What's new

Yellow | Darren’s letter to court

Marlin444 said:
I thought we were discussing protections. Seniority is another subject.
And explain to me what “at will” means again. You can come back with something better than horseshit.
Click to expand...
Seniority offers protections. Protections that a junior man can't take your bid, your desired vacation day, protection that you won't get laid off while a junior man works. Overtime opportunities on scheduled days off before they are offered to somebody junior, etc.

I called horseshit because I wasn't going to waste bandwidth trying to explain to you the various protections you had. If you said you had more at a union barn I would have absolutely agreed. Claiming you only had one at the non is ignorant at best.

Employed at the will of your employer. He loses the will, you lose your job. Simple.
 
Real Teamster said:
Ex, this is the origins of labor unions. 100+ years ago, that's the enslavement that dominated the workplace. When the employees collectively stood up against that tyranny, things started changing toward humanism. Along came those outrageous things called the weekend, family life, a living wage, medical insurance, rest and recuperation (also called vacation). That was not at all a bad thing for society; in fact society improved remarkably, benefitting everyone.
Click to expand...
I can't effectively argue that they didn't have their place or that they didn't serve a purpose because we don't know, for certain, where we would be today without them.

I believe the market will take care of itself if we let it. People will migrate towards good employers. When employers don't treat employees well enough those folks go elsewhere. Those employers eventually have nobody to do the work and they go under our they treat their employees better and survive.
 
EX396 said:
Seniority offers protections. Protections that a junior man can't take your bid, your desired vacation day, protection that you won't get laid off while a junior man works. Overtime opportunities on scheduled days off before they are offered to somebody junior, etc.

I called horseshit because I wasn't going to waste bandwidth trying to explain to you the various protections you had. If you said you had more at a union barn I would have absolutely agreed. Claiming you only had one at the non is ignorant at best.

Employed at the will of your employer. He loses the will, you lose your job. Simple.
Click to expand...
If you are an “at will“ employee, then you have none of those protections you just mentioned. Because, you are at the mercy of the employer to keep your job whether you have 20-years or one day. As you already said, they can cut you loose whenever “your employer loses the will”. And who does the employee have in his corner to defend him? NOBODY!!!
So……….horseshit right back at ‘cha!!!
 
EX396 said:
Seniority offers protections. Protections that a junior man can't take your bid, your desired vacation day, protection that you won't get laid off while a junior man works. Overtime opportunities on scheduled days off before they are offered to somebody junior, etc.

I called horseshit because I wasn't going to waste bandwidth trying to explain to you the various protections you had. If you said you had more at a union barn I would have absolutely agreed. Claiming you only had one at the non is ignorant at best.

Employed at the will of your employer. He loses the will, you lose your job. Simple.
Click to expand...
Those types of seniority protections are true but we’re not discussing those, are we? Stay on point here. Does seniority determine whether a senior man can start a disciplinary grievance and have representation over a junior man? Or whether a high achiever can over a sub-standard employee? Those rights are granted to every member, regardless of rank or performance.
We can have our ignorance discussion another time.
 
Last edited:
Steward of the Rock said:
If you are an “at will“ employee, then you have none of those protections you just mentioned. Because, you are at the mercy of the employer to keep your job whether you have 20-years or one day. As you already said, they can cut you loose whenever “your employer loses the will”. And who does the employee have in his corner to defend him? NOBODY!!!
So……….horseshit right back at ‘cha!!!
Click to expand...
However if there is a 95% or higher chance the LTL carrier you work for will shut down what good are any of these 'protections'
Having protections at a company that odds are will shut down really are not protections....
Most LTL is now handled by non union carriers and thousands of those employees seem to be doing very well.
 
Steward of the Rock said:
If you are an “at will“ employee, then you have none of those protections you just mentioned. Because, you are at the mercy of the employer to keep your job whether you have 20-years or one day. As you already said, they can cut you loose whenever “your employer loses the will”. And who does the employee have in his corner to defend him? NOBODY!!!
So……….horseshit right back at ‘cha!!!
Click to expand...
He has his work ethic in his corner. Valued employees don't get fired. Employers aren't stupid, good employees are hard to find and the vetting process isn't free.
 
Marlin444 said:
Those types of seniority protections are true but we’re not discussing those, are we? Stay on point here. Does seniority determine whether a senior man can start a disciplinary grievance and have representation over a junior man? Or whether a high achiever can over a sub-standard employee? Those rights are granted to every member, regardless of rank or performance.
We can have our ignorance discussion another time.
Click to expand...
Yes we are discussing those. You're the one who claimed that the union offers the same protections to the 20 year guy as the 2 week guy. While the grievance protection might be the same all those other protections are not.
 
EX396 said:
Yes we are discussing those. You're the one who claimed that the union offers the same protections to the 20 year guy as the 2 week guy. While the grievance protection might be the same all those other protections are not.
Click to expand...
When I posted that, we were referencing equal pay and job protections for sub-standard employees, weren’t we? I didn’t bring up seniority protections which is an entirely different subject. You know that. Good diversion attempt, though.
 
Last edited:
Puff Driver said:
Ok that's 3 non unions vs. hundreds of teamster LTL carriers. So what is the ratio of teamster LTL carriers gone out of business vs. non union? 100 to 1 or so?????
The event I spoke of happened at NEMF In Wallington, NJ.
And thank you for liking my story... Written in the first person..
Click to expand...
Puff, remember where I wrote "there are countless others"?? That's what I meant.
 
EX396 said:
Seniority offers protections. Protections that a junior man can't take your bid, your desired vacation day, protection that you won't get laid off while a junior man works. Overtime opportunities on scheduled days off before they are offered to somebody junior, etc.

I called horseshit because I wasn't going to waste bandwidth trying to explain to you the various protections you had. If you said you had more at a union barn I would have absolutely agreed. Claiming you only had one at the non is ignorant at best.

Employed at the will of your employer. He loses the will, you lose your job. Simple.
Click to expand...
Those "protections" offered stability; stability caused workers to go buy houses for their families, automobiles, TVs and refrigerators, etc. etc. To be perfectly frank Ex, if the management of Yellow (and a lot of other companies) would have made a larger focus on making sure that the employees knew how good they had it but that there is a price tag associated with stability of that goodness, things may well have been different. I for one offered (to senior management) to spend some time traveling and holding "come to Jesus" and "pep rally" meetings where those things were most needed. That offer fell on deaf ears. That was very frustrating to me, I have to say. I could have and offered to accomplish a lot on a shoestring budget, but they really weren't interested in pursuing that. Could have made a huge difference.
 
Marlin444 said:
When I posted that, we were referencing equal pay and job protections for sub-standard employees, weren’t we? I didn’t bring up seniority protections which is an entirely different subject. You know that. Good diversion attempt, though.
Click to expand...
My original question was: "You're happy the sub-standard workers are compensated and protected the same as the high achiever?"

I said compensation and protection, which doesn't exclude any type of compensation or protection. I'm not diverting, you're choosing to ignore the protections and compensation that folks with 20 years get than those with 2 weeks don't because it doesn't support your claim.
 
Real Teamster said:
Those "protections" offered stability; stability caused workers to go buy houses for their families, automobiles, TVs and refrigerators, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Stability didn't cause those things to happen. If it did, at-will employees wouldn't own houses, automobiles, TVs, refrigerators, etc.
 
Real Teamster said:
Yes they would, although probably not as high a percentage of them.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I could present data from the NAR and the Labor Department showing that homeownership rates have increased over 65% in the last several decades while union membership rates are down over 50%. Correlation doesn't equal causation, though. I would like to think that the more secure folks feel the more likely they are to make such large purchases, and I suspect that is the logic of your argument. However, I don't have as much faith in peoples' financial decision making abilities. Anecdotally, I know too many young adults, making very good money, still renting/living at home with almost $100K in trucks and toys...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top