to suit their whims at the expense of their employees, ignoring the terms of a contract that they signed in good will. Now, if they want to change terms in mid stream, that's fine with you. What's going on in your mind that makes this acceptable?
You talk about the law and labor rules it seems that the D.C. Circuit has applied the “contract coverage” standard for more than 25 years in appeals cases – even sanctioning the board in 2016 for continuing to apply the previous and more strict “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard.
So the NLRB has been enforcing a rule that has been rejected by the court for the last 25yrs.
I'm also just putting it out there that the work rule the unions push don't have as much power as they say.
 
You talk about the law and labor rules it seems that the D.C. Circuit has applied the “contract coverage” standard for more than 25 years in appeals cases – even sanctioning the board in 2016 for continuing to apply the previous and more strict “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard.
So the NLRB has been enforcing a rule that has been rejected by the court for the last 25yrs.
I'm also just putting it out there that the work rule the unions push don't have as much power as they say.
What power do yo have with your work rules? Company can change course whenever they want & their is nothing you can do about it....At least at a union shop you can contest the issue through the grievance procedure....
 
You talk about the law and labor rules it seems that the D.C. Circuit has applied the “contract coverage” standard for more than 25 years in appeals cases – even sanctioning the board in 2016 for continuing to apply the previous and more strict “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard.
So the NLRB has been enforcing a rule that has been rejected by the court for the last 25yrs.
I'm also just putting it out there that the work rule the unions push don't have as much power as they say.

You are correct that unions no longer have the power that they once had. But they have 100% more power than ANY non union barn. Part of the diminishing influence is because some drivers feel that the company actually cares about them and will look after their interests. I think the XPO's behavior since the buyout has dispelled that attitude. Most of the reason for the diminishing power is drivers failure to understand that they are not being compensated for the work they do. Many drivers simply do not understand what they are worth and what can be accomplished if we stand together and demand what we are worth. Many don't realize that while executive compensation has gone through the roof, drivers are being compensated at the same levels as the 1980's, when inflation is applied to the formula. The motto of this country is E Pluribus Unum...out of many, one. Can it be any clearer? Even the founding fathers knew that no one colony alone had the power to defeat England. But, united, look at what we did.

In addition, we should all realize that the 5 member Board of the NLRB is now leaning conservative and we can all expect decisions to lean towards big business in the near future. Trump's last appointment, William Emmanuel has already had to recuse himself from over 40 cases citing conflict of interest. Can you imagine an NLRB Board Member having to recuse himself. What does that say about his impartiality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top