XPO | XPO Union Thread #2

[icuicp]

If and when there is a Recession union employees would be at a distinct at advantage due to their contractual agreement with their employer. If a recession were to occur in the middle of a contractual agreement term employees would have the advantage of that binding document . Their employer would have to approve grave financial distress to bring an amendment to vote during the contract and they will have a vote on it. Nonunion non-contractual employees could be at risk of a give back during a recession. (Con-way 2008). If the employer decide to take back compensation non union employees will have no say. Thats one of the reasons Xpo fights unionization so hard.

I think the article you posted applies to the uptick in new union activities with companies that have yet been unionized. A recession MAY put employers at an advantage at those non union companies.

At Con-way ( at the time ) we were given a pay cut. We also had some of the match taken away from the 401k in various forms AND right before that , the pension was eliminated as an option for new hires.

The union companies had givebacks as well. There were changes to benefits and compensation that are still having an impact to this day.

In the end , a person cannot be a cheerleader for a particular way to go ( each person has to decide what works best for them ) It does seem we as drivers may want to aim at a bigger target than the companies.

Any and everything we have lost as drivers over the years has happened while we were fighting over what this company or that company would allow a driver to earn. Drivers go and try to start their own company , get their own trucks. Trying to escape the foot on their neck ( so to speak ) - only to have the rules to the industry change in ways to STILL hold them back.

Look at the bigger picture. Realize the rules ( laws ) are geared to benefit large , pre-existing companies. Not upstart companies. Not the working man and woman. Not a bunch of working men and women together , unified.

Until the legislation is changed AND money from large corporations doesn't have as much influence as it does , things will continue the way they have been. Unfortunately.

 

[Fly-by-night]

Here's how a recession could hurt – or help – unions at big companies like Starbucks and Amazon

Working conditions during the pandemic pushed many workers to organize — but fears about a potential recession could curb the union boom.

www.cnbc.com

So lets try this again and maybe some will read the article before commenting. Though the title in the link is not the real title of the article so here it is:

Here's how a recession could hurt – or help – unions at big companies like Starbucks and Amazon​

 

[icuicp]

So lets try this again and maybe some will read the article before commenting. Though the title in the link is not the real title of the article so here it is:

Here's how a recession could hurt – or help – unions at big companies like Starbucks and Amazon​

If and when we have a recession , regardless of political allegiance , regardless of a pandemic or not , and regardless of if you are union or nonunion , a recession will be a "big obstacle" either way.

 

[Fly-by-night]

If and when there is a Recession union employees would be at a distinct at advantage due to their contractual agreement with their employer. If a recession were to occur in the middle of a contractual agreement term employees would have the advantage of that binding document . Their employer would have to approve grave financial distress to bring an amendment to vote during the contract and they will have a vote on it. Nonunion non-contractual employees could be at risk of a give back during a recession. (Con-way 2008). If the employer decide to take back compensation non union employees will have no say. Thats one of the reasons Xpo fights unionization so hard.

I think the article you posted applies to the uptick in new union activities with companies that have yet been unionized. A recession MAY put employers at an advantage at those non union companies.

We all know this. Just because you have a contract doesn't stop the company from closing the doors. (CF 2002 and NEMF 2020)

 

[Fly-by-night]

If and when we have a recession , regardless of political allegiance , regardless of a pandemic or not , and regardless of if you are union or nonunion , a recession will be a "big obstacle" either way.

Well per the definition of a recession it is 2 quarters of negative GDP. So we are in one now. It just the current admin changed the definition.

 

[victor93]

Well per the definition of a recession it is 2 quarters of negative GDP. So we are in one now. It just the current admin changed

They don’t know what the definition of a woman is

 

[Streaker69]

So lets try this again and maybe some will read the article before commenting. Though the title in the link is not the real title of the article so here it is:

Here's how a recession could hurt – or help – unions at big companies like Starbucks and Amazon​

I see both sides of it. A recession scares people into place. You need to continue to make an income and hiring starts to slow down.

It scares the companies into place because people are less likely to make dramatic changes.

I do think that some of these employees are removing the prestige of a being a Union employee. I remember a job like a Starbucks barista was something you did while you were in school or for supplemental income. It was never meant to be something you do until retirement, like what a union job is. Am I off here?

 

[ABF381]

I see both sides of it. A recession scares people into place. You need to continue to make an income and hiring starts to slow down.

It scares the companies into place because people are less likely to make dramatic changes.

I do think that some of these employees are removing the prestige of a being a Union employee. I remember a job like a Starbucks barista was something you did while you were in school or for supplemental income. It was never meant to be something you do until retirement, like what a union job is. Am I off here?

I honestly don't know...... Thirty years ago I would have said you were right, but since our business and political leaders wanted the US to become a service economy (and it has) I am leaning towards saying these are the kind of jobs that people who didn't go to college are going to do for a career..... so I guess I lean towards yes....

 

[BabyJ5525]

We all know this. Just because you have a contract doesn't stop the company from closing the doors. (CF 2002 and NEMF 2020)

St Johnsbury trucking , Preston , APA ,landair ( non union )

 

[Tao]

I remember a job like a Starbucks barista was something you did while you were in school or for supplemental income. It was never meant to be something you do until retirement, like what a union job is. Am I off here?

Yes, you are off here. No job is meant to be "while you are in school or for supplemental income". All jobs are just jobs, period. There a whole socio-political reason why we perceive these changes, but it's not overly relevant, I think.

But even regardless of that, even if we were to accept the McJobs idea - the idea that certain jobs are meant for teenagers or bored people looking for spending cash - they still deserve representation in the form of a union, if they so choose. Nobody should be exploited for their labor, yes even teenagers and people looking for a little extra cash. And maybe if these workers are ripped by a union then they will become the sorts of jobs you retire at and don't struggle in our 70s and 80s or longer.
Or maybe making your coffee pays a little more and the shop becomes a little more humane in how it's run.
Why would anyone be anything but enthusiastically supportive of this?

 

[Streaker69]

Yes, you are off here. No job is meant to be "while you are in school or for supplemental income". All jobs are just jobs, period. There a whole socio-political reason why we perceive these changes, but it's not overly relevant, I think.

But even regardless of that, even if we were to accept the McJobs idea - the idea that certain jobs are meant for teenagers or bored people looking for spending cash - they still deserve representation in the form of a union, if they so choose. Nobody should be exploited for their labor, yes even teenagers and people looking for a little extra cash. And maybe if these workers are ripped by a union then they will become the sorts of jobs you retire at and don't struggle in our 70s and 80s or longer.
Or maybe making your coffee pays a little more and the shop becomes a little more humane in how it's run.
Why would anyone be anything but enthusiastically supportive of this?

I disagree. Nobody becomes a Starbucks barista saying they can retire from that job. In fact, I hear the opposite. They don't pay enough, not enough benefits etcetera. The idea that company should change it's compensation package doesn't work because they'll find ways around it (fast food kiosks).

As for labor being exploited, how? I do a job for a wage. I know the wage before I accept the job. If I feel the compensation is subpar, I'll move on. If I feel I can get more somewhere else, I'll move on.

I'm indifferent to whether or not it's a bad thing, but I know that companies will close shop before they lose money and customers will stop buying stuff if it gets too pricey (regardless of the reason). We're seeing that now with Walmart and Target ordering less because they can't sell the stuff that was moving a year ago.

 

[Tao]

I disagree. Nobody becomes a Starbucks barista saying they can retire from that job. In fact, I hear the opposite. They don't pay enough, not enough benefits etcetera. The idea that company should change it's compensation package doesn't work because they'll find ways around it (fast food kiosks).

The idea that companies should change the compensation rate doesn't work? Utter nonsense.

You say that nobody becomes a Starbucks barista to have a career and retire... but I argue that perhaps they should. Why not? I'm seriously asking that question btw it's not rhetorical.

Then you say they don't pay enough or have enough benefits but you're still not sure about a union? This is precisely where a union is most needed, where workers aren't getting enough.

See, here's the thing with what you're writing here... you've bought into that it's a one sided deal and that your only real choice is take it or leave it. It's not either or. Workers are the other side of the equation and they can demand change. Its just that demanding change together is much more effective.

And if Starbucks can't pay what workers demand, then bye bye Starbucks. If we really need that much coffee in this country then someone will offer enough for workers to show up.

As for labor being exploited, how? I do a job for a wage. I know the wage before I accept the job. If I feel the compensation is subpar, I'll move on. If I feel I can get more somewhere else, I'll move on.

You're right, you do do a job for a wage. And by that wage you are robbed of some portion of the full value of your labor (profits). This is exploitation. Whether you get exploited slightly less or slightly more (you can actually get a higher wage and be exploited more) by moving around is immaterial - you're still being exploited. You're being exploited even if you "agree" to it.

Top that off with holding the human need for shelter and food over workers heads as the ultimate leverage to get people to agree to subpar wages and the exploitation rises.

Individuals can't effect change on corporations, but individual employees United in cause can and they should.

 

[Tao]

I'm indifferent to whether or not it's a bad thing, but I know that companies will close shop before they lose money and customers will stop buying stuff if it gets too pricey (regardless of the reason). We're seeing that now with Walmart and Target ordering less because they can't sell the stuff that was moving a year ago.

Sorry forgot this part. Again you argue everything from the corporate side. Not one of your arguments focuses on the workers. Do you see how unbalanced this is?

You're essentially arguing keep wages low so prices stay low so companies stay in business.

How about raise wages and limit profiteering so that more workers can afford more things?

 

[Streaker69]

Sorry forgot this part. Again you argue everything from the corporate side. Not one of your arguments focuses on the workers. Do you see how unbalanced this is?

You're essentially arguing keep wages low so prices stay low so companies stay in business.

How about raise wages and limit profiteering so that more workers can afford more things?

I'm all for competitive wages, but I'm against artificially raising them. It doesn't benefit anyone to pay a fry cook 20/hr just because.

How do you propose limiting profiteering? The reward has to be worth the risk of starting a business. If you limit how much a business can make, where's the upside?

 

[Tao]

I'm all for competitive wages, but I'm against artificially raising them. It doesn't benefit anyone to pay a fry cook 20/hr just because.

How do you propose limiting profiteering? The reward has to be worth the risk of starting a business. If you limit how much a business can make, where's the upside?

There's nothing "artificial" about refusing to work unless you get a wage you want, even as a group.

And if you're referring to minimum wages, then yes there actually is a real benefit to paying people more. "Just because" is nonsense.

Fry cooks making more money benefits everyone, including the restaurant, because now fry cooks can actually afford to eat out at restaurants.

Re: profiteering its prob a bit much for this board but limit ceo pay, encourage reinvestment via taxes, ax stock buy backs, tax and regulate based on whats reported to shareholders not the irs, etc, etc. It's not overly complicated and has been successfully done.

 

[Streaker69]

There's nothing "artificial" about refusing to work unless you get a wage you want, even as a group.

And if you're referring to minimum wages, then yes there actually is a real benefit to paying people more. "Just because" is nonsense.

Fry cooks making more money benefits everyone, including the restaurant, because now fry cooks can actually afford to eat out at restaurants.

Re: profiteering its prob a bit much for this board but limit ceo pay, encourage reinvestment via taxes, ax stock buy backs, tax and regulate based on whats reported to shareholders not the irs, etc, etc. It's not overly complicated and has been successfully done.

You don't think that restaurant paying that frycook 20/hr will raise prices to cover that? Most restaurants operating margins are in the single digits, so where does that money come from? How will the fry cook afford to eat in the restaurant if the prices go up to reflect the wage increase? As a result, less people eat there because they also can't afford it and the doors close due to lack of customers.

Successfully done by whom? It sounds like every board is a boys club that hires a buddy to be CEO. It all comes down to greed. People start businesses to make money, not out of altruism to benefit other people.

You're also forgetting that legislatures work for these businesses. There's no way they would regulate them more. It's why the banks write their own legislation at hearings and executives got bonuses during the 2008 crash. Government is not here to help. They make it impossible for the little guy to start up to limit their buddy's competition.

It's not that complicated in theory, but it's really impossible for any of that to happen.

 

[Tao]

You don't think that restaurant paying that frycook 20/hr will raise prices to cover that? Most restaurants operating margins are in the single digits, so where does that money come from? How will the fry cook afford to eat in the restaurant if the prices go up to reflect the wage increase? As a result, less people eat there because they also can't afford it and the doors close due to lack of customers.

Successfully done by whom? It sounds like every board is a boys club that hires a buddy to be CEO. It all comes down to greed. People start businesses to make money, not out of altruism to benefit other people.

You're also forgetting that legislatures work for these businesses. There's no way they would regulate them more. It's why the banks write their own legislation at hearings and executives got bonuses during the 2008 crash. Government is not here to help. They make it impossible for the little guy to start up to limit their buddy's competition.

It's not that complicated in theory, but it's really impossible for any of that to happen.

Yes, restaurants can pay workers more and raise prices. Pay workers more, raise the prices 20%, end tipping because now your workers are actually making money, customer pays no more.

Also, Seattle recently raised their min wage and everyone lied about restaurants closing and the end of thenworld. Unsurprisingly the restaurant sector in Seattle is booming. Because "can't pay more because we'll close" is usually nonsense. And if it really does cause a few restaurants to close, then they couldn't compete. Screw em.

Successfully done by this country for many years.

And as for "impossible", I point to like every other country in the world that handles this stuff better than the States do. I'm not gonna say "This seems hard, I'm just gonna do nothing instead" and just pretend it ain't happening.

At least go down swinging

 

[Streaker69]

Yes, restaurants can pay workers more and raise prices. Pay workers more, raise the prices 20%, end tipping because now your workers are actually making money, customer pays no more.

Also, Seattle recently raised their min wage and everyone lied about restaurants closing and the end of thenworld. Unsurprisingly the restaurant sector in Seattle is booming. Because "can't pay more because we'll close" is usually nonsense. And if it really does cause a few restaurants to close, then they couldn't compete. Screw em.

Successfully done by this country for many years.

And as for "impossible", I point to like every other country in the world that handles this stuff better than the States do. I'm not gonna say "This seems hard, I'm just gonna do nothing instead" and just pretend it ain't happening.

At least go down swinging

When are you running for office to implement all of these plans?

 

[Tao]

When are you running for office to implement all of these plans?

I'm not. Lmao.

What I am doing is my absolute best to organize workers, both on the ground and via podcasting, and help out where I can in my community.

But if electoral paths ever open up I'll participate as a voter while doing all of the above.

 

[XCCX]

Getting back into the LTL end of this we have been told for many years that the profit margins were thin in this business. Recently we witnessed Jacobs over the last year cash in nearly a billion dollars in stock while making his departure to some degree from Xpo . No profit ? Just a portion of that billion could have made huge improvements to Xpo employees benefits and retirement while still allowing him to make a killing. Can’t say it’s not possible because it just happened.
This more and more common recent years in many industries . Compensation inequality is rampant. It is outrageous how these corporate types want to stifle unions as their margins increase . Nobody is begrudges them their fair due for their hard endeavors but let’s get real .