There are changes coming to the western division of FedEx Freight. And we will keep you informed on these changes when we get the full picture.
To read what some drivers are reporting across the country go to:
www.truckingboards.com
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
In Response To The Companies Union Buster's Article In The Upcoming "Independent Times" aka Human Resource Part Two
Why Give Control to the Union?
Unions don't take control.They help employees have a voice in the work place. They help us with a grievance procedure to keep management in line, wait. The union are the members/employees, is that what you mean Tom, giving the employees control? And making sure seniority is in place for bids,routes and overtime, "No Favoritism"!
The ones who want to keep full control is management. You have seen this happen.Controlling overtime. Giving hours to jr. dockworkers and sending senior workers home. Right Andy?
People Are First at FedEx Freight
If people are first here at FedEx,then why are part time employees made to transfer from Whittier to San Bernardino to keep their jobs. And a week after the opening of SBO management at Whittier are asking employees there if they know of anyone looking for part time work come in and apply???
Someone at Whittier forgot to tell management that "people are first" Tom.
Be Involved and Stay Informed
Is being informed mean when dispatch calls a driver from another terminal and ask if a driver he knows is talking to a organizer.Is this staying inform?
This is a form of S.P.I.T.
S - Spying
P - Promising
I - Interrogating
T - Threatening
This is all against the law when there is known Organizing!
Why Talk About the Teamsters?
Because in the last 18 months, they have organized UPS Freight, 11,200 employees the goal is 12,600. Can they all be wrong Tom? With a total of 50,000 workers through out the United States! To help the working men and women of this great country.
Now thats putting "People First" Tom. Not Corporate CEO's severance packages!
How owns wwww.unionfreeamerica.com?
David Denholm is the longtime president of both organizations,3 and is known for his extremist views on unions. In addition to being featured regularly in right-wing media, Denholm owns the website, www.unionfreeamerica.com.4 The website provides tips on getting rid of a union at your worksite, urges readers to pressure Congress to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, and sells anti-union stickers and t-shirts.
Denholm has taken some shocking positions, as for instance when he joined with other conservatives in honoring the notorious Roberto D’Aubuisson. D’Aubisson was linked to the murder of thousands in El Salvador, including union leaders, priests, politicians, and teachers
How owns www.unionfacts.com?
Richard “Rick” Berman.
Role of Center for Union Facts in the Anti-Union Network
The Center is the latest public relations campaign and front group devised by “notorious D.C. lobbyist”1 and veteran spin doctor Richard “Rick” Berman with his firm, Berman and Company.
The Center for Union Facts is a front group focused on damaging the public image of unions, depressing workers’ rights, pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to join unions, and furthering an anti-union business climate.
Unions don't take control.They help employees have a voice in the work place. They help us with a grievance procedure to keep management in line, wait. The union are the members/employees, is that what you mean Tom, giving the employees control? And making sure seniority is in place for bids,routes and overtime, "No Favoritism"!
The ones who want to keep full control is management. You have seen this happen.Controlling overtime. Giving hours to jr. dockworkers and sending senior workers home. Right Andy?
People Are First at FedEx Freight
If people are first here at FedEx,then why are part time employees made to transfer from Whittier to San Bernardino to keep their jobs. And a week after the opening of SBO management at Whittier are asking employees there if they know of anyone looking for part time work come in and apply???
Someone at Whittier forgot to tell management that "people are first" Tom.
Be Involved and Stay Informed
Is being informed mean when dispatch calls a driver from another terminal and ask if a driver he knows is talking to a organizer.Is this staying inform?
This is a form of S.P.I.T.
S - Spying
P - Promising
I - Interrogating
T - Threatening
This is all against the law when there is known Organizing!
Why Talk About the Teamsters?
Because in the last 18 months, they have organized UPS Freight, 11,200 employees the goal is 12,600. Can they all be wrong Tom? With a total of 50,000 workers through out the United States! To help the working men and women of this great country.
Now thats putting "People First" Tom. Not Corporate CEO's severance packages!
How owns wwww.unionfreeamerica.com?
David Denholm is the longtime president of both organizations,3 and is known for his extremist views on unions. In addition to being featured regularly in right-wing media, Denholm owns the website, www.unionfreeamerica.com.4 The website provides tips on getting rid of a union at your worksite, urges readers to pressure Congress to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, and sells anti-union stickers and t-shirts.
Denholm has taken some shocking positions, as for instance when he joined with other conservatives in honoring the notorious Roberto D’Aubuisson. D’Aubisson was linked to the murder of thousands in El Salvador, including union leaders, priests, politicians, and teachers
How owns www.unionfacts.com?
Richard “Rick” Berman.
Role of Center for Union Facts in the Anti-Union Network
The Center is the latest public relations campaign and front group devised by “notorious D.C. lobbyist”1 and veteran spin doctor Richard “Rick” Berman with his firm, Berman and Company.
The Center for Union Facts is a front group focused on damaging the public image of unions, depressing workers’ rights, pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to join unions, and furthering an anti-union business climate.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Anaheim Termination Update
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 post "Unemployment Benefits ..
One of the employees who was denied unemployment benefits went to order some medicine for one of his family member the day after his termination and was told that he had no medical insurance to cover his medicine!
As far as we understand, we are covered for at least 30 days after our employment with a company has ended?
If anyone knows this answer, please contact us at this site.
Thank You
One of the employees who was denied unemployment benefits went to order some medicine for one of his family member the day after his termination and was told that he had no medical insurance to cover his medicine!
As far as we understand, we are covered for at least 30 days after our employment with a company has ended?
If anyone knows this answer, please contact us at this site.
Thank You
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Employee Free Choice Act: Myth vs. Fact
In Response To The Companies Union Buster's Article In The Upcoming "Independent Times" aka Human Resource
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice – whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up – a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act will increase intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers.
FACT: Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drop – from both sides – when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. Beyond this, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union.
FACT: Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require "public" union card signings.
FACT: Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from these card signings under current law. The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would receive the cards and determine their validity.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act's sponsors support secret ballot elections for workers in Mexico, but not in the United States.
FACT: Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with an independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this: it would require an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing – particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union.
Summary of the Employee Free Choice Act
Watch Rep. George Miller on you tube on Employee Free Choice Act
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice – whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up – a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act will increase intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers.
FACT: Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drop – from both sides – when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. Beyond this, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union.
FACT: Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require "public" union card signings.
FACT: Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from these card signings under current law. The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would receive the cards and determine their validity.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act's sponsors support secret ballot elections for workers in Mexico, but not in the United States.
FACT: Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with an independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this: it would require an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing – particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union.
Summary of the Employee Free Choice Act
Watch Rep. George Miller on you tube on Employee Free Choice Act
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)