Casey Invited The Teamsters To Organize At UPS

Integrity

Binge Poster
For Discussion:

According to a Teamsters historical timeline online; in 1916 Jim Casey invited the Teamsters to organize UPS workers.

What do you think could have possibly been the motivation for such a move?

Sincerely,
I
 

Insincerity

I'm Insincere
I found this within a larger article and maybe it provides "an" insight if no real truth or insight. I am not sure.

As early as 1916, Jim Casey, the founder of UPS, approached the Teamsters about representing his workforce when it was still a bicycle messenger service based in Seattle. Niemann recognized that Seattle was “a haven for left-wing politics” where activists called “for the emancipation of the working class from the ‘slave bondage of capitalism.’” Niemann believes Casey’s willingness to allow his workforce to be represented by the conservative Teamsters came out of his “family” approach to business. But isn’t the obvious answer that Casey hoped to preempt his workforce from joining more radical unions or unions with more militant leaderships? In the 1930s, Casey cut a deal with West Coast Teamster leader Dave Beck to represent UPS drivers and warehouse workers. Beck was a firm believer in “business unionism” and hostile to rank-and-file control of the unions. “Unions are big business,” Beck once declared. “Why should truck drivers and bottle washers be allowed to make big decisions affecting union policy? Would any corporation allow it?” Casey would have agreed.

International Socialist Review
 

stink219

Well-Known Member
It's was easier for UPS to deal with raises as a whole than individually. It has turned into an all out bargain of every element of life.
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
I found this within a larger article and maybe it provides "an" insight if no real truth or insight. I am not sure.

As early as 1916, Jim Casey, the founder of UPS, approached the Teamsters about representing his workforce when it was still a bicycle messenger service based in Seattle. Niemann recognized that Seattle was “a haven for left-wing politics” where activists called “for the emancipation of the working class from the ‘slave bondage of capitalism.’” Niemann believes Casey’s willingness to allow his workforce to be represented by the conservative Teamsters came out of his “family” approach to business. But isn’t the obvious answer that Casey hoped to preempt his workforce from joining more radical unions or unions with more militant leaderships? In the 1930s, Casey cut a deal with West Coast Teamster leader Dave Beck to represent UPS drivers and warehouse workers. Beck was a firm believer in “business unionism” and hostile to rank-and-file control of the unions. “Unions are big business,” Beck once declared. “Why should truck drivers and bottle washers be allowed to make big decisions affecting union policy? Would any corporation allow it?” Casey would have agreed.

International Socialist Review
Insincerity,

Thanks so much.

This is a very interesting read.

I believe the author of this probably is on the right track as to why Jim Casey would invite the Teamsters in.

Sincerely,
I
 

Insincerity

I'm Insincere
Insincerity,

Thanks so much.

This is a very interesting read.

I believe the author of this probably is on the right track as to why Jim Casey would invite the Teamsters in.

Sincerely,
I

It makes sense. Jim Casey, who was UPS at this time, would only have done this if it was the best thing for him (at that time).
 
Jim Casey said if you take care of your employees and customers, they will take care of you. He thought the union would balance things out. If the union is so bad, then why is the company still the largest trucking company?
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Jim Casey said if you take care of your employees and customers, they will take care of you. He thought the union would balance things out. If the union is so bad, then why is the company still the largest trucking company?

I worked at UPS for 40 years, 35 of which was in management.
I have probably heard or read everything published by Jim and UPS at least ten times.
I never heard anything like this.
What I heard was that unionism was inevitable and the Teamsters were tough but fair and a reputation for it's members being hard-working.
The honest days work for an honest days pay.

I believe this is probably a feel-good convention propagated by the Teamsters.
Jim Casey never felt the need to "balance things out" as he perceived UPS to be a large family.
Nothing wrong with that but it is probably "invented".
 

cosmo1

Perhaps.
Staff member
.....What I heard was that unionism was inevitable and the Teamsters were tough but fair and a reputation for it's members being hard-working.
The honest days work for an honest days pay.....

This. There were far more militant unions at that time. He probably (certainly) felt that if/when UPS unionized that the Teamsters would be more favorable to deal with, a model that worked for a long time.

(But, what do I know, being irrelevant and all.)
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
This. There were far more militant unions at that time. He probably (certainly) felt that if/when UPS unionized that the Teamsters would be more favorable to deal with, a model that worked for a long time.

(But, what do I know, being irrelevant and all.)


Just because you are retired does not mean you are irrelevant.

We have to stick together!

We are relevant!
 
I worked at UPS for 40 years, 35 of which was in management.
I have probably heard or read everything published by Jim and UPS at least ten times.
I never heard anything like this.
What I heard was that unionism was inevitable and the Teamsters were tough but fair and a reputation for it's members being hard-working.
The honest days work for an honest days pay.

I believe this is probably a feel-good convention propagated by the Teamsters.
Jim Casey never felt the need to "balance things out" as he perceived UPS to be a large family.
Nothing wrong with that but it is probably "invented".
What I wrote was told to me by two vet. managers. On two separate occasions. It wasn't in writing. It's just coming sense. The man was smart enough to know that you guys would treat us like crap. Also would chew us up and spit us out.

​People think the unions are asking for to much in the work place. All you have to do is treat people the way you want to be treated.

But that is long gone by now.
 

Ouch

Well-Known Member
There were a few drivers at the hub im out of that met Mr. Casey. They said he was a great man. Wonder how many times he has turned over seeing how the employees are treated and the lack of integrity displayed by some of the management personnel?
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
There were a few drivers at the hub im out of that met Mr. Casey. They said he was a great man. Wonder how many times he has turned over seeing how the employees are treated and the lack of integrity displayed by some of the management personnel?

I can guarantee you he has not turned over.
​Take my word!
 

QKRSTKR

Well-Known Member
Good topic I. I to also was told this by our chief steward . Interesting comments for sure. I'd love to read about how it happened and why. I was told maybe he knew how management would be, and to keep them in check. Just take a look at Hoaxster. I think Casey was right.:funny:
 
Top