What's new

FedEx Freight | CORPORATE communication FEEDBACK

Redracer3136 said:
Do you not realize how many people "testified" during the OJ and Rodney King trials?? Do you not remember the defense also presented video in the King trial?? Oh wait, that may have been before your time.
Did you not watch the video during your pre-shift?
Click to expand...

What does all of that have to do with fed ex law suit they lost against teamsters? You can say what you want but they lost the law suit, but they didn't mention that in our latest video did they?
 
Cab Lizzard said:
Red ask your TM if he has a video camera to use when the Teamsters show up.
You can bet your clown suit they got the whole day on video.
Click to expand...
All teamster activity is on video at my center...I will say they DO stand to the side and allow traffic in and out of our center....but then again, all five of them couldn't block the driveway if they tried!!
 
Crazy Trucker said:
What does all of that have to do with fed ex law suit they lost against teamsters? You can say what you want but they lost the law suit, but they didn't mention that in our latest video did they?
Click to expand...
It doesn't....my original response was to The Point and his accusations, you just chimed in with your useless rhetoric as usual.
 
Redracer3136 said:
It doesn't....my original response was to The Point and his accusations, you just chimed in with your useless rhetoric as usual.
Click to expand...

I now you don't like being wrong but you are the one with accusations he has facts to back his argument. I chimed in because you are wrong once again you can go back to being in denial now.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
I now you don't like being wrong but you are the one with accusations he has facts to back his argument. I chimed in because you are wrong once again you can go back to being in denial now.
Click to expand...
The company provided visual proof, the camera doesn't lie....unlike testimony, if you want to call that facts.
You chimed in because it's what you do...you can't help it though, I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
 
Redracer3136 said:
The company provided visual proof, the camera doesn't lie....unlike testimony, if you want to call that facts.
You chimed in because it's what you do...you can't help it though, I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
Click to expand...

You should feel sorry for yourself anybody that is in looser denial as much as you is in bad shape. The company proved nothing with the 10 seconds of video that cut off before the company thug tried to start a physical altercation. Probably the reason they lost in court.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
I now you don't like being wrong but you are the one with accusations he has facts to back his argument. I chimed in because you are wrong once again you can go back to being in denial now.
Click to expand...
Anyone is welcome to chime in. I will assume that red is taking shots at me by what CT is saying. I have been enjoying the lack of his response to my posts for a good 6 months. Love that ignore feature. Now in response to what the company proved in the video. They proved careful editing, lack of correct information, a willingness to try and scare anyone into thinking this was actually bad when in fact it was the anti union crowd doing all the bad stuff. The company lost money because they chose not to move freight in or out. If there were truly a small number of workers involved like the company said then why didn't the majority stick together to get the job done? Because the company basically folded. They never attempted to negotiate ingress or egress. why?
 
The Point said:
Anyone is welcome to chime in. I will assume that red is taking shots at me by what CT is saying. I have been enjoying the lack of his response to my posts for a good 6 months. Love that ignore feature. Now in response to what the company proved in the video. They proved careful editing, lack of correct information, a willingness to try and scare anyone into thinking this was actually bad when in fact it was the anti union crowd doing all the bad stuff. The company lost money because they chose not to move freight in or out. If there were truly a small number of workers involved like the company said then why didn't the majority stick together to get the job done? Because the company basically folded. They never attempted to negotiate ingress or egress. why?
Click to expand...
The phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste" comes to mind. In that respect, it was well played.
 
RoUkXAt.jpg


Worth remembering, since the performance numbers are out.
 
Redracer3136 said:
The company provided visual proof, the camera doesn't lie....unlike testimony, if you want to call that facts.
You chimed in because it's what you do...you can't help it though, I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
Click to expand...
I'm curious, if the company showed the video in court why did the court believe the testimony over the video? if the company did not use video in court why use it in a mandatory pre-shift meeting?
 
The Point said:
Anyone is welcome to chime in. I will assume that red is taking shots at me by what CT is saying. I have been enjoying the lack of his response to my posts for a good 6 months. Love that ignore feature. Now in response to what the company proved in the video. They proved careful editing, lack of correct information, a willingness to try and scare anyone into thinking this was actually bad when in fact it was the anti union crowd doing all the bad stuff. The company lost money because they chose not to move freight in or out. If there were truly a small number of workers involved like the company said then why didn't the majority stick together to get the job done? Because the company basically folded. They never attempted to negotiate ingress or egress. why?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's right, you're used to posting on other social media sites with like minded users where everyone agrees with you.....NEWS FLASH: this ain't Tumbleweeds!!!

As for your propaganda, the company claimed the protesters were the aggressors by not allowing employees to ingress or egress the premises...the video shown proves this fact. In another thread, http://www.truckingboards.com/bb/threads/gardena-ca-on-strike-walkout.71005/, several pro-union posters claimed the protesters weren't aggressive and never blocked the entrance...again, the video proved they were wrong.
The company chose to close that center for the day due to the aggression shown by the protesters...which was evident in the video. Eventhough only a handful of employees (four) were involved in the protest, the company chose to not risk the harm of the remaining employees by bringing them in to work...again, due to the aggression shown on the video.
Why should the company have to "negotiate" ingress or egress of the premises when it's a direct violation of the NLRB's policy concerning an ULP strike?? Due to the protesters violating this policy, as evident in the video, technically they should've lost any protection afforded to them by the NLRB....but since this strike was conducted in the People's Republic of California, I'm quite certain they'll probably get away with their actions!!
 
joes bar and grill said:
I'll rephrase it so as not to confuse the question, why did the company show the video in a meeting?
Click to expand...

They showed a 10 second clip that cut off right before the company thug tryed to get aggressive and start a fight he even claimed he had a gun. Talk about thugs all through this whole campaign it's been someone from the company who tried to resort to violence it's what bc got walked out for.
 
joes bar and grill said:
I'll rephrase it so as not to confuse the question, why did the company show the video in a meeting?
Click to expand...
To use it as a scare tactic. Why didn't the company show another version that was freely posted to the internet showing a car leaving without any issue also? You could not see the driver exiting the video due to distance and light level, so the company could say he was pulled out. The audio contradicts the actions. The video is heard someone saying don't get out. The company is trying to equate this to Overnite.
 
Redracer3136 said:
Oh, that's right, you're used to posting on other social media sites with like minded users where everyone agrees with you.....NEWS FLASH: this ain't Tumbleweeds!!!

As for your propaganda, the company claimed the protesters were the aggressors by not allowing employees to ingress or egress the premises...the video shown proves this fact. In another thread, http://www.truckingboards.com/bb/threads/gardena-ca-on-strike-walkout.71005/, several pro-union posters claimed the protesters weren't aggressive and never blocked the entrance...again, the video proved they were wrong.
The company chose to close that center for the day due to the aggression shown by the protesters...which was evident in the video. Eventhough only a handful of employees (four) were involved in the protest, the company chose to not risk the harm of the remaining employees by bringing them in to work...again, due to the aggression shown on the video.
Why should the company have to "negotiate" ingress or egress of the premises when it's a direct violation of the NLRB's policy concerning an ULP strike?? Due to the protesters violating this policy, as evident in the video, technically they should've lost any protection afforded to them by the NLRB....but since this strike was conducted in the People's Republic of California, I'm quite certain they'll probably get away with their actions!!
Click to expand...
Blame it on California!?!?!? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top