Political group does a 180 on FDX for UPS
09-29-2009, 09:09 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Not to rehash an old thread that has been beaten to death; but this article seems to have some pretty good numbers all in one place. Probably could be used to support either side and will not change any minds. Especially you left leaning commie ba$tards that want to tie an trip up FDX in order to "level the playing field".
Using Unions As Weapons: UPS and FedEx face off in Congress instead of the marketplace. - Reason Magazine
Using Unions As Weapons: UPS and FedEx face off in Congress instead of the marketplace. - Reason Magazine
09-29-2009, 07:00 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Gunter
So why is UPS looking for a bailout?
What you aren't hearing about is the big bucks UPS is paying out like FedEx was supposed to do. It's definitely much easier for UPS since they are much bigger and make more profit than FedEx. FedEx may lose this pay to play political warfare.
UPS wanted to be under the same rules as FedEx when they didn't look much like FedEx at all. They fought to do so but were denied. In the meantime, UPS kept changing the way they did business to match FedEx. Isn't it just sour grapes that they now want FedEx under the same rules? Why did UPS change if they felt the rules wouldn't let them compete? Is UPS really being hurt? They make more money and have better margins than FedEx.
Are we really supposed to buy the argument UPS needs a more level playing field? They are the 800lb. gorilla, I mean Brown bear.
What you aren't hearing about is the big bucks UPS is paying out like FedEx was supposed to do. It's definitely much easier for UPS since they are much bigger and make more profit than FedEx. FedEx may lose this pay to play political warfare.
UPS wanted to be under the same rules as FedEx when they didn't look much like FedEx at all. They fought to do so but were denied. In the meantime, UPS kept changing the way they did business to match FedEx. Isn't it just sour grapes that they now want FedEx under the same rules? Why did UPS change if they felt the rules wouldn't let them compete? Is UPS really being hurt? They make more money and have better margins than FedEx.
Are we really supposed to buy the argument UPS needs a more level playing field? They are the 800lb. gorilla, I mean Brown bear.
For years, Fred Smith sent his salespeople to UPS customers touting that
FedEx doesn't have the threat of a strike that UPS has because of the RLA vs. NLRB rules. UPS will take that taunting behavior only for so long. FredEx asked for it.
09-29-2009, 08:22 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by say that again
For years, Fred Smith sent his salespeople to UPS customers touting that
FedEx doesn't have the threat of a strike that UPS has because of the RLA vs. NLRB rules. UPS will take that taunting behavior only for so long. FredEx asked for it.
FedEx doesn't have the threat of a strike that UPS has because of the RLA vs. NLRB rules. UPS will take that taunting behavior only for so long. FredEx asked for it.
Actually, the customers were told that FDX didn't have the threat of a strike because there were no unions at FDX, period. The customers couldn't give a rat's arse what labor act anyone operates under.
09-30-2009, 07:26 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Busboy
Close!! But, no cigar.
Actually, the customers were told that FDX didn't have the threat of a strike because there were no unions at FDX, period. The customers couldn't give a rat's arse what labor act anyone operates under.
Actually, the customers were told that FDX didn't have the threat of a strike because there were no unions at FDX, period. The customers couldn't give a rat's arse what labor act anyone operates under.
09-30-2009, 07:33 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by say that again
On another note, FredEx's argument that FedEx is an airline, not a trucking company rings a little hollow to most. After all, 100% of the packages of both companies go by truck. I've yet to see a FedEx or a UPS airplane make a delivery.
Yup. And RLA stands for: Railway Labor Act.
Not too many airlines move their passengers by rail, either. At least in the US.
09-30-2009, 11:58 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 482
Anyone else at Fedex worried about this? Stock market doesn't seem to care but the numbers from that article are pretty scary. I find it hard to believe UPS employees make 3X Fedex employee's. Maybe we use more temporary, ie 12AM to 3AM workers.
09-30-2009, 12:59 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Busboy
Yup. And RLA stands for: Railway Labor Act.
Not too many airlines move their passengers by rail, either. At least in the US.
Not too many airlines move their passengers by rail, either. At least in the US.
You're missing the point, the RLA covers air and railway commerce. It doesn't mention anything about trucks.
09-30-2009, 01:11 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 357
Yes, this is very worrisome. There was a post on the company web site a few months back from Fred Smith, addressing this issue. It was a very well written synopsis of the situation. The bottom line was, if this passes FedEx will be bankrupted in short order. Not due to the unionizing but due to the disjointed and localized method of the unionizing. He spelled out exactly how this would happen.
I know what all the old heads will say; "we received the same letter when we were trying to unionize". However, this would occur on such a large and disjointed scale, Fred Smith is probably right. But the good news is; this would give the government one more industry to take over and run.
I know what all the old heads will say; "we received the same letter when we were trying to unionize". However, this would occur on such a large and disjointed scale, Fred Smith is probably right. But the good news is; this would give the government one more industry to take over and run.
09-30-2009, 01:18 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by MD10PLT
Yes, this is very worrisome. There was a post on the company web site a few months back from Fred Smith, addressing this issue. It was a very well written synopsis of the situation. The bottom line was, if this passes FedEx will be bankrupted in short order. Not due to the unionizing but due to the disjointed and localized method of the unionizing. He spelled out exactly how this would happen.
I know what all the old heads will say; "we received the same letter when we were trying to unionize". However, this would occur on such a large and disjointed scale, Fred Smith is probably right. But the good news is; this would give the government one more industry to take over and run.
I know what all the old heads will say; "we received the same letter when we were trying to unionize". However, this would occur on such a large and disjointed scale, Fred Smith is probably right. But the good news is; this would give the government one more industry to take over and run.
09-30-2009, 01:38 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 357
It's not a case of being union or not, its a case of the process of how they would become unionized. UPS has gone through this over a period of 100 years. FedEx would have it all occur in just a few years.
As for the stock price and Wall Street, read this Market Rap - FedEx Corporation Message Board - FDX
David Bronczek clearly doesn't agree with the street.
As for the stock price and Wall Street, read this Market Rap - FedEx Corporation Message Board - FDX
David Bronczek clearly doesn't agree with the street.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
