Arguments Made in Indiana, No Order on California Terminations Yet
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Indiana courthouse. Both sides made their oral arguments yesterday. As of 5:00 on Tuesday, no order has been issued.
But you can get the gist of the plaintiff's lawyers from their reply to the company's memo (now on the Alexander resource page).
FedEx Ground Package System Inc. asks this court to turn a blind eye to the reality of its coercive and involuntary mass termination designed to punish approximately 1000 California delivery drivers who won a binding judicial ruling that they are FedEx employees and to send a chilling message to those who have followed in their footsteps.
Any FedEx Ground or Home Delivery driver who hasn't already done so, needs to send their names and contact information to the lawyers handling the multi-district litigation. Neither the International Brotherhood of Teamsters nor any affiliated local union are a party to this litigation.
-- October 10
Showdown for California SVCs On October 9
The bad press for FedEx just keeps coming and coming. Now the story is on CNBC.
But the big showdown over the mass firing of all single-vehicle contractors in California is the thing on everyone's mind. The lawyers for the California drivers in the national class action lawsuit have filed a motion for a temporary restraining order before the MDL judge - they are asking the court to block the termination letters, the waiver of claims and freeze the Oct. 26 deadline for drivers to make the huge decision to give up their rights and their livelihoods.
Every FedEx Ground and Home Delivery driver should read all these October 2007 documents carefully. FedEx offers no loyalty to any driver who dares fight for his or her rights. Today it is California drivers that are on the chopping block. Tomorrow it could be anyone, anywhere.
If you have not already, register with FedExWatch by entering your email address in the form at the top of this page. The Teamsters want to work with all FedEx drivers and employees to secure their rights.
-- October 05
Teamster Shareholders Proposal Gets "Huge" Vote
The financial world fully digested the news around FedEx Corporation's annual shareholders' meeting. And the conclusions seem to depend on where you get your news.
Bloomberg got the company's perspective.
FedEx Corp. shareholders rejected proposals to separate the chairman and chief executive officer jobs at the second-largest U.S. package-delivery company and to give owners of the stock a greater voice on executive pay.
More than 177 million shares were voted against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' plan to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive, while about 77.5 million were in favor, the Memphis, Tennessee-based company said. The results were tallied today at its annual meeting. FedEx founder Frederick W. Smith has held both jobs for 30 years.
``Today's vote is a strong show of support for Mr. Smith's combined role,'' said Jess Bunn, a company spokesman. ``The FedEx board of directors provides independent and effective oversight of FedEx's business and affairs, and separation of the chairman and CEO roles is not necessary.''
More balanced coverage came from the hometown Memphis newspaper.
Corporate governance observers say that the number of shares voting for the controversial changes was significant for a first-time vote and that change likely will occur.
Despite support for the resolutions from several proxy advisory firms, including RiskMetrics Group in New York, slightly more than 26 percent of the shares represented in the annual meeting Monday at the Hilton Memphis voted for a resolution brought by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters General Fund to separate the role of chairman and CEO.
Since 1998, company founder Frederick W. Smith has served as chairman and chief executive.
About 32 percent voted for a nonbinding referendum each year on executive pay.
"I would say these are huge votes," said Charles Elson at the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware and a member of the AutoZone board of directors. "These are controversial issues. To get 30 percent or close to 30 percent is huge."
In both cases, the votes signal an increasingly sophisticated shareholder calling "for better board function and board monitoring," said Elson.
"I'm a little skeptical that shareholder voting gets you to the ultimate solution (on executive pay)," he said. "It should be done more through an open election process."
Subtracting the number of votes that the Teamsters say are controlled by Smith in the vote to separate the chairman/CEO roles, the group said it figured the vote was closer to 35 percent.
"You have to get beyond the personality of this particular leader," Teamster spokesman Louis Malizia said after the meeting. "You have to get beyond the idea that this is the founder's company. FedEx is publicly held company with a very diverse group of stockholders."
The Teamsters are pushing for an independent audit of the independent contractor model at FedEx Ground. With a chairman who is also the chief executive, the union says the board has not done enough to show what effect the various suits against its independent contractor model will have on share value.
"To get 30 percent or close to 30 percent is huge." Those are the words that thousands of FedEx employees read on Tuesday morning. This issue is not going away.
-- September 28
Straight Talk, Pure Fantasy & Questions that Won't Go Away
The IBT's day two story following yesterday's ho-hum FedEx Corp quarterly conference call sure knocked the "FedEx reported..." articles off the charts. As of 5:00, the Yahoo! finance page for FDX has two headlines about the IBT; the Money.cnn.com page for FDX has got six headlines and the News.google.com page for FDX has four headlines.
And in none of these articles will you find any FedEx spokes-podperson say what the incentives are. They will say that the Teamsters' figures are pure fantasy. But that is what is called a non-denial denial in the biz.
The unwillingness to come clean on how much money this illegal contractor model will cost FedEx is clear for all to see in the dismissive way that the company responded to the reporters following the IBT release. And this unwillingness to come clean on the liabilities is precisely the point of the IBT's shareholder resolution at the annual meeting next Monday. The lies, the secrecy, the delay deny and lose strategy are all issues that the Board of Directors should be handling on behalf of shareholders.
But CEO Fred Smith and Chairman of the Board Fred Smith agree that the IBT is out of line. The FedEx Corporation official response in its proxy (warning: big PDF file) is:
Separation of the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer roles is not necessary to ensure that our Board provides independent and effective oversight of FedEx's business and affairs...
The Board of Directors and its committee vigorously oversee the effectiveness of management policies and decisions, including the execution of key strategic initiatives...
Finally, we take issue with the proponent's (read: Teamsters) irrelevant and clearly self-serving reference to the purported class-action lawsuits and other proceedings that claim that FedEx Ground's owner-operators should be treated as employees and not independent contractors. Our Board of Directors has reveiwed FedEx Ground's independent contractor model and closely monitors the status of these proceedings...We strongly believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and we continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these proceedings.
(Emphasis added just for chuckles. This proxy is from August 13. Guess all that vigor of defending the model in CA just wore them out.)
We wonder what the CEO Fred Smith told the Chairman Fred Smith or the rest of the Board about the California changes. The math of the California Ultimatum when applied to the nation sure add up quickly - $25,000 times 1055 single vehicle contractors in CA = $25,000,000 minimum while $XX,000 times (say) 10,000 SVCs in USA = $XXX,000,000.
Oh, and Maury, try reading FedExaminer. You might learn a thing or two. Like how much the incentives are for the California Ultimatum. Any CA driver who wants to contact the IBT should email to asap.
-- September 21
Dave Rebholz on California Ultimatum
So, how many FedEx Ground managers really knew what was coming down the pike in California? Not all of them. And some of them are talking to us. Here's what Dave Rebholz sent around yesterday
GROUNDNEWS/CORP/FXG
09/20/2007 12:11 PM
To
cc
Subject An important message from Dave Rebholz
We have some important news and I wanted to make sure you heard it from me first. For more than 20 years, this company and its independent contractors have formed a powerful competitive alliance that has clearly made its mark on the ground, small package delivery industry.
We strongly believe in the effectiveness of independent contractors and are vigorously defending our business model in the state of California. That said, in the face of growing legal and regulatory uncertainty, we must take further steps to strengthen our ability to continue operating with contractors in that state. Therefore, FedEx Ground is announcing today its goal of serving California customers exclusively through multiple work area contractors by fiscal year end May 31, 2008. Contractors with multiple vehicles and drivers on the road every day have greater flexibility in providing the high level of customer service expected from the FedEx Ground network.
In addition, we will no longer renew California single work area contracts as they expire. After exploring every available option, weʼve concluded that transitioning to an all multiple work area contractor workforce in California is the right thing to do.
We realize that being a multiple route business owner may not be for everyone. So, for those California-based single route contractors who donʼt wish to expand their business to operate multiple routes, they will be offered voluntary transition incentives to facilitate the sale or transfer of their routes and special support for disposition of their vehicles.We firmly believe that the independent contractor model at FedEx Ground is a mutually beneficial relationship and we will continue to invest in improving and strengthening the contractor network.
Dave Rebholz
President and CEO
"Uncertainty." Fred Smith said it to Wall Street analysts yesterday. Dave Rebholz clings to that word too. To them it sounds so much better than "losing."
But this whole kick in the teeth to "contractors" and "FedEx business partners" in California is both in response to uncertainty and is meant to create uncertainty. What this offer means to each driver in California is different based on each person's situation. This ultimatum in California and the 30 day timeline is intended to cause as much uncertainty to those drivers as possible. All those California folks need to get legal advice before signing anything or deciding to sell, buy or transfer anything.
FedEx obviously thought long and hard and planned for this. Be smart about your reaction to it.
-- September 21
More Mr. Smith Whining in Washington
"It was the rudest I've been treated in Congress."
So the Chairman of a House of Representatives Committe ignores Fred Smith's charms and persuasions. And Mr. Smith responds like a rejected date on a reality tv show. More desperation.
Congress changing hands in 2007 is another change in tide that is just as natural and predictible. But when the ones on top one day make enemies through their arrogance - especially enemies with long memories and committee seniority like Oberstar - then one shouldn't whine like a school girl when the enemies get their day on top.
The delivery giants and organized labor have battled over the issue before. FedEx Express briefly lost its airline status in the mid-1990s, but a Republican-controlled Congress reinstated it after a bitter fight with some pro-labor Democrats, including Oberstar. Oberstar said he "vowed at the time" to change the law if Democrats ever took control of Congress. He said he was "offended by FedEx's powerhouse lobbying in 1996 protecting themselves against any future organizing activities."
There is a lot to learn from reviewing the transcripts from the Senate showdown in 1996 over the FedEx sweetheart clause in the FAA bill that year. What goes around comes around, Mr. Smith.
-- September 14
Oregonian Looks into FedEx Ground
The Oregonian ran two stories that looked into two aspects of the FedEx Ground model.
One article covered the Oregon member case of the multi-district litigation. The recent Estrada ruling was noted, as was the straight talk from FedEx on how it still hasn't decided if it will appeal again in California.
The second article focused on the possible relocation of a FXG hub, the question of incentives for such commercial investment and the secondary impact on the environment and job-creation by the proposed move. In the end, unfortunately for Oregon taxpayers, it looks like the pols are more scared of accusations of 'losing new jobs' than of measuring the complete cost of these things.
-- August 30
Bloomberg: FedEx, UPS Increase Donations to Democrats
Bloomberg ran an analysis of corporate Political Action Committee giving by some of the largest PACs in the nation. The Bloomberg headline writer chose to highlight both FedEx and UPS in the headline. But the reporter clearly had FedEx in his sights:
FedEx Corp., United Parcel Service Inc. and General Dynamics Corp. are among companies shifting campaign contributions to Democrats after years of favoring Republicans, federal records show.
FedEx's political action committee contributed 58 percent of its money to Democrats in the first half of the year as it lobbies against a bill making it easier for the company's truck drivers to unionize, according to the Federal Election Commission. In the 2006 election, two-thirds of FedEx's PAC donations went to Republicans in their unsuccessful bid to keep congressional control.
<snip>
Memphis-based FedEx said the donations aren't tied to fighting the pro-union legislation. FedEx, the second-largest U.S. package-shipping company, opposes a bill to let its truck drivers join local unions rather than having to organize nationally. The House Transportation Committee in June attached the provision to legislation renewing airline taxes and fees.
The measure would put FedEx truck drivers under the same labor law as those working for its larger competitor, UPS, which employs 246,000 Teamsters.
FedEx spokeswoman Kristin Krause said the donations are unrelated to the legislation. ``We've always been very bipartisan in our PAC contributions and look for candidates on both sides of the aisle that understand our issues,'' she said.
So FedEx gave 66 percent of its contributions to Republicans when the GOP was in charge and then in 2007 gave 58 of its political action money to Dems when they're on top. By comparison, the article details how the breakdown of UPS contributions to Democrats went from 32 percent in 2006 to 40 percent so far in 2007.
-- August 22
FDX Legal Woes Highlighted in Memphis Sunday Paper
The hometown Memphis newspaper ran an extensive piece on FedEx Ground's misclassification problem in its Sunday edition Business Section.
The observations of the University of Memphis professor interviewed for the piece are worth noting:
"My guess is that the independent contract structure gives FedEx a 15- to 20-percent advantage on total compensation costs on benefits alone," said labor economist David Ciscel, professor emeritus at the University of Memphis.
"But there could be all sorts of advantages we're not seeing."
<snip>
"If FedEx won, they would win every suit, but if they lose, they lose big-time, too," Ciscel said. "Without knowing for sure, I've always thought the whole relationship was to thwart unionized drivers and not so much about cost considerations."
That's what the Teamsters have thought all along too.
The article also quotes the company's podperson:
"We know that defending the independent contractors is the right thing to do," said Maury Lane, FedEx spokesman. "This is the kind of service our customers have asked for."
Is that more straight talk? "The customers made us do it. The customers made us do it." That might not fly when the bill comes due in California or elsewhere for the company's policy of misclassifying tens of thousands of drivers.
All in all, a solid article that got its facts right and makes FedEx look pretty bad. It must not have made for good breakfast reading for all the FDX corporate types in Memphis.
-- August 20
Straight Talk, or Slow Walk off a Cliff?
There is lots to learn over at FedExaminer.
One driver posted FedEx Ground management's response to the latest smackdown in the Estrada case .
"Notice to Independent Contractors: Ruling on Estrada Litigation
On Monday, August 13, an appeals court in California ruled that a limited number of single-work area contractors in the state- most of whom have not contracted with FedEx Ground since 2001 - should be reimbursed as employees for some of their operating expenses. We obviously disagree with the decision and are evaluating our legal options.
What does the ruling mean for you?
*The Court ruling directly affects only a small percentage of contractors in California, many of whom are no longer with the company.
*We believe the court's decision will have absolutely no effect on our ability to continue providing the world-class service our cutomers have come to expect.
*We are commited to giving you straight talk about these and other issues and will continue to keep you updated as developments occur."
Just like John McCain's straight talk - not based in reality and stuck in 2000.
The reporters covering FDX don't seem to get the importance of this appellate decision. Bloomberg is on top of it. The Pittsbugh paper had an itsy-bitsy mention of it.
But the detail that matters to the drivers most goes unmentioned. Of course, the judges ruled that the drivers are ducks...no, the drivers are employees. But more importantly, the range of expenses that the company owed them will increase their awards.
From the plaintiffs' lawyers statement:
The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision finding FedEx Ground drivers to be employees and not independent contractors, thus denying the appeal of FedEx in the landmark Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. The appeals court also determined that the FedEx Ground drivers were entitled to reimbursement for approximately $6 million in additional expenses bringing the total damages to about $11 million for 200 drivers.
There is a big difference between straight talk and cold cash.
-- August 16
Express Western Region Lawsuit $55 Million Settlement Approved
Bloomberg (is every other news service in the world asleep?) covers the Judge's approval of the settlement in the Satchell case.
In an order signed yesterday and posted on the court's Web site today, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco approved the settlement covering 20,000 checker-sorters, customer service agents, freight handlers and other workers. Derrick Satchell and eight other employees sued the unit in 2003, claiming they were denied promotions and raises equal to those given white colleagues.
FedEx dropped its requirement for candidates for courier jobs to pass a map-reading, listening, reading and sorting skills test after the suit was filed, said spokeswoman Sally Davenport. Under the agreement, FedEx will change its promotion practices and will be monitored by a court-appointed special master.
<snip>
The company denied all allegations of discrimination.
Under the proposed settlement, named class representatives will receive as much as $30,000 each and 18 other people will get $5,000 each for the time they spent giving affidavits and depositions to lawyers on both sides.
Although the money may be just a drop in the ocean, the court "special master" now inserted in FedEx management shows that this case will have a long-standing impact on how FedEx operates.
-- August 16
New Resources: 2 Pennsylvania UC Board Rulings
There have been rumors of letters from the Pennsylvania authorities to FedEx Ground and Home Delivery drivers in that state.
Something must be afoot in Penn. Two recent Unemployment Compensation Board decisions that reversed previous rulings of ineligibility are another indication of stirrings in PA. One case involved a claim from 2006 which took 6 months to reverse. The second case was a claim from 2007 that took only 3 months to reverse.
Both Board decisions came to the same conclusion: FedEx had control over the driver, the driver didn't operate an independent business and the driver was an employee.
-- August 14
Attack the Messenger
More signs of desperation.
Instead of rebutting the decision of the Massachusetts Department of Workforce Development. Instead of rebutting the decision of National Labor Relations Board Region 1. Instead of rebutting the sworn testimony before Congress.
The company podperson attacks the messenger, Bob Williams.
FedEx Ground spokesman Perry Colosimo said the company wasn't surprised by Williams' testimony.
"FedEx gave Mr. Williams not one, but two, chances to succeed: once as a management employee at FedEx Express, and a second chance as a contractor at FedEx Ground," Colosimo said. "His performance was unacceptable in both cases."
Normally, there is no reason to repeat such a classless comment. But since Bob has been kicking the company's butt with regularity, the quote is noted here so we can all keep score. Bob will have the last laugh.
-- August 13
Baltimore TV Investigates FedEx Ground
A Baltimore television station ran an "I Team" investigation into FedEx Ground in Maryland on Aug 7. Overall, a very solid story.
The FedEx Ground podperson wouldn't even face the reporter. The company is apparently unwilling to take questions. Imagine what Mike Wallace would do with them.
As for the pro-co guy who was in the video, since he grosses $7,000 a month operating four vehicles with 3 employees it begs the question of how much he takes home after expenses. And he runs from door to door all while never missing a day even when injured and sick and nets next to nothing while supplying FedEx with a fleet of four vehicles at no cost. That's the best face the company can put forward?
-- August 09
Bloomberg Re-examines FXG Misclassification Issue
Bloomberg filed an update on the FedEx Ground driver misclassification issue. The reporters seemed to have talked to a lot of people to get views from a number of perspectives. But the reporters got bamboozled. Since the news is the first draft of history, mistakes should be noted and untruths need to be refuted.
First, the mistake.
The reporters write about the multi-district litigation against FedEx this way, "The lawsuit is one of several disputes involving the Memphis, Tennessee-based company and the Teamsters union." The fact is that neither the International Brotherhood of Teamsters nor any affiliated union is a party to the multi-district litigation. That lawsuit is a dispute involving the Memphis-based company and the drivers who are now plaintiffs. It is certainly true that there are disputes between FedEx and the Teamsters. But the lawsuit is not one of them.
Second, the untruth. And this is where the company spin has seeped into the reporting.
The article had multiple re-writes. So one has to watch the language carefully.
In the original article (4:00 am) and Update 1 (12:00 pm), the article stated:
The lawsuit is of one of several disputes between the Memphis, Tennessee-based company and the Teamsters union. The union on July 24 sent a former FedEx contract driver to a U.S. Congress committee to testify about working conditions.
FedEx, which has 280,000 employees, gave the court in Indiana e-mails between union officials and lawyers to show the unions are driving the lawsuits.
But in Update 2 (3:00 pm) and Update 3 (5:00 pm), that segment of the article had changed:
The lawsuit is one of several disputes involving the Memphis, Tennessee-based company and the Teamsters union. On July 24, a former FedEx contract driver selected by the union went to a U.S. Congress committee to testify about working conditions.
FedEx, which has 280,000 employees, provided the court in Indiana with e-mails gathered during the discovery process, or the pre-trial exchange of evidence. The messages between Teamsters officials and lawyers show the unions are driving the lawsuits, the company claimed.
This is where the company's conspiracy theory interrupts the facts. "Emails" between "union officials" and "lawyers" "show" the "unions are driving the lawsuits." Only in the later version is the last phrase - "the company claimed" - added.
Just like the company argued its conspiracy theory before the NLRB in Hartford, the company spin doctors float it to the reporters. In the legal hearing, the judge saw through the spin by getting all the facts and called bs on the company. In the Bloomberg article, the company's "claims" are repeated without refutation.
The judge said it better so it bears repeating: "The uncontradicted testimony establishes that the Union did not initiate or pay any part of the legal fees or any incidental expenses of the lawsuits against the Employer, either directly or indirectly." Empasis intentional. A couple of disjointed emails and some spin won't change the facts.
-- August 08
New Document: NLRB Admin Law Judge Decision in Hartford
Following the election victory by Home Delivery drivers in Windsor, CT who chose to join Teamster Local Union 671, the company unsurprisingly raised objections to the election procedures. Since the company tried the exact same delay tactic in the Wilmington election (and failed), it follows they'd try again. And it looks likely they will fail again.
A hearing into the company's objections was held by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge on July 2 and July 3 in Hartford. The two objections addressed in that hearing were ruled upon by the NLRB ALJ on August 2.
FedEx's Objection 1 in its entirety is:
During the critical period before the representation election on May 11, 2007, Teamster Local Union 671, affiliated with IBT, by and through its agents and others with whom it acted in concert improperly conferred valuable benefits, including legal services, to eligible voters and caused two civil actions on their behalf to commence in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut. The civil actions identify six (6) voters as named plaintiffs. The Union's conduct constitutes, among other things, an impermissable benefit with laboratory conditions necessary to conduct a free and fair election.
So, the company claims that since HD drivers in Windsor were p.o.'d enough to file lawsuits at around the same time they were p.o.'d enough to want to elect Local 671 as bargaining representative, then....then what is not clear. Somehow a series of legal activities by these drivers, the Teamsters and independent lawyers were "impermissable."
After two days of multiple witness testifying to what happened in Windsor, the ALJ came to his decision based on the facts and not on company conspiracy theories. The ALJ wrote:
The uncontradicted testimony establishs that the Union did not initiate or pay any part of the legal fees or any incidental expenses of the lawsuits against the Employer, either directly or indirectly, or confer any valuable benefit upon the unit employees as alleged in the objection...The only 'support' provided by the Union relating to the lawsuits involves the maintenance of two websites that provide information relating to the Employer, its attempts to classify contract drivers as independent contractors and the resulting lawsuits...As a union is entitled to notify employees of their rights, I find nothing objectionable about the maintenance of, or publicity about, either of these websites.
And Objection 1 was kicked to the curb. Objection 2 was a technical issue about the status of two single vehicle contractors. That got kicked to the curb also. The full ALJ decision is now among the documents at the Resource page about the Windsor HD facility.
The strained legal arguments by FedEx and its legal team - in front of the NLRB, in front of the MDL judge, in front of the CA Court of Appeals and elsewhere - sure stink of desperation.
There is a saying among lawyers: "When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; when you have the law on your side, pound the law; when you don't have the facts or the law, pound the table." Or in FedEx's (weak) case, offer conspiracy theories.
-- August 08
Discrimination at FedEx Express Alleged in NJ Lawsuit
The Morris County (NJ) Daily Record reported on a recently filed lawsuit by a former FedEx Express worker who claims discrimination based on his development of Parkinson's Disease.
The lawsuit alleges harrassment and discrimination and documents a series of actions by managers:
There are some interesting comments from readers of the story too. Every defendent is innocent until proven otherwise - or in some cases until there is a settlement and non-disclosure agreement in place.The suit claimed that a complaint against Nesbit and Altivilla filed by Terrazza with FedEx personnel supervisors was assigned to Nesbit for investigation, even though Nesbit had been named in the complaint.
The suit claimed that the series of job shifts were done in retaliation for the complaint against Nesbit and Altivilla.
By April 2005, Terrazza was suffering from Parkinson's, depression and a lack of sleep and was placed on disability until August 2005, the suit said.
On his first day back at work, Terrazza was fired for falsification of company records, the suit said.
-- August 07
New Resource: NY WC Board Panel Decision
The list of states that put the lie to FedEx's claim that their "contractor model" passes the smell test is long and growing.
The New York Workers' Compensation Board made just such a ruling in July 2006. The Board Panel ruled unanimously to overturn previous Board rulings and found a FedEx Home Delivery driver to be an employee.
If we know about this ruling, you can be sure that Gov. Spitzer and his team know about it too. Being in Eliot Spitzer's crosshairs is usually not a pleasant place to be. Especially tough for a national package delivery company who routinely misclassifies drivers.
-- July 24
Fred Smith Whines and Dines in Washington
The legislative battle for FedEx Express to keep its 'express courier' sweetheart clause under the Railway Labor Act is heating up like the Washington summer weather. Fred Smith came before the Senate Finance Committe to talk about Federal Aviation Administration funding. But he didn't just stop there.
The media doesn't report who he dined with, but this Bloomsberg piece makes it clear who he whined to:
FedEx Corp. Chief Executive Officer Fred Smith told U.S. senators it would be ``terrible public policy'' to approve legislation that makes joining unions easier for the delivery company's truck drivers.
``It's a bad thing directed at one company to disadvantage us,'' Smith told a Senate panel today in Washington. ``It's certainly inappropriate, in our opinion, to do this without any public hearing, without any consideration in a public manner.''
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 28 approved budget legislation that includes a provision to let drivers for FedEx's Express unit vote locally to join unions rather than having to hold a national election. Smith wants senators to reject the plan in their version of the bill.
The legislation, backed by larger rival United Parcel Service Inc., would let FedEx Express drivers organize under the National Labor Relations Act. Now, because FedEx was founded as an airline, the drivers are under the Railway Labor Act, which also covers aviation workers.
All express drivers should be under the railway-labor act because it lets the U.S. government decide whether companies can lock out workers or employees can strike, Smith told the Senate Finance Committee's finance, energy and infrastructure panel.
FedEx and Fred Smith will pull out all the stops to keep the RLA clause in the pending FAA language. There's going to be a lot of spin and bamboozlement coming from Memphis over the next few months.
-- July 20
Boston 4 File Discrimination Lawsuit
The four Muslim drivers out of the Wilmington, MA Home Delivery terminal filed their discrimination lawsuit in county court. The drivers allege a pattern of racial slurs and discriminatory practices by FedEx management.
The Associated Press article concludes, "The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ruled in March that the employees' complaints were valid, clearing the way for the drivers to pursue their case."
-- July 17
Page 2 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
