Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?

[kingOFchester]

I hate when I hear people say "it's their fault for not voting'' yada yada yada.
If the union truly had an interest in the part timers, they would take the time to inform and educate them about the union and what it has and can do for them. Perhaps the caliber of part time employees are different in other hubs, but in my hub, and particularly in my center, most of them have no clue about the contract and the union. If the union is going to take an initiation fee and monthly dues that comes to approximately 500.00 for the first year, they could at the least hand out a one page letter explaining the union and contact info. It could easily be incorporated with all the other paper work a new hire receives.

But the union does not want the part timers to be educated. They do not want retention, but rather strive for attrition, in the part time ranks. UPS still has to pay into the health and welfare pension, but most part timers never withdraw from it. UPS has and is still trying to design their system for the dumb. No training needed. Read a number and push, throw, slide into a desired location.

I appreciate my AWESOME bennies. I am anxious to make the top driver rate that the union has contracted for us….but that is not to say they do no wrong. I am still amazed to see the contract being violated everyday, union members complaining, but nothing being done. The contract is not being followed. I see it being broken all the time.

 

[PobreCarlos]

UPSNewbie;

And, again, the point is that legally it CAN'T. That simply isn't a choice that's unilaterally available to the company. Period.

 

[evilleace]

If the company could pay pt employees more do really think it would honestly.

 

[dannyboy]

Oh how wonderful.

Lets see, a clear and concise statement in the contract that the amount to be paid is a minimum. But yet all the resident experts say that UPS cant pay more if they wanted to.

But yet it is in the contract.

Like so many other things that are in the contract that the company is given the right to do, but then either cant or wont.

So why have it in the contract.

Last I looked, a contract should be a simple document that clearly shows what each party will do, cant do, and what will be exchanged when all parties agree.

But in reading the contract, there is a ton of bull in there as well.

Maybe its time for some housecleaning in the contract?

d

 

[paidslave]

For the most part, part-timers don't care about much. It was this group of people who enjoyed the years contracts with a bonus. They wanted the fast $500.00. Maybe next time they will think about it, read and understand what they are voting on! I used to care about the part timers but with days most a crappy load with misroutes I don't care much anymore! If they all quit maybe we can start over and have full timers loading for a couple hours and delivering the rest of the hours. Maybe I will be able to get home at a reasonable time. These are the same group who wait until the driver shows up to load his own truck..... Start with the preload manager who can't keep employees under 3 trucks.....start with a talk with and then progressive discipline because they can't get the job done like we are expected as drivers!

We used to be able to leave the building at 8:10 now it is more like 9:10 they just don't care and this is why $8.50 an hour is plenty!

 

[PobreCarlos]

dannyboy;

Re: your "it is in the contract".

Well, my question in response would be "just WHAT is 'in the contract'"? Mentioning a "minimum" in no way specifically allows the employer to unilaterally modify compensation without bargaining...no matter how much you may want to read it that way.

As for your "last you looked" in terms of the contract...well, the last I looked, a contract was supposed to be a TRUE agreement, for considerations, between TWO parties without coercion by an outside third party; a "meeting of the minds". You think that fits with the UPS/Teamsters relationship? What "consideration" does the Teamsters union offer? And if you think they weren't required to by outside forces (primarily Federal law), that UPS would even bargain with the Teamsters today, let alone reach such an "agreement" as they currently have? For use as an example, do you believe you're required to "bargain" and "reach an agreement" with every bum who comes along an offers to "clean" your windshield when you're stopped at a light? And are you much more likely to reach such an "agreement" if he has a companion pointing a Magnum at you through the driver's side window while he's offering to "bargain"? And how often are you going to drive through that neighborhood again unprotected?

In short, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. In terms of the contract, it could - and, truth, probably will - get a lot worse. Either that, or it along with every other remaining basic industry that America has/had is going to be offered-up on the altar of organized "labor"'s short-sightedness, just like the metals and auto industries burned on it already.

 

[trplnkl]

I want to say at first I was on the same page as you about the minimum wage being set in stone, but I did a little research and Danny is closer to right that I was.

dannyboy;

Re: your "it is in the contract".

Well, my question in response would be "just WHAT is 'in the contract'"? Mentioning a "minimum" in no way specifically allows the employer to unilaterally modify compensation without bargaining...no matter how much you may want to read it that way.

As for your "last you looked" in terms of the contract...well, the last I looked, a contract was supposed to be a TRUE agreement, for considerations, between TWO parties without coercion by an outside third party; a "meeting of the minds". You think that fits with the UPS/Teamsters relationship? What "consideration" does the Teamsters union offer? And if you think they weren't required to by outside forces (primarily Federal law), that UPS would even bargain with the Teamsters today, let alone reach such an "agreement" as they currently have?
For use as an example, do you believe you're required to "bargain" and "reach an agreement" with every bum who comes along an offers to "clean" your windshield when you're stopped at a light? And are you much more likely to reach such an "agreement" if he has a companion pointing a Magnum at you through the driver's side window while he's offering to "bargain"? And how often are you going to drive through that neighborhood again unprotected?

In short, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. In terms of the contract, it could - and, truth, probably will - get a lot worse. Either that, or it along with every other remaining basic industry that America has/had is going to be offered-up on the altar of organized "labor"'s short-sightedness, just like the metals and auto industries burned on it already.

You are correct that the contract does not specifically give the company the right to pay more than the minimum, it does however imply that it does.
From the just past contract"
[FONT=&quot]Article 22 Part time employees[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sec 5[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) The wage rates and increases provided in (a) and (b) shall be a minimum.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](d) All part-time employees governed by this Article shall be provided a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]minimum daily three and one-half (3-1/2) hour guarantee.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]unless the meaning of the word "minimum" changes from (c) to (d) the company has the unilateral ability to pay over the minimum. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the company see fit, the can increase the hours over the guarantee, so why would they not be able to increase the wage rate also.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Hole #1..In essence what you describe here is a hand shake agreement not a contract. Few contracts are signed that there is not a third and/or more parties involved, keep word...lawyers.
Hole #2.. UPS/Teamsters contract negotiations are done with the full understanding that we, the workers, have delegated the Teamsters as our representatives. You may want to call that coercion by an outside third party, I choose to call it negotiating.
I sure don't see your point in the "agreement" they currently have".
First, the current agreement puts more control in UPS's hands and sure doesn't do as much to protect the employee as past contracts.
Of course, the company would prefer not to deal with the teamsters, their shyster lawyers would have a field day negotiating with a handful of truck drivers.

This whole paragraph is just pure bovine fecal matter and nothing less than insulting diatribe to shoe ill will for fair treatment. It's a waste of time to even reply to.


Well, it is obvious to me that you are not a real UPSer, someone that has any intention of doing the right thing.
I have question for you. Have you ever delivered a route and if yes, how many years did you spend behind the wheel of UPS truck?

 

[bluehdmc]

Maybe UPS could pay more than the minimum. Can anyone see how unfairly and capriciously it could/would be applied? Who would make these decisions?
It's like working for a non-union shop, 1 guy gets hired at 1 rate, somebody's pal get hired at another. Would this be based on merit? What would decide the merits?Attendance, speed or loading/unloading, percentage of missorts?
What would you be thinking if you found out the guy next to you, that got hired after you is making more money?
Let alone if the company even desired to pay more. Turnover is very high, but basically unloading is about the least unskilled work here, they need bodies. I'm sure the people in HR have a quota of some sorts, (numbers anyone). Working inside in the summer unloading trailers has got to be horrible, the heat, the noise, the 10 min
"relief" that they count down the last 5, min by min. When they say 1 min, they immediately say, "Start the belts".
I've been in some buildings where they turn the a/c off in the breakroom in the hub so no one hangs out there. All this and $8.50 an hour! No wonder turnover is so high, the only thing I can say is if they started at say $12.50 how much higher would that put the cost of shipping. I'm sure the bean counters have figured this all out.

 

[dilligaf]

i got to slow down on the booze

Like that Grey Goose, do ya?!?!?!

 

[dilligaf]

You can not blame the union for that so much.

If anything it is UPS's fault, and technology in general. Also the part-timers themselves for not going out and VOTING are to blame, too. I would love to see the ratio of part-timers that voted and did not, to the full-timers that voted and did not.

The whole PAS/EDD thing is one great example. All of the "skilled" jobs, with technology improving ( at least slowly with UPS of course), are being whittled away. At one time preloading was one of the most difficult jobs there was, for example, when it came to memorization, load charts, what goes where. Now it is one of the easiest.

No longer do you need brains and common sense to work at UPS more and more every day. It is become a place where in 2019 the starting wage will still be 8.50 or whatever the minimum is at that time. There is less and less skill, more and more automation, and that will continue.

Now with the economy uncertain at best, the quality of employee coming in for interviews/tours actually seems fairly high compared to average. All these kids and adults out of work and out of school; actually I was fairly surprised to see some of the people coming in for the tours! And yes, I did tell them "run away as fast as you can!"

Sleeve, there is not one thing that you have said here that is wrong. It is ashame. Not on your part but on the company's part. Our preloaders don't have to think anymore. I am guessing that, in part, they are told not to think anymore. Go faster, wrap up earlier, less payroll. It's really to bad. They just throw the stops on the shelf without regard to where they end up. 2 out of the last 3 days I've had to go back to Home Depot because my preloader can't keep it all together. It's like they don't care anymore.

My preloader, yesterday morning, got pissy with me because I put the hand truck back in the cargo area so I could get my water bottles and put my bag up. He said, I'm not done loading yet. He couldn't even reach my hand truck and he is notorious for not leaving any space for my hand truck or for me for that matter. I would bet, if I left the hand truck at the center a few times my sups would get the idea real quick. This rte absolutely has to have a hand truck.

When I was preloading I took a lot of pride in making sure my drivers had as good a load as I could possibly give them. I took awhile to learn how to do that but I did learn. Now UPS makes sure that they never learn the finer techniques. And to what cost? I know EDD is supposed to be ALL, but it isn't and those that are setting up EDD aren't either.

 

[PobreCarlos]

trplnkl;

You seem to be say that an implication in the contract - only an IMPLICATION and only in the CONTRACT - would allow UPS to change wage terms unilaterally in a "employee represented" situation. Unfortunately, that's just not the case. Again, if it were, I'd submit that every time UPS wanted to make a contract proposal, it would "bribe" targeted employees with raises (at least temporarily) which, under the terms you're assuming, would be a "go"...and I'm telling you right now that's there's a body of law/regulation which simply wouldn't allow it to fly. Period.

Don't get me wrong....I'm all FOR the company having such discretionary power! Unfortunately, it doesn't. End of story.

As for your "Hole #1", I don't think attorneys representing each side are quite the same as a coercive body of law and authorities REQUIRING parties to "negotiate"...do you? With that in mind, how many times have you seen unions make charges with the NLRB that the company isn't "negotiating in good faith"? And, pray tell, what is "good faith"...except for a recognition that the company DOESN'T WANT TO BARGAIN TO BEGIN WITH and, furthermore, would NOT bargain unless FORCED to do so by an outside authority. Such an outside coercion, to my mind, means that no TRUE bargaining, or agreements can be reached...if simply because the essence of any TRUE "bargaining" and/or agreement is the option of EITHER party to SIMPLY WALK AWAY! Tell me, do you think UPS is allowed to do that?

You said it all with your comment of....

"Of course, the company would prefer not to deal with the teamsters, their shyster lawyers would have a field day negotiating with a handful of truck drivers."

...because, after all, if the company would prefer NOT to deal with the teamsters, then why ARE they dealing with the Teamsters? Because of the economic power of the Teamsters alone? Give me a break!

Despite the coercive power granted unions to force "agreements" - which would seem to be all to your benefit - there's one glaring problem; in the long run, it doesn't seem to work. Innovative, profitable companies are always going to be seeking a way around it, usually to the detriment not only of the union and it's members, but to the workers the once employed (and would have CONTINUED to employ, if it weren't for the union!) generally. For example, do you think all those jobs have jumped overseas because American unions have acted RESPONSIBLY? Do you think that the American steel industry is a shadow of what it once was in SPITE of union "participation" in it? Do you actually believe - in spite of all the evidence - that it's NOT the UAW's fault for the Big Three being in the shape they're in today? And in the trucking industry, is it pure coincidence that while a couple of decades 47 of the 50 largest LTL trucking companies used to be "Teamster", but only two of them remain in business today?

Now you may call it "negotiating"...as when rioters holding a gun to a local grocery store owner's head may call it "negotiating". And you have a right to call it what you will. However, employers - much like that grocery store owner I just mentioned - might be inclined to think of it as something else...and act accordingly. In the shopkeepers case, it's likely he'll move out of the neighborhood (as has actually occurred in too many cases)...while the employer will move his jobs elsewhere, or simply go out of business.

Think it can't happen to you (not "you" specifically, but UPS Teamsters generally). Well, perhaps you might take a look around and think again. Remember REA? Remember when (just a few years ago) CFWY was a big dog in freight? Remember when UPS was almost totally "Teamster" (what with actual Teamster membership well below 50% of the company's employees today). Remember when the company's major profit growth centers were centered around Teamster employees?

Sorry, but I can't help but believe, over the long run, that so-called "negotiated contracts" as you hold them to be aren't good for labor - "organized" or unorganized. Impositions on innocent, productive parties rarely, if ever, breed positive consequences.

Lastly, got a kick out of your "it's a waste of time to even reply to" comment. How many Teamsters over the years now have I heard say basically the same thing when they have no logical and/or reasonable response to make regarding a situation to which they choose to keep their heads buried in the sand? Far, far too many.

P.S. - In answer to your final question, "Yes", I did spend several years behind the wheel of a UPS vehicle. However, I hope you can discern from my comments that my experience with the company goes a bit beyond such a limited exposure frame.

 

[bluehdmc]

Pobre Carlos,
Maybe 47 out of 50 LTL carrier have gone out of business, but can all that be blamed on the teamsters?
Perhaps deregulation of the trucking industry had something to do with it. After deregulation, Joe Schmoe can start a trucking business, under bid union carrier, pay drivers less, offer no benefits, run junk trucks and put union carriers out of business.
I will grant you ICC authorities were rediculous but what has deregulation done for the airline industry?
Lower fares for consumers, but now isn't maintenance outsourced where possible to overseas. Or you get a situation like in Buffalo this past winter, where the co-pilot I believe was working 2 jobs, (wasn't 1 as a waitress, where she actually made more than the salary the airline was paying).
Is it entirely the UAW's fault the "big 3" are where they are today. Didn't the automakers agree to the terms of union contracts? Didn't the automakers also make gas guzzlers? GM started Saturn, "a new kinda car from a new kinda car company"? which has never made a profit? Didn't GM also start Hummer? another moneymaker. Ford made the expediton, navigator, and how many other gas guzzlers?
Remember Ford made the Edsel. Which in and of itself wasn't a bad car, really just a Mercury with a weird grill, but the hype before it was introduced, that it was going to be "the latest, greatest, whatever", then the disappointment when it came out. That sort of manufacturing/marketing philosophy is what drives Detroit today. That's what killed them more than the UAW. Maybe "big business" killed big business. Quantity over quality.
Also the US automakers don't seem to sell to younger people, I think Buicks average buyer is 55 yrs old.
When Chrysler came out with the pt cruiser, they thought younger people would buy them, but more older people did.
Maybe their marketing people aren't doing their jobs. It used to be Pontiac, "we build excitement", now they're on the chopping block. In the mid 80's Oldsmobile was one of GM's best selling lines, now they are gone. At one time the oldest name in America, dating back to 1903.
I read an article about Datsun, (before they changed the name to Nissan), back in the 70's. They would not introduce a model in the US until all the parts to repair it were available in the country. Supposedly they actually built an entire car through the spare parts inventory to prove it.
That's what killed the US auto industry, lack of customer service, lack of marketing excitement (for lack of a better word), not just the UAW. Although it makes it easier to believe the media hype about Union workers making $xx per hour driving manufacturers out of business.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

How many Teamsters over the years now have I heard say basically the same thing when they have no logical and/or reasonable response to make regarding a situation to which they choose to keep their heads buried in the sand?

Is it really that? Or, could it be that, people, when faced with the prospect of beating one's head against a wall, decide not to.

In any arguement, we can cite and quote and present our own arguments until we are blue in the face but if the person you are debating with will not be budged, why argue further? Better to agree to disagree and move on. It is a lot friendlier that way.

But I would not take that as a sign of weakness. Or that the oppositons points are neccesarily incorrect. I myself just do not want to write dissertation long posts. Sometimes I do get long winded. But I'd rather just state my point and move on.

But I am not knocking those who do want to write a novel on these forums either. Go for it .

 

[PobreCarlos]

bluehdmc;

Sure, "deregulation of the trucking industry had something to do with it"...in the same sense that pulling welfare payments from a bum has something to do with HIS not being able to make it. By that I mean that "regulation" (outside of the area of safety, in which all - and more - pertinent regulation remains in place), did NOTHING positive for society generally. It did do a whole hell of lot negative, however. It slowed freight (for example, causing it to be routed through Pittsburg from Columbus, OH to Cincy, for example), and it cost the American consumer a bundle for the "welfare" subsidies he was forced to provide the few favored companies and the mob-infested Teamsters.

Yep, after deregulation, Joe Schmoe *COULD* get in the business...and he COULD (and did!) put union carriers out of business, IF (and this is a BIG "if") he could do the job more efficiently and cost-effectively. The union-organized companies had an equal or better opportunity (after all, they already had THEIR "junk trucks" in hand, and already had the facilities to operate them, etc. But they didn't. Why didn't they? What significant difference is there (besides the "welfare payment") between the companies operating successfully today and the organized companies which have almost entirely bitten the dust? Think hard!

As for your question as to "what has deregulation done for the airline industry?", I'd say again that it REMOVED THE BURDEN OF MAKING WELFARE PAYMENTS ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN CONSUMER! If maintenance is being "outsourced", then just WHY is it being outsourced? Aren't the "in-source" unions acting competitively and responsibly (again, I'll point to the AMFA mechanics and their deal with NWA a couple of years back)? Is safety being compromised? (here I'll ask you - as I would with truck de-regulation - to point to a single independent study indicating that safety is "worse" under de-reg) Are the consumers - who, after all, the industry exists to service - being charged more (a question you already answered with your "lower fares" comment)?

As for the airline pilot you mentioned, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he is represented by a UNION, and the problem with his wages is that the UNION has negotiated them at that level in favor of unbalancing them toward the higher seniority personal (doubt me? Look at the pay scales the IPA has negotiated for UPS pilots/copilots.....and come back with me regarding what IPA thinks is "right" for junior co-pilots vs. senior captains). Beyond that, of course, whereas once upon a time, pilot "education" (hours on type, etc.) was primarily provided by the military, now it's up to the individual student to obtain it....and "time in type" in terms of the pilot you seem to be talking about seems to be more a case of him being PAID to train, as opposed to him paying for such training himself.

I'll concede somewhat that it isn't ALL the UAW's fault in the Big Three's downfall...but don't you find it rather coincidental that it's ONLY the UAW-organized end-unit manufacturers in this country that are on the ropes? And don't you find it somewhat curious as well that, in those plants/areas where the UAW does NOT dominate - namely overseas - the Big Three are still doing rather well?

"Yes", the problem is management's fault. But the biggest "fault" that most outsiders can see is that management allowed itself to be over-controlled by the union. Could it have made more saleable cars? (smaller, more efficient ones, for example) Sure...*IF* the union cost structure and work rules would have allowed it! But, time and time again, the intransigence of the union stood in the way....in a manner that would never have cropped-up in an "onshore" foreign, non-UAW plant....and we're seeing the results now.

Remember "customer service" is expensive...and requires flexibility. So does product design. And so does "new model introduction". But the UAW "agreements" (which, as I've indicated elsewhere, the manufacturers did NOT actually "agree" to, but had foisted on them) stood in the way of the companies going that route.

Considering your mentioning of the auto manufacturers starting-up brands/companies that failed (Saturn, Hummer, etc), let me bring up a comparable "extension" in the trucking industry - specifically organized CFWY's creation of NON-union ConWay. Tell me...which is in existence today?

I appreciate your perception and, believe me, I've very much on the side of the American worker. It just seems to me, however, that the stance taken by far too many "support the union [or, rather, its bureaucracy!] at all costs" individuals is in denial of a reality that is figuratively KILLING the American worker. Much more such union "attention", and there won't be any jobs left for Americans to occupy.

Finally, in an aside to one of your comments regarding Buick, I can't help but note that "Buick", though no longer being manufactured or sold here, is STILL a FANTASTIC [and profitable] seller for GM in China...which, last year, eclipsed the United States to become the world's largest automotive market. Whenever there's talk about requiring GM to manufacture cars solely in the U.S., think of that; i.e. - how often do manufacturers ignore the largest market and the areas they're profitable in?

 

[trplnkl]

trplnkl;

You seem to be say that an implication in the contract - only an IMPLICATION and only in the CONTRACT - would allow UPS to change wage terms unilaterally in a "employee represented" situation. Unfortunately, that's just not the case. Again, if it were, I'd submit that every time UPS wanted to make a contract proposal, it would "bribe" targeted employees with raises (at least temporarily) which, under the terms you're assuming, would be a "go"...and I'm telling you right now that's there's a body of law/regulation which simply wouldn't allow it to fly. Period.

Don't get me wrong....I'm all FOR the company having such discretionary power! Unfortunately, it doesn't. End of story.
OK, what law says what you are contending? I would be more than happy to know.
My point was that you said it was NOT in the contract, and it isn't verbatim. Tell me something, is everything in the contract taken as written? No it is not.
As for your "Hole #1", I don't think attorneys representing each side are quite the same as a coercive body of law and authorities REQUIRING parties to "negotiate"...do you? With that in mind, how many times have you seen unions make charges with the NLRB that the company isn't "negotiating in good faith"? And, pray tell, what is "good faith"...except for a recognition that the company DOESN'T WANT TO BARGAIN TO BEGIN WITH and, furthermore, would NOT bargain unless FORCED to do so by an outside authority. Such an outside coercion, to my mind, means that no TRUE bargaining, or agreements can be reached...if simply because the essence of any TRUE "bargaining" and/or agreement is the option of EITHER party to SIMPLY WALK AWAY! Tell me, do you think UPS is allowed to do that?
You keep throwing the word coercive around, would care to give me an example of that?
The failure to negotiate in good faith can mean many things, one would have to read the actual NRLB complaints to know the details.
UPS has walked away from the bargaining table many times, refusing to negotiate, because they had issues they didn't want to make changes in. The union has also walked out, many times and for the same reasons.
In 1997, the company presented their "Best and Last" offer and walked away from the table. Everyone in the world knew dang well that a strike was to follow, and it did. When it came down to the Teamster MEMBERS staying out and a very small % crossing the line, UPS came back to the table and a settlement was worked out. The union employees got most of what they were asking for and the company made lots of money.
You said it all with your comment of....

"Of course, the company would prefer not to deal with the teamsters, their shyster lawyers would have a field day negotiating with a handful of truck drivers."

...because, after all, if the company would prefer NOT to deal with the teamsters, then why ARE they dealing with the Teamsters? Because of the economic power of the Teamsters alone? Give me a break!
Two reasons the company HAS to deal with the Teamsters. NO 1. The employees of UPS has given them the authority to due so. NO 2. The federal government in an effort to protect American workers for bloodsucking companies said that when a certain % of the employees vote to give the union that responsibility the company had to deal with OUR chosen representative.

Despite the coercive power granted unions to force "agreements" - which would seem to be all to your benefit - there's one glaring problem; in the long run, it doesn't seem to work.
Please enlighten me on what "agreements were FORCED and how that was done.
Innovative, profitable companies are always going to be seeking a way around it,
Your preaching to the choir here, I know full well that UPS looks for ways to circumvent the contract.
usually to the detriment not only of the union and it's members, but to the workers they once employed (and would have CONTINUED to employ, if it weren't for the union!) generally.
You're probably right about this part, because if it were not for the union, UPS would have us all working 12 hour days without overtime pay and at 10 bucks an hour tops. So what jobs they can, the move overseas so they can exploit people that have no one to look out for them.
For example, do you think all those jobs have jumped overseas because American unions have acted RESPONSIBLY? Do you think that the American steel industry is a shadow of what it once was in SPITE of union "participation" in it? Do you actually believe - in spite of all the evidence - that it's NOT the UAW's fault for the Big Three being in the shape they're in today? And in the trucking industry, is it pure coincidence that while a couple of decades 47 of the 50 largest LTL trucking companies used to be "Teamster", but only two of them remain in business today?
I'll be the first to admit that some of the UAW/Big three contracts were stupid and careless. There are/were provisions in them that were absolutely ridiculous.

Now you may call it "negotiating"...as when rioters holding a gun to a local grocery store owner's head may call it "negotiating". And you have a right to call it what you will. However, employers - much like that grocery store owner I just mentioned - might be inclined to think of it as something .else...and act accordingly.
That takes the asinine award for idiotic statements. COME ON... what a far fetched example. I am so very disappointed in you.
In the shopkeepers case, it's likely he'll move out of the neighborhood (as has actually occurred in too many cases)...while the employer will move his jobs elsewhere, or simply go out of business.

Think it can't happen to you (not "you" specifically, but UPS Teamsters generally). Well, perhaps you might take a look around and think again. Remember REA? Remember when (just a few years ago) CFWY was a big dog in freight? Remember when UPS was almost totally "Teamster" (what with actual Teamster membership well below 50% of the company's employees today). Remember when the company's major profit growth centers were centered around Teamster employees?

There has been more than one non union company try to overthrow UPS's position in the shipping industry. Two of them are no longer in business. DHL's US domestic didn't have a union but they did have the government of Germany behind them...GONE. RPS was heading south on the express lane when FedEx bought them and they (FedEx grnd)were struggling to keep things going even before the economy started diving. Tell me again how being non union has helpped them? Even Federal Express is not doing as well as UPS during these times.

Sorry, but I can't help but believe, over the long run, that so-called "negotiated contracts" as you hold them to be aren't good for labor - "organized" or unorganized. Impositions on innocent, productive parties rarely, if ever, breed positive consequences.
Innocent?? who the heck are you talking about?
If you truely believe that UPS would pay a decent wage to all the employees, treat them with respect, provide benefits, and take care of them in their years of retirement, you have drunk too much of the UPS cool-aid.

Lastly, got a kick out of your "it's a waste of time to even reply to" comment. How many Teamsters over the years now have I heard say basically the same thing when they have no logical and/or reasonable response to make regarding a situation to which they choose to keep their heads buried in the sand? Far, far too many.

It's pretty hard to have a logical/reasonable response to illogical/unresonable statement. again, COME ON...let's at least try to make examples sensible. That's like a sup giving you 11 hours worth of work and asking you why you couldn't do it in 9. Stupid, that's all I can come up with.

P.S. - In answer to your final question, "Yes", I did spend several years behind the wheel of a UPS vehicle. However, I hope you can discern from my comments that my experience with the company goes a bit beyond such a limited exposure frame.
Yes is very obvious that it is been way too long since you had to actually work for a living. Does your boss let you go home on the weekends?

 

[bluehdmc]

As far as I know Buicks are still being manufactured and sold in the US. Although they do seem to like them in China.
How did US auto manufacturers "allow themselves to be controlled by the unions"?They are called negotiations, usually gone over for months sometimes years. The manufacturers and UAW don't just sit down one time and say well this is it.
There's give and take on both sides. I'm sure at the start of negotiations the employer wants a 5yr contract with no wage increases and various sorts of givebacks. The union wants a 2 yr contract with outrageous wage increases, less work, more time off, etc. etc. Somewhere along the line a happy (?) medium is struck and then it is sent to the membership for a vote. If it's accepted we all have to live with it, if not sometimes there is a strike and we all have to live with the consequences of that. No one "wins" in a strike though.

Overseas manufacturers that have started facilities in the US pay comparable to the Union wages primarily in an effort to keep the unions out. Also and this has been mentioned time and time again, they do not have the legacy costs the big 3 have.

Many overseas manufacturers that have started plants here are unionized in their home countries. Do you think they started a plant here to give American consumers jobs? Or do you think it may have been to increase profits? Many of them also don't pay the health care costs due to socialized medicine in their home countries. When US manufacturers move to locations out of the US it certainly isn't to give jobs to less developed countries. It's all about the bottom line.

You mention Consolidate Freightways starting up a non-union carrier Con-Way, I believe the Teamsters are involved in a lawsuit against Con-way for diverting business to the non union carrier. Gee was that some sort of accident?

Also the airline co-pilot was a woman, (maybe the statement that she made more money waitressing was a tipoff?)

You say you are on the "side of the american worker". Isn't the american worker entitled to make a decent wage? There seems to be such a disparity in earnings today between management and workers where management seems to keep wanting to put the worker down. Then they bemoan the fact they "cannot get good help today".

I used to be an auto mechanic. When I first got into the business, mechanics at dealerships were paid on an incentive basis, usually 50% of the hourly, (flat rate) labor charge. You could make a decent living, usually by learning some "shortcuts" to speed up the job. (not the quality because if it came back you ate the labor). Today you would be hard pressed to find a mechanic that is paid 1/3 of what the dealer labor rate is. So where did that other 1/6 of an hourly charge go? (as I said you can't really find one making 1/3, I'm being generous). I'll give you a hint, in the dealer's pocket, let's support the working man, huh?

 

[PobreCarlos]

trplnkl;

Per your questions....

What law? The National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act ,and various court opinions regarding unilateral implementation.

An example of coercion? OK, a quickie....how about Oak Harbor Freight being required to continue "bargaining" by the NLRB with the Teamsters when they had already brought on replacements? Or Northern Michigan Hospital with the Teamsters nurses by the same body? Give me time, I think I could list THOUSANDS of examples...to the point that I'm actually surprised that you would question the issue. BTW, haven't you noticed one of the key features of the proposed (and inaptly named) EFCA that organized labor wants, namely forced arbitration? Think that's not coercion? [smile]

Which brings us to your comment regarding why the company HAS to deal with the Teamsters, especially your mention of the Federal government. In light of that, your question about "coercion" is rather ludicrous, isn't it? You, yourself, bring up the coercive power! As for your claim that the company has to deal with the Teamsters because the employees of the company have voted the Teamsters to be their representatives...pray tell, is that the way things work in YOUR neighborhood? I.e. - if a bunch of window-washing street thugs join together and choose a "representative", are you bound to negotiate and reach an agreement with them each time they approach you at a traffic light? Get real!

Which brings us to your claim about the '97 strike. I bring that up because I've heard the same ol', same ol' misrepresentation (i.e. about how "UPS came back to the table") so many times from so many Teamsters, that it's part 'n' parcel of my claim that far, far too many of them keep their heads buried in the sand. In any case, I suggest you read up on "Sprague v. CSPF" ("http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm") to find out just how far out of whack your thinking as to what actually happened is. While your at it, reconcile what you found out with the current status of Central States, and the Teamsters in general.

To wit, UPS did NOT come back to the table until the union "blinked". Granted, not many union members like to hear that, even fewer like to believe it...but there are whole Hell of a lot of 'em (particularly future CS pensioners!) who wish the "blinking" had come about a lot earlier.

Further beyond that, it seems to me that you just engaged in hyperbole, and were just spinning your wheels in recognition of not having anything in the way of meaningful rebuttal (ie. - "what agreements were forced", when you already YOURSELF pointed out the means of coercion!, etc.)

As for your contention that "DHL's US Domestic didn't have a union", just where did you come up with THAT particular bit of "wisdom" (or, more aptly, "misinformation") from? As for your "how has not being union helped them"....well, once again, perhaps I should bring up that, over thirty years ago now, a Teamster honcho informed me that FedEx would be organized by the Teamsters "in a matter of months". At that time, the company was a small FRACTION of the size it is today. Think being non-union hasn't helped it? Seen the relative financials and/or stock prices lately?

As for "drinking too much cool-aid" (always wonder where that bit of wisdom hails from...i.e. - "cool-Aid"? What's that really associated with?), again, I can't help but note that more than HALF of UPS's employees are NOT Teamsters. Nor can I help but note that, while many UPS employees ARE Teamsters, the non-Teamster company FedEx is consistently voted by employees as being the better company to work for. Makes one wonder why, doesn't it?

In closing, sorry if my asking for reasonable, factually-based responses threatens you. No doubt if I was trying to defend an organization that has accomplished so little while demanding so much over so long a period of time as the Teamsters, I'd feel a little threatened as well.

 

[PobreCarlos]

bluehdmc;

I stand corrected, of course, on Buicks still being manufactured in the U.S. (I was thinking of Oldsmobile) Sorry! But I think the thrust of my comment still holds true.

From my perspective, I know HOW the auto companies allowed themselves to be controlled by the union (heck, doesn't take a genius - or a very long look at the "job banks" - to figure that one out), but just exactly WHY escapes me.

As for the "give and take on both sides", the fact remains that the essence of bargaining - i.e. - the ability to JUST WALK AWAY WITHOUT REACHING AN AGREEMENT - is simply unavailable to employers. Employees, in contrast, can terminate the employer/employee relationship at any time of their choosing, with or without reason. Companies can't do that. Nor can they simply choose not to reach an agreement and go elsewhere; note how many charges of "surface bargaining" have been brought up by unions to the NLRB. If there was TRUE bargaining allowed, there wouldn't BE any such charge...simply because there would be no reason to HAVE to bargain in ANY fashion to begin with. The field is very heavily tilted in that manner.

Onward: As I've said a time or two before, wages are not the only - and probably not even the primary - reason companies don't want to be "organized". Work rules, control issues, and flexibility probably far outweigh any direct salary issues. As for auto industry wages of "imports" coming close to that of union employers, all I can say is this: the non-UAW companies are successful paying those wages to non-UAW employees, while those that employ UAW workers aren't. As for "legacy costs", so what? Those "legacy costs" are a function of unionization, or more specifically (as is the case with the Teamster pension funds as well) a function of the unions not working to maintain the companies that provided their employment. Make no mistake; "legacy costs" are STILL "labor costs"...and are just as relevant as wages themselves.

"Yes", it *IS* "all about the bottom line"...and until unions figure that out, and act accordingly (i.e. - see that their employees look GOOD "on the bottom line" by functioning competitively), they're going to be sucking wind. Making a profit is what it's all about...and if the unions can't help their employer do so, then they're NOT protecting their members' interests...and probably have no reason to exist (a state, I believe, which is all too true of many unions today)

As for you comments about it "going into the dealers pocket", tell me; you know of a lot of auto dealers who are making out like bandits today? Truth is, there's damned little of ANYTHING "going into their pockets"...and way, way too many of 'em are losing their asses. Simply put, I'm afraid I can't buy such a fallacious argument.

Then there's your comment of....

"...Teamsters are involved in a lawsuit against Con-way for diverting business to the non union carrier"

....to which I would reply "Gee, no kidding! The Teamsters actually filed a SUIT!!!! Is that going to bring back the 16,000 (got that; SIXTEEN THOUSAND!!!!) jobs they pissed away? Think you'll read about it - along with all the other myriad "bad" things that terminate similar Teamster efforts on the IBT's website - when nothing comes of it? (Meanwhile, I'll tell you this...no, it was no accident, regardless of the resolution of the court issue. Yep, Consolidated's owners knew that it couldn't be as profitable as a non-union company, and thus THEY ventured-out into a non-Teamsters one. And, wonder of wonders...IT is able to make a profit! Who would have thought it!?

As for what the American worker is "entitled" to, my feeling is that his/her sole "entitlement" is to EARN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LABOR HE PROVIDES!!! For some people, no doubt that won't be a "living wage"...at least as you consider the term. But if YOU care to subsidize their living (i.e. - give them welfare), then YOU go right ahead and YOU pay them. Frankly, however, I don't consider that thy're entitled to anything of mine that they didn't earn, nor do I think that they're automatically "entitled" to any more than any other worker any place else in the world (Heresy!!!!) . And I don't for a minute believe that American workers ought to be subsidized in order to make up for them being less competitive than foreign workers (and, at the same time, I'm well aware that MOST American workers ARE competitive; it's primarily the "organized" ones who can't seem to measure-up).

Not sure what the airline pilot "being a woman" had to do with anything...other than, perhaps, a brute effort to inject gender qualification into the discussion. Woman or man, my comments stand.

You mentioned a "happy medium" was struck....after the "agreement" was sent to the union membership for a vote. Have you ever wondered how many such agreements would be "happ[ily]" implemented if they were handed-over to the SHAREHOLDERS directly for a vote as well prior to implementation? My question there would be one of "what makes what's good for the goose NOT good for the gander?"

Lastly, has it occurred to you that, generally, MOST American workers ARE earning their way, and that most American management is earning it's way as well...ON THE WORLD STAGE!!! Frankly, it seems to me that, if there's a disparity in distribution of wealth, it's because it's being distributed on the basis of who makes the greater CONTRIBUTION to the CREATION of that wealth. And, in that sense, "organized" labor over the last few decades has been more intent on DESTROYING rather than "creating"...and, in truth, has already received much, MUCH more than it deserves. That's a burden our economy - and society - can no longer tolerate...or at least not tolerate while maintaining anything close to its accustomed standard of living.

 

[dannyboy]

One of the main reasons that GM bit the dust is that they sold off the cash cow known as GMAC. That arm allowed customers that did not qualify to buy a new car could get an "in house" loan to be able to buy the car. Sometimes with rates as high as 25% or more. Big mistake.

Getting back to the subject at hand, TPL hit it on the head. The company can raise the start rate if it so chooses. And it can do so when it wishes, just like allowing the part timer to work more than the 3.5 hours that it is required to work them. This ability to raise the minimum wage at UPS is already negotiated and in the contract. So why would there be an outcry if UPS did so.

You keep throwing around all these excuses for why they cant. But those are all empty words. The ability to do so was negotiated and put into print in the contract. That allows the company to increase the minimum wage as it sees the need. Without further negotiations or input by the union.

Now, those increases would then be considered the base rate for a new hire. And they would then be the minimum in the next contract.

So what the heck is your problem with this part of the contract?

d

 

[PobreCarlos]

Dannybody;

I'll grant you also your expressions concerning GMAC. Not too sure you'd be able to back-up a claim of them having rates of "25 percent or more", but as the one domestic area of the company that was NOT subject to the UAW, it was usually profitable. Plus it was eligible [directly...without the subterfuge] for "TARP" funds when they became available. Keeping it, however, wouldn't have prevented GM from biting the dust, if for no other reason than that they sold it to raise cash because the company was ALREADY biting the dust. Make no mistake; at the time that decision was made, there was little, if any, other choice.

On the other thing, admittedly, the words expressed so far could obviously be considered "empty" in terms of what understanding they brought to you on the subject. And if you want to think that "this ability" was "put into print in the contract" - and that in those terms, the contract is the be-all and end-all on the subject - then you go right ahead thinking that. Doesn't change the facts, I'm afraid.

As for my "problem" with it, I have no problem whatsoever. Rather, my "problem" would be that Teamsters tend to read into things that which simply isn't there.....and then get disappointed when they are disabused of their notions somewhere down the road by reality in a rather more rigorous fashion than what I had to offer.