EPI Study: UPS Strike -- Few Gains, Fewer Jobs

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by cheryl, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    An article I found in the archives from Sept 98:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080228214547/http://www.ncpa.org/pd/unions/sept98a.html

    From National Center for Policy Analysis

    EPI Study: UPS Strike -- Few Gains, Fewer Jobs

    The Teamsters claim that employees "won" major economic gains by their strike against United Parcel Service last year; but analysts say the result has been fewer jobs.

    A major issue leading to the strike was the demand by the union that UPS create more full-time jobs that could be filled by part-time workers. However, many part-time UPS employees are college students, and management said they didn't want full-time UPS jobs.



      • In July 1998 UPS notified the Teamsters Union it would be unable to create the 2,000 new full-time jobs called for in the first year of the contract, since UPS volume is down more than 460,000 packages.
      • Today, UPS employs 16,400 fewer persons than it did one year ago, including 10,000 union jobs.
      • And the number of part-time employees at the end of May 1998 was 15,000 less than May 1997.
    Furthermore, compared to UPS's final offer before the strike, under the post-strike agreement part-time employees will earn less over the entire five years of the contract, and full-time employees will have gains only in the final year. The major reason economic losses for Teamsters workers were so high was that the final settlement excluded two large profit-sharing bonuses the company offered workers.

    Source: "Assessing the Teamsters Strike Against UPS -- One Year Later," E-Mail Trend, September 3, 1998, Employment Policy Foundation, , 1015 15th St., N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 789-8685.
     
  2. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

  3. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    So Diesel, are you disputing anything is said in the article or are you saying that it is somehow less credible because of the political affiliations of the organization that provided the information.
     
  4. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Not disputing the data, just naturally skeptical of the politcal affiliations of a "right wing think tank" group calling themselves the "Nat'l Center" and authoring an article on Union studies, thats all... Do you think they are Union Friendly?

    I just like to weigh both points of views, or better yet a independent or un-biased view. I due appreiciate any and all views/links expressed here and decide for myself which way to lean.
     
  5. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    Nope, probably not union friendly, but that's the point. We need to get more diverse opinions into the information available. I don't remember you asking if the anti contract articles posted from tdu were union friendly...

    Me too, I like to hear from all sides before I make up my mind about anything...