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
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 542913" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>trplnkl;</p><p> </p><p>Per your questions....</p><p> </p><p>What law? The National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act ,and various court opinions regarding unilateral implementation.</p><p> </p><p>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]</p><p> </p><p>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!</p><p> </p><p>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" ("<a href="http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm" target="_blank">http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm</a>") 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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.)</p><p> </p><p>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?</p><p> </p><p>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?</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 542913, member: 16651"] 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" ("[URL]http://pub.bna.com/pbd/99c7726.htm[/URL]") 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
Top