Our Senior Manager said 3% raise for everyone October 1

falcon back

Well-Known Member
No, heard all about it 10 years ago. Where were you? Oh, that's right, getting your head patted by your mgr while your knees were getting calloused.
Why don't you worry about where the next Wal-Mart parking lot is instead of studying campaign contributions? Politicians have been bogus forever, not gonna change anytime soon.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Why don't you worry about where the next Wal-Mart parking lot is instead of studying campaign contributions? Politicians have been bogus forever, not gonna change anytime soon.
You mean if there's a chance the RLA designation will be changed to the NLRA Fred will dole out tens of millions again? :nonono:
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Oh I forgot you went to law school

There isn't a single case, dating back to the mid-1970s, where it was found that Express was misclassified under the RLA or that any particular group of employees employed by Express should be exempt from RLA classification. None. Zero.
 

AB831

Well-Known Member
There isn't a single case, dating back to the mid-1970s, where it was found that Express was misclassified under the RLA or that any particular group of employees employed by Express should be exempt from RLA classification. None. Zero.
No one cares.
 

MAKAVELI

Banned
I guess you're calling it a "loophole" because it's easier to type than "I'm not capable of educating myself about the issue."
It's a loophole because they are the only company that has it's truck drivers classified as airline employees. You can go on and on about rulings all you want. It's just a fact that it's a special classification for one company, aka loophole.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
It's a loophole because they are the only company that has it's truck drivers classified as airline employees. You can go on and on about rulings all you want. It's just a fact that it's a special classification for one company, aka loophole.

LOL, but it's not. The RLA has covered trucking companies and other companies that aren't airlines/rail lines.

You don't know WTF you're talking about, son. I would tell you again to TTKU but you're so willingly ignorant about the issue it's beginning to look more and more like you don't even know what the issue IS.
 

MAKAVELI

Banned
LOL, but it's not. The RLA has covered trucking companies and other companies that aren't airlines/rail lines.

You don't know WTF you're talking about, son. I would tell you again to TTKU but you're so willingly ignorant about the issue it's beginning to look more and more like you don't even know what the issue IS.
The last failed attempt to change the classification Express drivers was a political decision not a decision of the courts. Ttku...
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
You don't know WTF you're talking about, son.
What's his son, :censored2:. :censored:.jpg
Mind your manners, boy. You didn't donate any sperm that contributed to his existence.
It works like that?
Comprende.
Fathers call sons, son.
 

dezguy

Well-Known Member
You goof. 1st you ask about going part time, then post WHY would anyone go part time.
Then you post over and over about RLA being revoked

Now you post who cares. You can't even keep up with all the nonsense you post.
You goof. First you post that your wife won the lottery and you were leaving BC because of all the negative people then come back and complain about all the negativity.

:censored2:.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
The last failed attempt to change the classification Express drivers was a political decision not a decision of the courts. Ttku...

ROTFLMAO!!!! And it very likely would not have survived a court challenge. If you're ever to the point where you can discuss the issue beyond your two or three talking points, it would be nice.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
And it very likely would not have survived a court challenge.
You are very presumptuous, what is your basis for this claim?
If statute was changed, exactly under what scenario, minus a Constitutional question, (none exist) could a court affirm a former clause?
 

Aquaman

Well-Known Member
You don't know WTF you're talking about. The RLA covers employees of airlines, which Express couriers are, and doesn't require that they be "airport employees."



Oh? OK then. They're still covered by the RLA because this imaginary "truck drivers that aren't airport employees" division works exclusively for the benefit of an RLA carrier and provides services essential to that carrier's operation.

You people need to get off that short bus that carries you to the school of "The RLA only applies to those airline employees who are directly involved with flight operations and isn't supposed to cover any truck drivers." You don't know what you're talking about.
There’s quite a few congressman riding on that short bus with us lol. Being an airline, and having truck drivers that have literally nothing to do with flight operations is exactly why congress is attacking this. There’s nothing that makes us RLA other than the plane our packages arrive on. As if UPS drivers don’t have packages on their trucks that come off planes lol. An express station 30 miles from the airport, receiving & shipping freight via tractor trailer, with drivers that do the same job as every other shipping company, is not going to remain RLA just because they’re under a RLA umbrella. FedEx Express is an airline with a package delivery operation that isn’t. Our entire operation will not be considered an airline much longer. We are going to be NLRA soon. Call me dumb all you want.
 
Last edited:
Top