Thursday, July 26, 2012

A Must Read For Organizer, Managers,Red Shirts And Kiss A....

July 24, 2012
Office of Public Affairs

Baked-goods manufacturer Sterling Foods, LLC, has agreed to pay more than $58,000 in back pay and interest to six employees who were discharged in the fall of 2011 following a union organizing campaign. Three of the employees have also accepted offers of reinstatement to their previous jobs.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 455 filed charges alleging the employer engaged in multiple unfair labor practices during and after the union’s attempt to organize about 500 employees at the San Antonio, Texas facility. An election petition was not filed.

Following an investigation by regional staff, NLRB Regional Director Martha Kinard issued a complaint alleging that, in response to the union’s campaign, Sterling Foods unlawfully discharged six employees, threatened to terminate other employees, solicited an employee to report on union activities, offered an employee a financial benefit if he reported the union activities of employees, engaged in surveillance of employee union activities, called the police on employees and union organizers engaged in union activity, prohibited employees from accepting union literature and directed employees to throw away union literature. A hearing on the complaint had been scheduled to start on August 6, 2012 in San Antonio.

The Regional Director had also filed a petition with the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, seeking a temporary injunction against Sterling Foods’ unfair labor practices and an interim order of reinstatement of the six discharged employees. A hearing on that petition had been scheduled for July 19, 2012.

The settlement, signed on July 13, 2012, eliminates the need for both hearings. Sterling Foods also agreed not to engage in such unfair labor practices in the future, to post a notice to that effect at its San Antonio facility, and to mail a copy of the notice to all employees.

Friday, July 20, 2012

In Response to "The Only Smart One"

Dear "The Only Smart One",

Of course Unions criticize executive pay. The median income of a FedEx Truck Driver is $47,477, whereas, the income of Fredrick W. Smith in 2010 was $7,419,362; to put that in perspective, it would take one driver 155 years to make the same amount of money that Mr. Smith does in one year. These wages are not perceived as "low", they actually are low. UPS, a unionized competitor of FedEx, pay their Truck Drivers a median income of $62,000. That is about $14,523 more a year. The fact of the matter is that higher wages do not always require concessions in quality assurance, productivity, or product costs because that money could easily be taken out of the ridiculous amount of profit that the company makes.

Your assertion that union campaigns are designed to "tarnish the reputation of large conglomerates by using political pressure and allegations of poor corporate citizenship" is completely false. Let's just think about your assertion from a purely logical standpoint. Why would the Teamsters want to ruin the reputation of the company they will soon be affiliated with? In fact, I have never attended an organizing meeting in which the reputation of FedEx was infringed upon. If the "allegations of poor corporate citizenship" you are referring to are the complaints about low wages, unsafe working conditions, the lack of job security, the lack of a pension plan and the lack of healthcare benefits during retirement, then I would have to say that those allegations are so much more than accusations, they are the reality that thousands of FedEx employees face every day. Why are you on the side of a company that doesn't take responsibility for its workers? Do you think that it is fair that a hard working Truck Driver, that actually provides the manpower for this company to exist, has to rely on welfare when they retire because they do not have a pension plan or any health benefits? When you say that an increase in wages impacts the cost and quality of healthcare, do you think that putting more people on welfare, a system that dramatically impacts the entire healthcare system, is really a better option?

Yes, the union membership has declined dramatically. But if you were actually "smart", you would know that scholars credit this decline to many factors. Unions used to be the pride of America and it was something to be proud of. Unfortunately, culture shifts that started in the 50's began to devalue the role of the hard working Union man and began to put the spotlight and pride on the white collar corporate man. Political trends of neoliberalism amalgamated with the devaluation of the American Blue Collar Worker and the attrition of the middle class were all components to dwindling numbers. You would know this, if, you know, you actually researched the topic rather than getting your "knowledge" from whatever the man in the nice suit on TV tells you.
And as for the problems with unions, every organization has its issues. However, I think I'd rather place my bet on an organization whose leader only makes $300,000 a year, who provides his members with pensions, healthcare benefits in retirement, and a voice, over a man who makes over 7 million dollars a year, whose greed compels him to constantly slash his hard-workers' meager wages and benefits. Finally, pertaining to your claim that employers would sit down with employees to work through these problems, I just have one question for you; if it would be so easy to facilitate such a meeting, why do these problems still exist?

One last thing, as Shakespeare would say, “the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”. So cheers to you! Mr. Self Proclaimed "Smart One"

Cathleen A. Hernandez

Thursday, July 19, 2012

ONG. Anti Union Meeting Round Two ...

Today at our terminal in ONG, we had another anti union meeting again. Nate our regional HR representative, and Rob Leach, HR from corporate. This guy is a true actor. His face got all emotional and his eyes got all glassy like he wanted to cry, saying “look guys I’ve been on the side of a union and I have nothing good to say about them.

He told us, “even if the union were to come in here at FedEx, (a union is a group of employees who united and vote for union representation, we the FedEx employees are the union) we will pay union dues with our same pay. And that the union has no right to tell FedEx that we are going to get a pay raise, (this is all negotiated with a contract, approved by the FedEx employees). This is why UPS freight is going to make more than us per hour, because they have a contract! FACT

Don’t fall for Rob’s B.S. if you see him at your hub!

We asked if more changes were to come here at FedEx if we didn’t vote UNION. His response was “well guys I don’t have an answer for that right now. That’s right Rob you don’t and never will have an answer!

We need to ORGANIZE to have a TRUE VOICE at FedEx! A “UNION” is “POWER”, for ALL dock workers, line and city drivers, also clerical and mechanics!


Friday, July 13, 2012

I'll Give You A Burrito If You Don't Side With The Teamsters

Today at our terminal in Orange our TM said "come on guys I'm being nice to you... Don't chose the wrong route of going union".

Next thing we knew it, he bought us breakfast burritos and promised us some Angel tickets!

I'll remember this day when I'm voting "YES" for Teamster Representation!

P. S. Thanks for the burritos Frank.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Anti Union Meeting

There was a anti union meeting held on June 27th 2012 at our Anaheim service center. The meeting was given by Frank Valentine, Terminal Manager and Nathan King of Human Resource. It was a lack luster meeting with most of the employees in attendance saying that these managers do not know what they are talking about, when it comes to talking about what the Teamsters are all about.

But Thank You Frank and Nathan for letting us all know that FedEx is running scared!



Thank You all, who have filled out our sign up sheet this week.