Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Hoffa Stays
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 139368" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I had no idea the US gov't campaigned for Hoffa!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/lol.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Lol :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> </p><p> </p><p>You know there is much to be read into the numbers. First off, Leedham IMO surprised a number of folks with 35% of the vote but what was more surprising was that the margin of victory in the South for Hoffa was smaller than any other region meaning more Southern Teamsters by % supported Leedham than any other region. The south is not union strong and Leedham comes across speaking to a more radical wing of the IBT whereas Hoffa is more the status quo and when it comes to labor, southerners by tradition have been more status quo.</p><p> </p><p>Now this could signal a change in southern thinking (yeah we do have those moments every so often<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/wink.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" /> ) or Leedham did a better job in the south. I do think part of it is discontent from the pension situation and few people see Hoffa doing much about it.</p><p> </p><p>The other interesting fact to watch when all the numbers are looked at is how many Teamsters voted to how many, in effect, stayed home? Without even knowing the exact total raw number, I'd be willing to bet that less than half of the membership voted and I'd almost be willing to bet that less than 25% did. </p><p> </p><p>Some would argue different reasons but IMO this is the heart of the reason. Neither candidate energized the larger membership into believing their cause was good for the union. It came down to a "which one is the lesser evil" choice which IMO mirrors public politics we see out in life. Neither candidate to my knowledge published or spoke of any great details of how they plan to resolve the current pension problems in some jurisdictions. Oh they all said the key buzzwords of "We'll put a gun to the heads of the employers and force them to pony up!" Yeah Right! To me that's like some man claiming he's the greatest lover to all women of the world when he holding a 1/4 inch love commando. He might fool a couple of women but he won't get far before reality hits him in the face!</p><p> </p><p>The IBT is dying because it lacks any leadership willing to have vision, to change according to current and future dynamics and to have a plan as to how they might achieve such things in an obviously changing world. At the same time, we've got leaders only willing to preach to the choir because we have a membership not only unwilling to bend but also unwilling to face the present and the future and understand what worked in the past will not work today or tomorrow. </p><p> </p><p>Others have suggested alternatives in the past only to be shotdown with most haste. Good example was the 97' UPS offering on the pension. Now I've no doubt there were some "devils in those details" but did we get a chance to discuss or better yet ask the all important question of "how are they able to offer these amounts?" Oh No! Can't have this because we are the union and we must at all costs maintain the status quo. Also had Carey ( a former UPS driver) allowed us to opt-out, could you imagine the counterpunch he would have recieved in the 98' IBT Presidential elections from the non-UPS membership? We got played so Carey could look strong to the other company IBT members. That's another reason I feel our own union seperate of these other folks is so needed. We don't get sacrificed for them and they don't get sacrificed for us.</p><p> </p><p>Leedham's chance was to get those 75% non voters to vote which did not happen so as a result we have Hoffa again. My guess is the union will continue to slide further into the pool of quicksand it is already headed for!</p><p> </p><p>JMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 139368, member: 2189"] I had no idea the US gov't campaigned for Hoffa! :lol: You know there is much to be read into the numbers. First off, Leedham IMO surprised a number of folks with 35% of the vote but what was more surprising was that the margin of victory in the South for Hoffa was smaller than any other region meaning more Southern Teamsters by % supported Leedham than any other region. The south is not union strong and Leedham comes across speaking to a more radical wing of the IBT whereas Hoffa is more the status quo and when it comes to labor, southerners by tradition have been more status quo. Now this could signal a change in southern thinking (yeah we do have those moments every so often:wink: ) or Leedham did a better job in the south. I do think part of it is discontent from the pension situation and few people see Hoffa doing much about it. The other interesting fact to watch when all the numbers are looked at is how many Teamsters voted to how many, in effect, stayed home? Without even knowing the exact total raw number, I'd be willing to bet that less than half of the membership voted and I'd almost be willing to bet that less than 25% did. Some would argue different reasons but IMO this is the heart of the reason. Neither candidate energized the larger membership into believing their cause was good for the union. It came down to a "which one is the lesser evil" choice which IMO mirrors public politics we see out in life. Neither candidate to my knowledge published or spoke of any great details of how they plan to resolve the current pension problems in some jurisdictions. Oh they all said the key buzzwords of "We'll put a gun to the heads of the employers and force them to pony up!" Yeah Right! To me that's like some man claiming he's the greatest lover to all women of the world when he holding a 1/4 inch love commando. He might fool a couple of women but he won't get far before reality hits him in the face! The IBT is dying because it lacks any leadership willing to have vision, to change according to current and future dynamics and to have a plan as to how they might achieve such things in an obviously changing world. At the same time, we've got leaders only willing to preach to the choir because we have a membership not only unwilling to bend but also unwilling to face the present and the future and understand what worked in the past will not work today or tomorrow. Others have suggested alternatives in the past only to be shotdown with most haste. Good example was the 97' UPS offering on the pension. Now I've no doubt there were some "devils in those details" but did we get a chance to discuss or better yet ask the all important question of "how are they able to offer these amounts?" Oh No! Can't have this because we are the union and we must at all costs maintain the status quo. Also had Carey ( a former UPS driver) allowed us to opt-out, could you imagine the counterpunch he would have recieved in the 98' IBT Presidential elections from the non-UPS membership? We got played so Carey could look strong to the other company IBT members. That's another reason I feel our own union seperate of these other folks is so needed. We don't get sacrificed for them and they don't get sacrificed for us. Leedham's chance was to get those 75% non voters to vote which did not happen so as a result we have Hoffa again. My guess is the union will continue to slide further into the pool of quicksand it is already headed for! JMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Hoffa Stays
Top