104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
NEWS FLASH: I'm in the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan and we paid more than $3500/mo in 1997 and much more than that now. Thanks for the offer though...
Just curious... how irreplaceable do you think we are here, in case of a strike??
- Thread starter brown_trousers
- Start date
NEWS FLASH: I'm in the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan and we paid more than $3500/mo in 1997 and much more than that now. Thanks for the offer though...
Dragon
Package Center Manager
Easy Killer....you would break down like a 3 year old missing his binky trying to do my job. Your job..just follow the edd and don't hit anything!! =)
brown_trousers
Well-Known Member
its really a sad thing when supervisors actually say something like that about hourlies. You would think there would be a certain level of professionalism required to be promoted... Guess not!
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
104Feeder;
Here's a news flash for you in return; the '97 dispute wasn't about Western States. Rather, it revolved around UPS's desire to withdraw from Central States. For a frame of reference, I suggest you take a look at "Sprague v. CSPF", and see what carrot the union dangled in front of the company in order to terminate the job action. And, whether you want to admit or not, that controversy ultimately affected YOUR pension as well. Money - billions of dollars of it - was squandered away on a forlorn hope, when it COULD have been efficiently applied to the benefits of ALL UPS pension participants. You just can't "rob Peter to pay Paul" (as the union apparently has done) for long and expect to get away with it.
Beyond that, I'll readily grant that Western States has been much better (and tightly) managed than most of the other Teamster trusts that UPS participates in. Of course, a big part of that is because Western States is taking contributions on behalf of p/t'ers which, for the most part, it's never required to pay out as benefits; i.e. - the friend/t participants are riding on the backs of the p/t'ers. But that wasn't particularly an issue in '97, either. The projected Central States insolvency was. And, from my perspective (and I think most responsible observers), all other issues (including incrementing friend/t jobs and all that rigamarole) were relatively minor in comparison with the Central States problem. And from the perspective of ALL those involved, I can't help but think that it would have been a lot better for everyone concerned if the problem had been resolved in '97 instead of being kicked like a can down the road for a few years.
Here's a news flash for you in return; the '97 dispute wasn't about Western States. Rather, it revolved around UPS's desire to withdraw from Central States. For a frame of reference, I suggest you take a look at "Sprague v. CSPF", and see what carrot the union dangled in front of the company in order to terminate the job action. And, whether you want to admit or not, that controversy ultimately affected YOUR pension as well. Money - billions of dollars of it - was squandered away on a forlorn hope, when it COULD have been efficiently applied to the benefits of ALL UPS pension participants. You just can't "rob Peter to pay Paul" (as the union apparently has done) for long and expect to get away with it.
Beyond that, I'll readily grant that Western States has been much better (and tightly) managed than most of the other Teamster trusts that UPS participates in. Of course, a big part of that is because Western States is taking contributions on behalf of p/t'ers which, for the most part, it's never required to pay out as benefits; i.e. - the friend/t participants are riding on the backs of the p/t'ers. But that wasn't particularly an issue in '97, either. The projected Central States insolvency was. And, from my perspective (and I think most responsible observers), all other issues (including incrementing friend/t jobs and all that rigamarole) were relatively minor in comparison with the Central States problem. And from the perspective of ALL those involved, I can't help but think that it would have been a lot better for everyone concerned if the problem had been resolved in '97 instead of being kicked like a can down the road for a few years.
menotyou
bella amicizia
Yeah. Sure.
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
I was management, so I don't recall the details! <grin> But, I will tell you that the mood was that the Teamsters "won". You will have to get details from other Teamsters who were around back then...
One big thing that UPS wanted was for all new employees to be under UPS pension plans instead of Teamster multi-employer plans. Ron Carey "won" that point, and we all know what is going on now, 15 years down the road. Just think, you guys could have had this 15 years ago!
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
If only he would admit it...
However, it makes a huge difference who is president, because the president appoints all the cabinet members, and potentially Supreme Court members. During the George Bush administration, Elaine Chao was the Secretary of Labor for 8 years. Do you really consider those 8 years to have been a good thing for labor? By the way, Elaine Chao is Mitch McConnell's wife. Just sayin'
104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
Instead of responding to your misinformation campaign anymore, I'm posting the Company's proposals directly from text submitted to the National negotiating committee that took us out in 1997 for everyone to read and understand.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
104Feeder;
And, again, I pointed you to "Sprague v. CSPF", (one link to which can be found at...
SPRAGUE v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST�-�February 6, 2001.
..among other places) a court filing (and ruling) which I would say reflects the true concerns of the parties - and the basis on which they ultimately settled - better than a list of (by nature variable) "company proposals". In truth, it is the most factual after-the-fact encapsulation of the job action that I've yet encountered. Of course, because while in the process of answering the suit one of it's members ("Sprague") filed against one of its entities, the union had to admit in it that it "blinked" first, it's not something it likes to advertize. However, that doesn't make it any less credible; it's hard for the union to deny its own testimony.
Now, if legal filings by (A) the company, and (B) the union, and (C) Central States Pension Fund - and rulings on same - are your idea of "misinformation", then I'm not sure what wouldn't be "misinformation" in your book. Bottom line is that, if you don't trust your union and one of your union's pension fund to tell the truth in court, I doubt if you'd trust anybody that had something to offer on the topic.
And, again, I pointed you to "Sprague v. CSPF", (one link to which can be found at...
SPRAGUE v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST�-�February 6, 2001.
..among other places) a court filing (and ruling) which I would say reflects the true concerns of the parties - and the basis on which they ultimately settled - better than a list of (by nature variable) "company proposals". In truth, it is the most factual after-the-fact encapsulation of the job action that I've yet encountered. Of course, because while in the process of answering the suit one of it's members ("Sprague") filed against one of its entities, the union had to admit in it that it "blinked" first, it's not something it likes to advertize. However, that doesn't make it any less credible; it's hard for the union to deny its own testimony.
Now, if legal filings by (A) the company, and (B) the union, and (C) Central States Pension Fund - and rulings on same - are your idea of "misinformation", then I'm not sure what wouldn't be "misinformation" in your book. Bottom line is that, if you don't trust your union and one of your union's pension fund to tell the truth in court, I doubt if you'd trust anybody that had something to offer on the topic.
To be fair every job seems easy until you've experienced it yourself. However, I'm a Preloader and when my job is covered by management for 5 min while using the restroom it's a nightmare. Nothing loaded and packages missed and stacked by the Preloader at the end of the belt.
How replaceable are we?
Well, first of all, we have a legal right to strike so long as we otherwise comply with the Law. That means we can't be fired just for going on strike.
If the strike is an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Strike, UPS can hire temporary replacement workers, but the replacements must be fired when the strike is over. Since the temps know this, there is little incentive for them to sign on in the first place.
If the strike is an Economic Strike, meaning just over money, UPS can hire permanent replacement workers, who can keep their jobs after the strike is over. The previously striking workers can have their jobs back if there are any vacancies and as the replacements quit or are fired for being unacceptable workers.
Life is very difficult for replacement workers (aka scabs.) All the more if UPS is their new employer.
Well, first of all, we have a legal right to strike so long as we otherwise comply with the Law. That means we can't be fired just for going on strike.
If the strike is an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Strike, UPS can hire temporary replacement workers, but the replacements must be fired when the strike is over. Since the temps know this, there is little incentive for them to sign on in the first place.
If the strike is an Economic Strike, meaning just over money, UPS can hire permanent replacement workers, who can keep their jobs after the strike is over. The previously striking workers can have their jobs back if there are any vacancies and as the replacements quit or are fired for being unacceptable workers.
Life is very difficult for replacement workers (aka scabs.) All the more if UPS is their new employer.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
Speaking of legal recall rights and such, one might look at the ongoing American Crystal Sugar job action. It involves a lock-out, not a strike, and as such the workers are guaranteed their jobs back after the job action has ended as well (i.e. - the same as if it were an "unfair labor practices" strike instead of a lock-out). However the consequences don't seem to be quite following the path that one might have foreseen.
Reference news articles at....
Locked out American Crystal Sugar workers rally support in Minneapolis | Fight Back!
...a "pro-union" periodical, and....
Crystal Union workers put pressure on board members | The Jamestown Sun | Jamestown, North Dakota
....a local newspaper serving the area in question. Plus many more available via a Google "News" search.
Reference news articles at....
Locked out American Crystal Sugar workers rally support in Minneapolis | Fight Back!
...a "pro-union" periodical, and....
Crystal Union workers put pressure on board members | The Jamestown Sun | Jamestown, North Dakota
....a local newspaper serving the area in question. Plus many more available via a Google "News" search.
UnconTROLLed
perfection
It takes a lot of skill to stare at a google map w/ markers, yell all during PCM like a dictator then pat steward on the bum afterward. Not to mention chasing around "your" drivers in personal vehicle. That is incredible display of talent.
brown_trousers
Well-Known Member
Thats interesting, I wasn't aware that there were 2 different kinds of strikes. Although it seems to be a rather moot point as both definitions are vague/subjective. "unfair" is hardly a word solidly defined in law. And it seems that all the strikes that do happen, have a little of both ULP and Economic disputes.
I'm sure the Teamsters knowing this, would find a way to include some ULP material in any teamster strike to avoid permanent replacement workers
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
brown_trousers;
In terms of including ULP charges in any Teamster strike, the union will try, but it doesn't always succeed. For example, I believe the Northern Michigan Hospital nurses strike (Teamsters) of a few years back ended-up with all the striking nurses being permanently replaced. And remember, when "unfair labor practices" are charged, they first have to be first accepted as such by the NLRB, and then after that the company often has the ability to purge themselves of such charges (often by something as uncomplicated as posting an apology notice on a bulletin board) and converting it back to an "economic" job action.
Regardless, replacements of either type are becoming more and more an issue today....and bear in mind that, even if it's an "ULP" strike, the company can often hang on long enough that (1) many of the employees seek other jobs and pull out of the workforce and (2) the union agrees to drop all charges simply to btain some sort of resolution....if only a chance at severance and/or unemployment insurance for it's striking members.
An example there is the Teamsters strike out in California of Diamond Walnut. That strike went on for 14 years (I believe it was finally settled due to the original owners - a farmers co-op - selling the business)...and there were very, very few of the original workers left to be recalled. Things can get nasty today, and "temporary" and "permanent" are very flexible terms.
In terms of including ULP charges in any Teamster strike, the union will try, but it doesn't always succeed. For example, I believe the Northern Michigan Hospital nurses strike (Teamsters) of a few years back ended-up with all the striking nurses being permanently replaced. And remember, when "unfair labor practices" are charged, they first have to be first accepted as such by the NLRB, and then after that the company often has the ability to purge themselves of such charges (often by something as uncomplicated as posting an apology notice on a bulletin board) and converting it back to an "economic" job action.
Regardless, replacements of either type are becoming more and more an issue today....and bear in mind that, even if it's an "ULP" strike, the company can often hang on long enough that (1) many of the employees seek other jobs and pull out of the workforce and (2) the union agrees to drop all charges simply to btain some sort of resolution....if only a chance at severance and/or unemployment insurance for it's striking members.
An example there is the Teamsters strike out in California of Diamond Walnut. That strike went on for 14 years (I believe it was finally settled due to the original owners - a farmers co-op - selling the business)...and there were very, very few of the original workers left to be recalled. Things can get nasty today, and "temporary" and "permanent" are very flexible terms.
brown_trousers
Well-Known Member
BTW PobreCarlos, I like your replies as you seem to bring a lot of info on previous labor strikes. A response showing research and logical thought always makes for a better discussion. Also makes for fun research... well... fun if you're law student like myself. But you do come off rather biased as you never reference any of the successful labor strikes. And I'm sure there are quite a few of them out there. --But now back to the topic..
In a nation where the people are getting softer and softer every generation. It seems the term "unfair labor practice" could be successfully used in even questionable cases.
for example...
-In my early years, bully's at school were just considered part of the normal school experience. Nowadays, goverment has declared even internet-bullying to be an extreme form of harassment, punishable by law.
-20 years ago it would have been a joke to try and get disability from "stress" in the workplace. Now the courts are upholding that as a condition worthy of disability.
Times are definitely changing! And even a strike over excessive overtime or stress in the workplace could easily fit in with the newer generation's interpretation of the word "unfair". And these are definitely issues that most FT drivers would like to see changed. A strike for guaranteed 8 hr days and less stressful working conditions lines up very well with the values of today.
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
brown_trousers;
Thanks for the post! It was a good one.
No doubt I do have a bit of an anti-union bias, at least in terms of how they function here in the U.S. today. Still, even taking that into consideration I can't recall too many (what I would term) successful strikes during the last few years. As I've somewhat documented, I don't think one can term even the Teamsters '97 strike against UPS a success in light of (1) the basis of which it was terminated (i.e. - the union "blinked", and eventually UPS withdrew from the Central States trust anyway), and (2) the ultimate consequences it had on the union and it's membership generally (at the very least, it cost a ton of potential Teamster jobs).
That said, until lately, I've maintained that, from the union perspective, a strike is generally successful if it lasts a week or less. If it drags on for two weeks or a bit more, then it's probably a toss-up. If it lasts three weeks or more, then quite likely it's a loss....no matter how much the union might want to put a pretty face on it. Now the company being struck may come out losing, too....but what good does that do the union? For example, look at the AMPI mechanics strike against Northwest Airlines (NWA) a few years back. The strike lasted for gosh knows how long and, although NWA quickly replaced the strikers, the company still went down (bankrupt). But what good did that do the strikers? They all lost their jobs, and were tossed into an environment where, because of their actions, fewer opportunities were available.
I agree that "unfair labor practices" could be - and ARE! - used in even questionable cases. But today, even if the NLRB agrees with such charges, they tend to have less success. Theoretically, such charges are resolved when the strike ends, and potentially fines are paid, and possibly back wages as well. But today companies often seem to be willing to ride it out; to LET the strike continue to the point that the strikers have other jobs, or they've starved themselves out. After months - or even years - without wages, even the most strident of union backers often has a changed attitude. And, in truth, it doesn't even have to be a strike today. Witness the American Crystal Sugar lock-out I mentioned earlier on this thread; it's been going on for over a YEAR now...and it appears that the company has put itself in a position where, if needed, it could maintain the lockout "forever". Another example that just came to mind was the UAW/Conn-Bach strike of five or six years ago. Ultimately, the workers and the UAW parted ways, only 30% of the striking workers eventually got their jobs back, and many of the retirees lost their pensions. Memories of situations like that can very much weigh on a job action today.
Or take the example of "Cat", or Wal-Mart up in Canada. Cat just closed its London, ON Electro-Motive facility down, apparently moving its production to a non-union Indiana facility. Wal-Mart simply just closed its Jonquiere, Quebec store period. Or, in the case of facing U.S. union organizing among its meat cutters at one location, decided to outsource ALL its cut meat. Ultimately today, companies can just close a facility down if they're confronted with a labor situation they don't like....and there's little that "unfair labor practices" charges can do about it. Even the NLRB can't force a company to stay in business and, as the Supreme Court of Canada upheld when Wal-Mart closed that store in Canada. Today the law still usually can't force even a single facility to remain in operation.
Is all of that applicable to UPS today? Probably not...but I will submit that UPS has put itself in a position to better withstand a lengthy walkout relative to that of ten or fifteen years ago. TDU is claiming (and I'm using their statistic simply because it's the one I've read most recently, not because I believe it's necessarily the most accurate) that 63% of UPS's PROFIT (not revenue!) comes from the domestic small package operation. That's actually considerably less than what I thought. Such a figure would indicate that much more of the company's profit is coming from non-domestic operations. And, while the 37% that remains may not sound like much, it's a lot more than what was available in '97. And, remember, it was the union which "blinked" in '97; apparently, if the union had made its pension rebate proposal, the company was prepared to go on a bit further.
Of course, there's also the matter of inter-company support; i.e. - from overseas unions, the pilots, freight drivers, etc. That's quite possible...but I'm reminded of the Penn. Turnpike Teamsters strike of a few years back, in which UPS feeder drivers ignored the picket lines and travelled the turnpike anyway. As for the pilots, take a look at sites such as "The Airline Pilot Central Forum", especially the freight section, and see how many are on furlough and/or waiting to be called-up by a freight operation training class. Today, while they may not be QUICKLY replaceable, ultimately they are.
Could the system be restructured with replacements overnight? Of course not. It would be a step-by-step process that would take months at the very least...but it COULD be done. And I think it could likely be done at a cheaper price than what it ultimately cost the company to withdraw from Central States (i.e. - the difference between the '97 withdrawal feel and when the company actually did withdraw)
Again, thanks for your post. Hope I was responsive
Thanks for the post! It was a good one.
No doubt I do have a bit of an anti-union bias, at least in terms of how they function here in the U.S. today. Still, even taking that into consideration I can't recall too many (what I would term) successful strikes during the last few years. As I've somewhat documented, I don't think one can term even the Teamsters '97 strike against UPS a success in light of (1) the basis of which it was terminated (i.e. - the union "blinked", and eventually UPS withdrew from the Central States trust anyway), and (2) the ultimate consequences it had on the union and it's membership generally (at the very least, it cost a ton of potential Teamster jobs).
That said, until lately, I've maintained that, from the union perspective, a strike is generally successful if it lasts a week or less. If it drags on for two weeks or a bit more, then it's probably a toss-up. If it lasts three weeks or more, then quite likely it's a loss....no matter how much the union might want to put a pretty face on it. Now the company being struck may come out losing, too....but what good does that do the union? For example, look at the AMPI mechanics strike against Northwest Airlines (NWA) a few years back. The strike lasted for gosh knows how long and, although NWA quickly replaced the strikers, the company still went down (bankrupt). But what good did that do the strikers? They all lost their jobs, and were tossed into an environment where, because of their actions, fewer opportunities were available.
I agree that "unfair labor practices" could be - and ARE! - used in even questionable cases. But today, even if the NLRB agrees with such charges, they tend to have less success. Theoretically, such charges are resolved when the strike ends, and potentially fines are paid, and possibly back wages as well. But today companies often seem to be willing to ride it out; to LET the strike continue to the point that the strikers have other jobs, or they've starved themselves out. After months - or even years - without wages, even the most strident of union backers often has a changed attitude. And, in truth, it doesn't even have to be a strike today. Witness the American Crystal Sugar lock-out I mentioned earlier on this thread; it's been going on for over a YEAR now...and it appears that the company has put itself in a position where, if needed, it could maintain the lockout "forever". Another example that just came to mind was the UAW/Conn-Bach strike of five or six years ago. Ultimately, the workers and the UAW parted ways, only 30% of the striking workers eventually got their jobs back, and many of the retirees lost their pensions. Memories of situations like that can very much weigh on a job action today.
Or take the example of "Cat", or Wal-Mart up in Canada. Cat just closed its London, ON Electro-Motive facility down, apparently moving its production to a non-union Indiana facility. Wal-Mart simply just closed its Jonquiere, Quebec store period. Or, in the case of facing U.S. union organizing among its meat cutters at one location, decided to outsource ALL its cut meat. Ultimately today, companies can just close a facility down if they're confronted with a labor situation they don't like....and there's little that "unfair labor practices" charges can do about it. Even the NLRB can't force a company to stay in business and, as the Supreme Court of Canada upheld when Wal-Mart closed that store in Canada. Today the law still usually can't force even a single facility to remain in operation.
Is all of that applicable to UPS today? Probably not...but I will submit that UPS has put itself in a position to better withstand a lengthy walkout relative to that of ten or fifteen years ago. TDU is claiming (and I'm using their statistic simply because it's the one I've read most recently, not because I believe it's necessarily the most accurate) that 63% of UPS's PROFIT (not revenue!) comes from the domestic small package operation. That's actually considerably less than what I thought. Such a figure would indicate that much more of the company's profit is coming from non-domestic operations. And, while the 37% that remains may not sound like much, it's a lot more than what was available in '97. And, remember, it was the union which "blinked" in '97; apparently, if the union had made its pension rebate proposal, the company was prepared to go on a bit further.
Of course, there's also the matter of inter-company support; i.e. - from overseas unions, the pilots, freight drivers, etc. That's quite possible...but I'm reminded of the Penn. Turnpike Teamsters strike of a few years back, in which UPS feeder drivers ignored the picket lines and travelled the turnpike anyway. As for the pilots, take a look at sites such as "The Airline Pilot Central Forum", especially the freight section, and see how many are on furlough and/or waiting to be called-up by a freight operation training class. Today, while they may not be QUICKLY replaceable, ultimately they are.
Could the system be restructured with replacements overnight? Of course not. It would be a step-by-step process that would take months at the very least...but it COULD be done. And I think it could likely be done at a cheaper price than what it ultimately cost the company to withdraw from Central States (i.e. - the difference between the '97 withdrawal feel and when the company actually did withdraw)
Again, thanks for your post. Hope I was responsive
Last edited:
PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
[deleted - duplicate post]
Last edited:
Unfair Labor Practices are not vague, subjective claims of unfairness. They are specific actions that the NLRB and the Courts have determined are violations of Labor Law. There is a list of them, and decades of case law regarding each one. Start researching here . . .
Making Sure a Strike Centers On Unfair Labor Practices | Labor Notes
No one can force a company to obey the Law, but the company can be punished afterward for its violations, including fines, corrective action, and making the workers whole.
You would be amazed how many employer tactics are illegal, even things you may think seem legitimate. Labor Law is not neutral, it's pro worker.
Remember, a strike can be settled anytime by the Union winning it, or deciding to end it on whatever terms it can get at the moment. And most settlements involve insuring all non-violent strikers get their jobs back. Being permanently replaced only happens when the strike is economic and isn't settled. And that's probably because the Union determines that the issues that precipitated the strike were so fudamental that the job isn't worth going back to unless the company relents.
The UPS '97 strike was seen by just about everyone as the biggest Labor victory in quite a while. Poor Carlos notwithstanding.
UPS is extreemly vunerable to a strike of any length, even a very short one. Just talk of the Contract expiring, let alone striking, gives UPS and its shippers the chills.
Don't fall for the argument that for a strike to be declared "won," strikers must be able to show significant gains over the status quo. Sometimes just breaking even, or even settling for somewhat less is a great victory. It all depends on what harm the company was threatening to do. If the company intended, say, to cut your wages, abolish seniority, reduce or eliminate pension and H&W, etc., then just successfully beating back these attacks is a victory, even if no actual gains were made.
Making Sure a Strike Centers On Unfair Labor Practices | Labor Notes
No one can force a company to obey the Law, but the company can be punished afterward for its violations, including fines, corrective action, and making the workers whole.
You would be amazed how many employer tactics are illegal, even things you may think seem legitimate. Labor Law is not neutral, it's pro worker.
Remember, a strike can be settled anytime by the Union winning it, or deciding to end it on whatever terms it can get at the moment. And most settlements involve insuring all non-violent strikers get their jobs back. Being permanently replaced only happens when the strike is economic and isn't settled. And that's probably because the Union determines that the issues that precipitated the strike were so fudamental that the job isn't worth going back to unless the company relents.
The UPS '97 strike was seen by just about everyone as the biggest Labor victory in quite a while. Poor Carlos notwithstanding.
UPS is extreemly vunerable to a strike of any length, even a very short one. Just talk of the Contract expiring, let alone striking, gives UPS and its shippers the chills.
Don't fall for the argument that for a strike to be declared "won," strikers must be able to show significant gains over the status quo. Sometimes just breaking even, or even settling for somewhat less is a great victory. It all depends on what harm the company was threatening to do. If the company intended, say, to cut your wages, abolish seniority, reduce or eliminate pension and H&W, etc., then just successfully beating back these attacks is a victory, even if no actual gains were made.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Jon, would you classify the NFL "strike" as an economic strike and, as such, would the NFL be within their rights to permanently hire the replacement refs? What about the air traffic controllers strike in the early '80s? To me this strike would also be an economic strike and President Reagan was well within his rights to fire them all and hire replace ATC's. I seem to recall the term "in the national interest" as the reason used to fire the ATC's.
Similar threads
