Are You Working Feb 14th?

[FedEx courier]

No, I don't know you and never said or implied I did. I just called it like I saw it. You can consider Valentine's Day to be a holiday all you want, it isn't a holiday in the sense that Christmas is. Millions celebrate it because it's there and they can. Also because Hallmark likes to make a lot of money and commercialize these things. It's too bad that it's the only day a lot of people take time to cherish their loved ones. Lots of people like to make a romantic day out of it and to them I say more power to you. If that's what makes you happy, go for it. I've got absolutely nothing against that. I also realize that a lot of people work on Valentine's Day, some by choice some not. For those FedEx employees that want to volunteer, good for them. For those that don't, good for them too. If you're a relative newbie and get forced, well sometimes that happens. You'll get paid and most likely it will be overtime so it's not the end of the world.
And just because it is on a calendar, doesn't make it a holiday.


"Someone who is arrogant behaves in a proud, unpleasant way towards other people because they believe that they are more important than others." Your post to which I responded smacked of how you are too important to work on Valentine's Day and you said it with little regard for the plethora of people who do work on Valentine's Day.



There's that arrogance again. Why are people like me who want to work on a holiday foolhardy? What makes you so much better than me? To quote you, "you don't know me". With my 25+ years, I'll have no problem getting some overtime. I can then use that extra money to buy a little something extra for my loved one. I'm not putting FedEx before my family, I'm simply balancing the needs of my family with the requirements of my job. And because that allows me not only to provide for my family but spend time with them, my family loves me and appreciates the opportunities I've had over the last 25+ years. Thanks for asking.

Anybody else smell something fishy about the way this person is posting. It almost sounds like something straight out of frontline. "I'm simply balancing the needs of my family with the requirements of my job", sounds like a video you had to watch and sign off on about how FedEx wants you to relate to your family. I needed a laugh and that post certainly provided it.

 

[quadro]

Anybody else smell something fishy about the way this person is posting. It almost sounds like something straight out of frontline. "I'm simply balancing the needs of my family with the requirements of my job", sounds like a video you had to watch and sign off on about how FedEx wants you to relate to your family. I needed a laugh and that post certainly provided it.

Glad I was able to make you laugh. So tell me, if you don't balance the needs of your family with your job requirements, which do you put first, your family or your job? I'm going to guess family and if that's the case, good for you. If loosing your job tomorrow wouldn't impact your family, you are in a much better position than I am. I wish I was in that position but unfortunately, I'm not and I have to do what I have to do to keep my job and where possible earn a few extra dollars. Before anyone says I wouldn't be in that position if FedEx paid me more, that's true for a lot of people in a lot of jobs but it doesn't mean that their or my wages aren't fair. My situation is certainly more a result of my own doing rather than what FedEx does or doesn't pay me. Again, if you are financially secure, then my hat's off to you and I'm working to get to that position.

A few bad choices in the past put me where I am today but I'm not blaming anyone but myself.

 

[FedEx courier]

Glad I was able to make you laugh. So tell me, if you don't balance the needs of your family with your job requirements, which do you put first, your family or your job? I'm going to guess family and if that's the case, good for you. If loosing your job tomorrow wouldn't impact your family, you are in a much better position than I am. I wish I was in that position but unfortunately, I'm not and I have to do what I have to do to keep my job and where possible earn a few extra dollars. Before anyone says I wouldn't be in that position if FedEx paid me more, that's true for a lot of people in a lot of jobs but it doesn't mean that their or my wages aren't fair. My situation is certainly more a result of my own doing rather than what FedEx does or doesn't pay me. Again, if you are financially secure, then my hat's off to you and I'm working to get to that position.

A few bad choices in the past put me where I am today but I'm not blaming anyone but myself.

How can you say that what FedEx decides to pay you is a result of your "own doing". FedEx has lobbied and patted palms behind closed doors to enact and maintain classification under the RLA to limit employees ability to unionize. FedEx has certainly done this not you as an employee. I don't think anyone would have to be that worried about losing their job over nonsense if there were union representation. So yes FedEx has done this and not the employee.

 

[FedEx courier]

I took a quick glance at everything you've posted on this site quadro. It is interesting that the majority of your posts directly deal with defending FedEx and not changing their RLA classification. In one you are even talking about how easy it is for employees to unionize under the RLA. I don't really know what station you work at but I've worked at a few myself and never really met an employee who bought into the PSP philosophy. The question on the SFA has always been laughed at in ever station I've been employed. You certainly are a different breed of employee if you believe in the PSP. I've seen 20 plus year employees get target and fired with laughable representation from personell, because they couldn't keep up anymore.

I don't know what your purpose is here but you obviously aren't fooling very many people distributing misinformation about the fairness between FedEx and it's employees.

 

[quadro]

How can you say that what FedEx decides to pay you is a result of your "own doing". FedEx has lobbied and patted palms behind closed doors to enact and maintain classification under the RLA to limit employees ability to unionize. FedEx has certainly done this not you as an employee. I don't think anyone would have to be that worried about losing their job over nonsense if there were union representation. So yes FedEx has done this and not the employee.

I didn't say that what FedEx pays me is a result of my own doing. Reread my post. And to think that no one would have to worry about losing their job over nonsense if there were union representation is very naive at best.

 

[quadro]

I took a quick glance at everything you've posted on this site quadro. It is interesting that the majority of your posts directly deal with defending FedEx and not changing their RLA classification. In one you are even talking about how easy it is for employees to unionize under the RLA. I don't really know what station you work at but I've worked at a few myself and never really met an employee who bought into the PSP philosophy. The question on the SFA has always been laughed at in ever station I've been employed. You certainly are a different breed of employee if you believe in the PSP. I've seen 20 plus year employees get target and fired with laughable representation from personell, because they couldn't keep up anymore.

I don't know what your purpose is here but you obviously aren't fooling very many people distributing misinformation about the fairness between FedEx and it's employees.

I'm not defending FedEx, per se. Rather, as you have no doubt read if you read my other posts, I am not willing to give up what I have for what I may or may not get under a union. That's just me. I respect your right to disagree with that and I always appreciate it when people afford me that same respect.

Your anecdotal evidence of employees who don't believe in PSP is no different than my anecdotal evidence of employees who do.

If employees can't keep up, why wouldn't they get in trouble? One thing that ticks me off to no end is when I have to save the butt of the courier next to me because they can't handle their route but everyone else can. If personnel supported the manager's decision to address that poor performance, to them I say "it's about time". And that wouldn't be any different under a union. If someone cannot do the job, they will struggle to hold on to that job.

I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything. And please, I beg of you, show me where I've distributed misinformation. Certainly misinformation does flow around here but I know I'm not the source of it.

 

[FedEx courier]

I'm not defending FedEx, per se. Rather, as you have no doubt read if you read my other posts, I am not willing to give up what I have for what I may or may not get under a union. That's just me. I respect your right to disagree with that and I always appreciate it when people afford me that same respect.

Your anecdotal evidence of employees who don't believe in PSP is no different than my anecdotal evidence of employees who do.

If employees can't keep up, why wouldn't they get in trouble? One thing that ticks me off to no end is when I have to save the butt of the courier next to me because they can't handle their route but everyone else can. If personnel supported the manager's decision to address that poor performance, to them I say "it's about time". And that wouldn't be any different under a union. If someone cannot do the job, they will struggle to hold on to that job.

I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything. And please, I beg of you, show me where I've distributed misinformation. Certainly misinformation does flow around here but I know I'm not the source of it.

It is called age discrimination. A 50 or 60 year old person obviously can't do what a 20 year old can physically. As far as the misinformation, your posts about employees being able to unionize easily under the RLA are misleading.

 

[quadro]

It is called age discrimination. A 50 or 60 year old person obviously can't do what a 20 year old can physically. As far as the misinformation, your posts about employees being able to unionize easily under the RLA are misleading.

It's not called age discrimination. What you are advocating is age discrimination. You are advocating for a different set of standards for older employees. That, by definition, would be age discrimination. Currently FedEx holds employees to the same standards regardless of age thereby avoiding age discrimination. You want special treatment for older employees and that is illegal under the law.

If it is so difficult for employees to unionize under the RLA why are a higher percentage of RLA covered employees union versus the number of NLRA employees. And without checking my posts, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was easy to unionize. Logistically there are many hurdles especially when most of the employees probably don't want a union. If the IBT thought that there was enough support they would spend the money and launch a full fledged campaign. What I probably said was something along the lines of employees could easily get a union if they wanted.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

It's not called age discrimination. What you are advocating is age discrimination. You are advocating for a different set of standards for older employees. That, by definition, would be age discrimination. Currently FedEx holds employees to the same standards regardless of age thereby avoiding age discrimination. You want special treatment for older employees and that is illegal under the law.

If this is true then why does the UPS/IBT NMA specifically address this issue? I don't have the contract in front of me and, even if I did, I would have to dust it off before reading it, but I do know that the age of the employee is supposed to be taken in to consideration. We are not talking "special treatment". Does this happen? Of course not, but the language is there in black and white. Perhaps one of the Joe Union's can chime in on this.

 

[quadro]

If this is true then why does the UPS/IBT NMA specifically address this issue? I don't have the contract in front of me and, even if I did, I would have to dust it off before reading it, but I do know that the age of the employee is supposed to be taken in to consideration. We are not talking "special treatment". Does this happen? Of course not, but the language is there in black and white. Perhaps one of the Joe Union's can chime in on this.

Let me clarify something. I suppose if you want to allow older employees to perform at a lower standard you could. I'm certainly not a lawyer so not sure how that would work but you really open a can of worms when you start treating people with different standards based on age. I'd be surprised if the age of an employee is taken into consideration at UPS with regards to performance. I know there's something in the NMA about respecting your elders and that's just good, decent behavior but has nothing to do with performance.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I believe the terms used are age and physical ability.

 

[FedEx courier]

"If it is so difficult for employees to unionize under the RLA why are a higher percentage of RLA covered employees union versus the number of NLRA employees. And without checking my posts, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was easy to unionize. Logistically there are many hurdles especially when most of the employees probably don't want a union. If the IBT thought that there was enough support they would spend the money and launch a full fledged campaign. What I probably said was something along the lines of employees could easily get a union if they wanted."

I've read this argument before on the actual FedEx blog site. If most of the employees don't want a Union then why would FedEx care what classification was changed. It wouldn't matter because the employees wouldn't unionize. Right now FedEx can easily target and eliminate such a movement for a Union that you speak of. You can be fired for anything without representation. The employees know that they can be eliminated easily right now because FedEx has ensured that there isn't any Union threat whatsoever. FedEx was the one who originally lobbied to be classified under the RLA for this reason.

As far as answering your idea that employees will lose what they have under Union representation I would say look at what a UPS driver has and compare it. At FedEx right now an employee doesn't have a fair grievance process, it takes many years to top out compared to a UPS employee, you have absolutely no job security(ops managers are judge jury and executioner),ect....

It is age discrimination if you put standards on an employee that they aren't physically able to meet because of their age and punish that employee for not meeting those standards. If you don't believe me type it into a search engine, FedEx has been sued many times over this. You have obviously been a FedEx manager for so long that you do not understand this to be the case, that only reinforces the point.

 

[quadro]

I believe the terms used are age and physical ability.

Right, but the only reference I can find that involves age and physical ability has to do with treating others with respect. Nothing about performance standards.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Right, but the only reference I can find that involves age and physical ability has to do with treating others with respect. Nothing about performance standards.

Yeah, I couldn't find anything on performance, either, but that is supposed to be the intent. This usually takes care of itself as the older drivers tend to bid our country runs, more miles, less stops/pkgs.

 

[quadro]

If most of the employees don't want a Union then why would FedEx care what classification was changed.

Don't know for sure but an educated guess would be that if it's true that most don't want a union, under the NLRA the actions of a few could cause problems for the many. At least under the RLA, if a union is voted in it is likely that any job action would be supported by more than just a few.

FedEx was the one who originally lobbied to be classified under the RLA for this reason.

And so did UPS at one time, so what's your point?

As far as answering your idea that employees will lose what they have under Union representation I would say look at what a UPS driver has and compare it. At FedEx right now an employee doesn't have a fair grievance process, it takes many years to top out compared to a UPS employee, you have absolutely no job security(ops managers are judge jury and executioner),ect....

If FedEx had as much revenue as UPS does I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Neither one of us knows for sure what would or would not happen. I don't begrudge you for trying and support you in your beliefs. I just don't happen to agree with them.

It is age discrimination if you put standards on an employee that they aren't physically able to meet because of their age and punish that employee for not meeting those standards. If you don't believe me type it into a search engine, FedEx has been sued many times over this. You have obviously been a FedEx manager for so long that you do not understand this to be the case, that only reinforces the point.

Just because FedEx has been sued, doesn't prove your point. There are many people over 40 that are equally, if not more so, capable of doing the courier job than those under 40. This is evidence that the job can be done by people over 40. I took your advice and Googled and here's a link for you to read that explains age discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
If FedEx required older employees to do more than younger ones, that would be discriminatory. Requiring the same is fair and equal treatment, not discrimination.

I already said I am a courier. Just because a make a valid point doesn't make me a manager.

 

[FedEx courier]

I never said that your points were valid, if you choose to state they are that is your business. You would have a point if FedEx actually fought for classification under the RLA just to deal with one Union as it was intended. They are using the RLA to keep a Union out. Did you actually google FedEx age discrimination or just find something to try and back up your point?

http://my.core.com/~kevinosiowy/age.htm

 

[quadro]

I never said that your points were valid, if you choose to state they are that is your business. You would have a point if FedEx actually fought for classification under the RLA just to deal with one Union as it was intended. They are using the RLA to keep a Union out. Did you actually google FedEx age discrimination or just find something to try and back up your point?

http://my.core.com/~kevinosiowy/age.htm

Not sure I follow your RLA statement.

Ok, this is getting a little ridiculous. I pointed you to the EEOC's own website. That's the government agency that deals with discrimination. In return you point to the website of an employee who has an agenda (yes I've seen his site before). Rather than taking my word for it or Kevin Osiowy's word for it, read the EEOC's site. I will just point out one thing from Kevin's site. He makes a point about how many (actually few) couriers are over 55 and have 20+ years. The problem with those numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. Anyone over age 40 is in a protected class so why does he use 55? Because it supports his agenda. Also, as you can take early retirement at FedEx at 55 and get retiree health coverage if you meet the 10 or 20 year requirement, there's a fairly good chance that you might decided to retire. Kevin doesn't have the statistics of why people over 55 with 20+ years are no longer couriers. So take his numbers in the context they are given.

Setting performance standards that are achievable and have been demonstrated to be achievable by people over 40 is not discriminatory as long as those standards are the same for people under 40. At FedEx they most certainly are the same so it is not age discrimination.

Keep in mind this is different than an individual manager applying different standards to older employees. If a manager did that then he or she would likely be guilty of age discrimination. However, your point was that FedEx should ask less of older employees in general. That is neither fair nor appropriate.

 

[quadro]

Yeah, I couldn't find anything on performance, either, but that is supposed to be the intent. This usually takes care of itself as the older drivers tend to bid our country runs, more miles, less stops/pkgs.

Thank you. A voice of reason.

 

[MrFedEx]

"If it is so difficult for employees to unionize under the RLA why are a higher percentage of RLA covered employees union versus the number of NLRA employees. And without checking my posts, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was easy to unionize. Logistically there are many hurdles especially when most of the employees probably don't want a union. If the IBT thought that there was enough support they would spend the money and launch a full fledged campaign. What I probably said was something along the lines of employees could easily get a union if they wanted."

I've read this argument before on the actual FedEx blog site. If most of the employees don't want a Union then why would FedEx care what classification was changed. It wouldn't matter because the employees wouldn't unionize. Right now FedEx can easily target and eliminate such a movement for a Union that you speak of. You can be fired for anything without representation. The employees know that they can be eliminated easily right now because FedEx has ensured that there isn't any Union threat whatsoever. FedEx was the one who originally lobbied to be classified under the RLA for this reason.

As far as answering your idea that employees will lose what they have under Union representation I would say look at what a UPS driver has and compare it. At FedEx right now an employee doesn't have a fair grievance process, it takes many years to top out compared to a UPS employee, you have absolutely no job security(ops managers are judge jury and executioner),ect....

It is age discrimination if you put standards on an employee that they aren't physically able to meet because of their age and punish that employee for not meeting those standards. If you don't believe me type it into a search engine, FedEx has been sued many times over this. You have obviously been a FedEx manager for so long that you do not understand this to be the case, that only reinforces the point.

Good stuff. FedEx holds all the cards right now, which is just the way Fred likes it. No way we could organize under present circumstances.

 

[FedEx courier]

Not sure I follow your RLA statement.

Ok, this is getting a little ridiculous. I pointed you to the EEOC's own website. That's the government agency that deals with discrimination. In return you point to the website of an employee who has an agenda (yes I've seen his site before). Rather than taking my word for it or Kevin Osiowy's word for it, read the EEOC's site. I will just point out one thing from Kevin's site. He makes a point about how many (actually few) couriers are over 55 and have 20+ years. The problem with those numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. Anyone over age 40 is in a protected class so why does he use 55? Because it supports his agenda. Also, as you can take early retirement at FedEx at 55 and get retiree health coverage if you meet the 10 or 20 year requirement, there's a fairly good chance that you might decided to retire. Kevin doesn't have the statistics of why people over 55 with 20+ years are no longer couriers. So take his numbers in the context they are given.

Setting performance standards that are achievable and have been demonstrated to be achievable by people over 40 is not discriminatory as long as those standards are the same for people under 40. At FedEx they most certainly are the same so it is not age discrimination.

Keep in mind this is different than an individual manager applying different standards to older employees. If a manager did that then he or she would likely be guilty of age discrimination. However, your point was that FedEx should ask less of older employees in general. That is neither fair nor appropriate.

It is getting ridiculous. You are correct, his site serves his agenda just like the statements you made about the RLA not being an anti-union act serve your agenda. It's hard for me to believe that you don't think FedEx is using the RLA to keep a Union out. Fred S himself said that he would never recognize a Union at FedEx. I'm not really that interested in what you have to because most of it I've already read at brownbailout.com or the FedEx citizenship blog. It's obvious who you are and what your agenda is. If you were just any employee and you felt nothing should change at FedEx you wouldn't feel the need to dedicate this much time to fighting the RLA classification change on the web, it seems like you wouldn't care at all.

Yes certainly if you claim the entire company is not responsible for the act of the manager then I can see your point. The problem here is that FedEx allows operation managers to make such decisions without any system of check, if what you are claiming about upper management not wanting that type of discrimination to occur is true. If you allow a person at the company that power in oversight without any system to answer to then yes the company itself is at fault. If you are so knowledgeable about how performance standards are set at FedEx you should enlighten everybody.

All the site you linked pointed out was that age discrimination is forbidden, it did not go into specifics defining what age discrimination was. So what exactly is your point here? It should be obvious to anyone that if you push a 20 year old to his/her physical limits and you do the same to a 50 year old you are going to get more out of the 20 year old in most cases.