The strike that was

[soberups]

I would really be interested in the actual percentage of part timers nation wide that are actually in the union. Wanna bet its less than 10-20%?

I live in Oregon, we aren't a right-to-fire state, so 100% of our part-timers are union. Membership isnt an option here, no one gets a free ride. Last time I checked, there were 22 righ-to-fire states, so those are the locations where there might be low union membership among the part-timers.
My opinion is that a union can only be as strong as is weakest members. A union job is supposed to mean better pay and benefits. This contract doesnt do that for part timers. When a substantial portion of our workforce are making minimum wage with no benefits, I dont see much hope for unity.

 

[dannyboy]

right-to-fire state, so 100% of our part-timers are union. Membership isnt an option here, no one gets a free ride. Last time I checked, there were 22 righ-to-fire states, so those are the locations where there might be low union membership among the part-timers.

Now there you see the issue. You force people to belong to the union without any options. Regardless of how much or little they make.

Now, those same people who you force to be part of the union got the shaft. So why should they even be a part of the union? After all, you full timers got all the gravy, not the part time people. So why make them belong to the union that sold them out? I dont see the logic.

As for low membership where people have a choice, you bet. There are very few part time hourly in the union. Shame, because many of them make pretty good money. For a while, we had a part timer that was the highest grossing UPSer in our building because of the shift work, not being under DOT hour restrictions, etc etc. Back 8 years ago, he grossed over 80 grand. Not bad for part time minimum wage job.........

I look at it this way. Forcing people to belong to a union is the wrong attitude. Allow them the choice, and make it something they would be proud and willing to join. Then you have a strong union.

Otherwise it will be like the roman legions late in the empire. Yes they had about 2.5 million soldiers, one of the most massive armies ever known. But they were mostly forced labor, hired guns, not the volunteers that would lay down their lives for the cause.

d

 

[soberups]

Now there you see the issue. You force people to belong to the union without any options. Regardless of how much or little they make.
d

Nobody is forced to belong to a union. A person who is opposed to union membership is free to take a non-union job. Taco Bell, WalMart and McDonalds are all non union, and they are all hiring too.
The problem is those people who want all of the benefits of a union job...without the responsibility of membership. For instance, if I pay taxes to live in a certain neighborhood, and my taxes go to maintain the street and the local park...would it be fair for my neighbor to enjoy the same street and park but at the same time refuse to pay taxes?

 

[dannyboy]

Your analogy is flawed. These fine teamsters that are forced to belong are now only making minimum wage (per your post) and that is less than taco or wendy's. They also no longer will have insurance. So what benefits are there to this union job you are talking about. I dont see any. Maybe I am missing something.

So please tell me what benefits there are in this union job for me to pay union dues for.

You the driver get to live in said home on said street in said neighborhood. The part time Union person earning less than minimum wage is forced to live on the curb on said street. Because we both belong to the same union, we get to live in the same neighborhood.

d

 

[tieguy]

Your analogy is flawed. These fine teamsters that are forced to belong are now only making minimum wage (per your post) and that is less than taco or wendy's. They also no longer will have insurance. So what benefits are there to this union job you are talking about. I dont see any. Maybe I am missing something.

So please tell me what benefits there are in this union job for me to pay union dues for.

You the driver get to live in said home on said street in said neighborhood. The part time Union person earning less than minimum wage is forced to live on the curb on said street. Because we both belong to the same union, we get to live in the same neighborhood.

d

interesting debate. I think the part time job offers what it always has. the opportunity to earn a full time job that is loaded with beni's.

There is one thing missing from this discussion. the union never wanted the part time jobs. The union does not care for the part time job and really wants to do little to make it attractive. The fear of ups replacing full time jobs with part time still reigns.

 

[dannyboy]

the union never wanted the part time jobs. The union does not care for the part time job and really wants to do little to make it attractive. The fear of ups replacing full time jobs with part time still reigns.

I agree the union wants nothing from the part timers except union dues. Thus my rant.

Intereresting you say the fear of UPS........What is laughable is that under the current contract, even if you split the routes, you would still make over time as a driver, even part time.

d

 

[ups_vette]

If anyone is truly interested in the history of part time employees with UPS and how they came to be, I recommend starting your investigation by reading Robert Kennedy's book "The Enemy Within: The Mccelalland Select Comittee's investigation of Jimmy Hoffa and Corrupt Union Activities". This Senate Comittee investigated the Temsters from 1954 to 1958

Pay particular attention to the sections about "labor consultents", who they were, where they are from, and what Companies they worked with. You may need to do further research to get the full story on part timers with UPS, but your research will answer most of your questions on this subject.

 

[local804]

Dannyboy,
You are a retired teamster receiving a ft pension , correct? What state and local did you belong to?