"BROTHERHOOD" in International Brotherhood of Teamsters has been Broken-RIP 2013

Stonefish

Well-Known Member
Stonefish,

No excuse just reality.

In your view what is Union Leadership responsible for?

Sincerely,
I

Union Leadership is responsible for leading those who want to be so called lead.
You can't lead those who don't want to do anything about it and just bad rap everything.
If you are or were ever a steward you understand how many of your coworkers complain about 9.5, supervisors working, 8 hour requests, air drivers performing ground work and numerous other things and when you hand them a grievance form they say it isn't that big of a deal. I can't tell you how many times that happens.
The truth that not many on here are talking about is you could have the best contract language ever and if our co workers aren't willing to enforce it then it doesn't matter. That is the reality.
It has been said many times and i guess i will say it again WE are the union.
 

Stonefish

Well-Known Member
(My last post was on a phone and came out wrong)
I'm not sure about what you consider the cold reality (ie The cold reality is the vast majority of our coworkers wouldn't strike). I'll just say maybe it's accurate, but maybe not. It was not up to the International to decide in advance if we probably wouldn't strike or not. It should have been the RESPONSIBILITY of the international to allow the members to decide if we chose to strike or not. In addition, the International should have had the sense to think ahead and provide it's members with the best possible climate to strike. Striking in January is the WORSE possible time to strike, and that is very much what was presented to us. Anyone who has been with this company more than a couple of years knows, To strike in January is about as stupid a move as could ever be made - and it was totally irresponsible of the international to put us in that situation.
I for example would be willing to strike, BUT NOT IN JANUARY!! Personally, I believe this was planned to detour us from striking. Nobody willing to strike? I'm not as sure as you are about that, but I am positive, the company and the Union didn't want to see a strike and did everything in their power to see that didn't happen. This I can blame on the Union

As for your second opinion. "In 97 when we were on strike people were close to crossing and both sides knew it". I don't know what you consider close. a couple of days? If that's the case, I think the company would have held out if it were just a couple of days more. I don't know, how long till enough people would have started crossing, and I doubt you do either. I believe, if it would have been close, the company would have held out. The main damage had already been done. Difficult for me to opine on the second part.


Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/...n-broken-rip-2013.350924/page-7#ixzz2pRnuHph6
I respectfully disagree with you. The International didn't or has not to my knowledge decided we wouldn't strike. If the members voted down the first, second or third time i'm sure there would be a strike vote taken. My opinion is the IBT has obligations and one of them is making sure they do the right thing and sometimes not everyone agrees on what is right but they were elected to do a job and they are doing it. Some people are happy, some are not. As far as striking in January or any other month it is a last resort and shouldn't be taken lightly because no one really wins in that scenario. We do agree on the issue of neither the company or union not wanting to see a strike. You should also include our co workers in that if we are being honest with each other.
As far as 1997 I was on the line I saw what was going on so what i saw is reality. You don't have to agree with me honestly I could care less I don't have feelings to hurt like others do.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
The Union will never authorize a national strike based on a few rogue locals.

Can you imagine the PR if we were strike after a Peak in which parts of the country were less than perfect?
 

Stonefish

Well-Known Member
The Union will never authorize a national strike based on a few rogue locals.

Can you imagine the PR if we were strike after a Peak in which parts of the country were less than perfect?
I agree there won't be a national strike because the national master passed.
I don't agree calling them rogue locals. Although I may not agree why they voted no I support and encourage people to just freakin vote. An average of 25% turnout in most locals in Ohio is sad.
As far as PR yes I can imagine never getting volume back if there was/is a strike.
That is a small part of what the leadership has to look at. Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.
 

twoweeled

Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree with you. The International didn't or has not to my knowledge decided we wouldn't strike. If the members voted down the first, second or third time i'm sure there would be a strike vote taken. My opinion is the IBT has obligations and one of them is making sure they do the right thing and sometimes not everyone agrees on what is right but they were elected to do a job and they are doing it. Some people are happy, some are not. As far as striking in January or any other month it is a last resort and shouldn't be taken lightly because no one really wins in that scenario. We do agree on the issue of neither the company or union not wanting to see a strike. You should also include our co workers in that if we are being honest with each other.
As far as 1997 I was on the line I saw what was going on so what i saw is reality. You don't have to agree with me honestly I could care less I don't have feelings to hurt like others do.

You reminded me of a time when I was on a jury. Many on the jury are somewhat attacking me. A woman speaks up and says; maybe we shouldn't all be climbing all over him at the same time". Another gentleman in the group speaks up and says; "I think he's fine. I have the strange feeling, he doesn't care one bit". LOL! Point being, I understand about the, not having feelings to hurt. :biggrin:
 

twoweeled

Well-Known Member
WOW you really don't get it.

Look up the definition of a union.

Definition of UNION? One is "the action or fact of joining or being joined", another more in context, "an organized association of workers formed to protect and further their rights and interests; a labor union".
How does this conflict with so terribly with what I said "But if all of us stood together and worked like a well oiled, fine tuned machine, we wouldn't need a union"?
The purpose of Union is ORGANIZATION. You know that. It's what results out of organization, that we really want. That is way we unionize - for organization. Without it, we are like a chicken without a head. Why do you think management does so well? Management doesn't have all sups and mgrs screaming their wants and dislikes at the same time. They have a few at the top, who organize and decide what they FEEL is best for the company. A good functioning Union has a few at the top, who decide what is best for it's membership and how to go about it _ and put it to the members to decide. Where we are falling short, is the debate if our union is sincerely looking for what is best for it's members, or what is best for the Union heads. They are no longer one of the same. This is where things have gone bad. Let's be honest and face facts here. The Union and the Company were working together to get the minimum past in this last contract. This was not Union vs Company, this was members vs Company/Union.
 
My feelings exactly!
It was a joke son. Most members think the union should do everything. They don't understand that they are indeed the union and the people we elect to represent it need our help as well.

You probably didn't understand my humor or wit. Instead you throw insults. I'm fine with that. Have a good day.
 
It was a joke son. Most members think the union should do everything. They don't understand that they are indeed the union and the people we eit!ect to represent it need our help as well.

You probably didn't understand my humor or wit. Instead you through insults. I'm fine with that. Have a good day.
Im down to my last 6 pack, of Great Lakes Christmas Ale! Do you like any of their other beers? My local beer store carries several other of their flavors. Its not cheap , but I really enjoyed It:beersmiley::beersmiley::beersmiley::beersmiley:
 

twoweeled

Well-Known Member
It was a joke son. Most members think the union should do everything. They don't understand that they are indeed the union and the people we elect to represent it need our help as well.

You probably didn't understand my humor or wit. Instead you throw insults. I'm fine with that. Have a good day.

Your right, I didn't understand your point. I still don't understand your past point. If yours was the wiping nose and butt comment.

I understand your point about some people expecting the union to do everything. But I believe we are way past that point. It seems the Union has reached a new low. The company has undoubtedly kicked it up a bunch, while are Union is capitulating and rationalizing more than ever. The collection of dues is where the Union is shining now. Very efficient at that. not good.
 

twoweeled

Well-Known Member
The Union will never authorize a national strike based on a few rogue locals.

Can you imagine the PR if we were strike after a Peak in which parts of the country were less than perfect?

For some people, when member vote like us, it's reasonable. When they don't vote like us, they are Rogue Locals. I couldn't disagree with you more. If some "rogue locals" had issues that needed addressing, well so be it! We should be backing them, instead of shunning them. That division is what tears us down. That is why the company and union were playing the east against the west! The full timers, against the part timers. To divide us. The strength is in the numbers, you know that. I know you do!
 

Stonefish

Well-Known Member
Definition of UNION? One is "the action or fact of joining or being joined", another more in context, "an organized association of workers formed to protect and further their rights and interests; a labor union".
How does this conflict with so terribly with what I said "But if all of us stood together and worked like a well oiled, fine tuned machine, we wouldn't need a union"?
The purpose of Union is ORGANIZATION. You know that. It's what results out of organization, that we really want. That is way we unionize - for organization. Without it, we are like a chicken without a head. Why do you think management does so well? Management doesn't have all sups and mgrs screaming their wants and dislikes at the same time. They have a few at the top, who organize and decide what they FEEL is best for the company. A good functioning Union has a few at the top, who decide what is best for it's membership and how to go about it _ and put it to the members to decide. Where we are falling short, is the debate if our union is sincerely looking for what is best for it's members, or what is best for the Union heads. They are no longer one of the same. This is where things have gone bad. Let's be honest and face facts here. The Union and the Company were working together to get the minimum past in this last contract. This was not Union vs Company, this was members vs Company/Union.
You stated "but if all of us stood together and worked like a well oiled, fine tuned machine, we wouldn't need a union". Your definition is what a union is and you still don't get it. That's what you should do because you are the union. When you don't stand together you/we are like a chicken without a head. Management in my opinion does so well because they stand together at least outside of the offices. Where we fall short is when we disagree with them people say they are only look out for what is best for the "Union Heads". We can disagree with each other on issues and that is fine at least with me (I hope with you also). I don't feel it is members vs Company/Union as you state. We as union members need and should stick together and what the majority decide should be the end of it.
 

Stonefish

Well-Known Member
For some people, when member vote like us, it's reasonable. When they don't vote like us, they are Rogue Locals. I couldn't disagree with you more. If some "rogue locals" had issues that needed addressing, well so be it! We should be backing them, instead of shunning them. That division is what tears us down. That is why the company and union were playing the east against the west! The full timers, against the part timers. To divide us. The strength is in the numbers, you know that. I know you do!
What are the issues your Local has that isn't already covered in the NM or in your Supplement? Just for the record from my perspective a Local shouldn't be shunned and the Union never played the east against the west or part-time against the full-time as least from what I saw. Strength is in numbers but numbers at least as far as voting in Ohio were 24% in a few Locals. You can not blame that on the Union. It isn't just in union's look at the turn out in all elections. It can't be blamed on unions either. Union's are probably less than 10% at this point. People just don't care and when they do it could be too late
 
Top