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 Union Issues
Should union membership be optional?
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: 541633" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>coldworld;</p><p> </p><p>I think my mind is relatively open. And "yes", there ARE other jobs...predominately in areas in which layed-off Teamsters are unlikely to access, either for lack of training, or economic matching. But, even then, it's difficult to avoid the fact that the Teamsters have lost half their members (read that exactly; I said "members", and not those simply "represented", which is a somewhat higher figure), and thus half their members' jobs. Now if you take away the non-traditional, non-transportation jobs that the union has "organized" to replace them (sheet-changers, bedpan emptier's, etc) the figure is much, much greater. And tell me...how likely was it that one of the hundreds of thousands of Teamsters who was working in transportation was going to shift professions to one of those jobs as a nurse or an aid in a hospital, or make a career change to support his family by making beds at the local Holiday Inn? Very likely you think?</p><p> </p><p>Beyond that, even the small, non-trucking Teamster jobs have been disappearing lately...often simply because the companies that provided them can no longer sustain the remarkable underfunding liability imposed upon them by the Teamster pension funds (such underfunding also a function of the Teamsters inability to maintain employment of it's members...a vicious cycle). Every month ones reads of a car dealership that employed Teamster mechanics, or a lumber yard that employed Teamster delivery drivers, going out of business because their owners saw the economic handwriting on the wall in terms of the union's pension liability ("yes", usually Central States, but others as well). Look at the ongoing Twin Cities newspaper drama for a current example.</p><p> </p><p>Bottom line? ANY reasonable way you look at it. the Teamsters union has cost its members literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of decent jobs...and replaced them only PARTIALLY (VERY "partially") with much less viable and/or accessible ones. The one exception? UPS. But, again, UPS is becoming less and less "Teamster" every year, and that company's viability is running very much against the Teamster grain. And it's also under intense competive pressure from the likes of unorganized competition like FDX. Are the Teamsters helping to preserve this core employer? I don't know...but one gains an impression from reading posts from Teamsters here and elsewhere.</p><p> </p><p>With all that "in mind", I'd suggest that I already have an "open mind"...and that those who ignore reality might have the closed one. Of course, I'm more than willing the listen to arguments as to how the Teamsters have enhanced OVERALL the prospects of its members over the last several decades......fully aware that it has to be a difficult argument to make without snickering.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 541633, member: 16651"] coldworld; I think my mind is relatively open. And "yes", there ARE other jobs...predominately in areas in which layed-off Teamsters are unlikely to access, either for lack of training, or economic matching. But, even then, it's difficult to avoid the fact that the Teamsters have lost half their members (read that exactly; I said "members", and not those simply "represented", which is a somewhat higher figure), and thus half their members' jobs. Now if you take away the non-traditional, non-transportation jobs that the union has "organized" to replace them (sheet-changers, bedpan emptier's, etc) the figure is much, much greater. And tell me...how likely was it that one of the hundreds of thousands of Teamsters who was working in transportation was going to shift professions to one of those jobs as a nurse or an aid in a hospital, or make a career change to support his family by making beds at the local Holiday Inn? Very likely you think? Beyond that, even the small, non-trucking Teamster jobs have been disappearing lately...often simply because the companies that provided them can no longer sustain the remarkable underfunding liability imposed upon them by the Teamster pension funds (such underfunding also a function of the Teamsters inability to maintain employment of it's members...a vicious cycle). Every month ones reads of a car dealership that employed Teamster mechanics, or a lumber yard that employed Teamster delivery drivers, going out of business because their owners saw the economic handwriting on the wall in terms of the union's pension liability ("yes", usually Central States, but others as well). Look at the ongoing Twin Cities newspaper drama for a current example. Bottom line? ANY reasonable way you look at it. the Teamsters union has cost its members literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of decent jobs...and replaced them only PARTIALLY (VERY "partially") with much less viable and/or accessible ones. The one exception? UPS. But, again, UPS is becoming less and less "Teamster" every year, and that company's viability is running very much against the Teamster grain. And it's also under intense competive pressure from the likes of unorganized competition like FDX. Are the Teamsters helping to preserve this core employer? I don't know...but one gains an impression from reading posts from Teamsters here and elsewhere. With all that "in mind", I'd suggest that I already have an "open mind"...and that those who ignore reality might have the closed one. Of course, I'm more than willing the listen to arguments as to how the Teamsters have enhanced OVERALL the prospects of its members over the last several decades......fully aware that it has to be a difficult argument to make without snickering. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Should union membership be optional?
Top