Election Misconduct charges filed against UPSF in KC election

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by nospinzone, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member

    APWA has learned of inappropriate misconduct on behalf of the company preceeding the UPSF election in Kansas City. Charges were filed on 8/13 requesting that the results be set aside. The charges read as follows from the NLRB website:
    1. Gifts or Inducements
    2. Misrepresentation
    3. Other Conduct
    4. Payments to Voters
    5. Promise/Grant Wages or Benefits
    This misconduct took the form of
    1. Promoting employees from part time to full time just before the vote.
    2. Misleading & Inflating the future dollar amounts of the pension plan.
    3. Calling in road drivers and putting them on the clock just to vote.
    These charges were read by Steve Somers on his radio program on 8/15.
  2. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    Nospin alot of us have not bashed or said told you so after the election out of respect. And now you come back making bs claims, i might be able to but it if it was close but you got it handed to you, so stop all the bs and admit when you have been beat instead of crying like a bunch of nancys.
  3. Cole

    Cole New Member

    Hold on Red bro,

    I certainly don't know the facts, but the above charges would not shock me at all. Corporations will go to great lengths to keep a union out, and in fact some union busters teach them to do just what those charges say. Whether they have merit or not I can't say, but we shouldn't dismiss them without giving the process a chance.

    We should support them getting a union, whether it's APWA or Teamsters or whoever imho. If the charges are baseless, then the APWA needs to just learn from any possible mistakes and move on to the next effort imo. Didn't the Teamsters file numerous charges against Overnite when they were trying to organize them? Were they being Nancy's?
  4. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Don't you people get it? KC does not want you to represent them. Your grasping at straws in hopes of having another election where you will lose again. Cut your losses, put your tail between your legs, and leave town with what little is left of your dignity.
  5. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Realistically though if APWA is going to gain credibility they will have to do so by working hard and organizing the rank and file. Litigating their losses in court is not going to gain them the respect they need.
  6. Cole

    Cole New Member

    I agree Tie!
  7. Delivered

    Delivered Active Member

    I would agree with the charges if the outcome was much closer. But lets face it, KC does not want ANY union. (Probably has a lot to do with them voting the Teamsters out) They don't want to take the chance and I can understand that, hopefully in a year or so they will change their minds on union representation after working with BIG BROWN. Hopefully the APWA will take what they have learned from KC and move on to Gaffney with their heads held high. jmho
  8. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member

    I disagree. When you consider that this barn has always been skeptical of unions, it wouldn't take much action by the company to spook them into voting down any union. What do you suspect the pro-company morale level was like in the days leading up to the election when you take into consideration the bribes the company was throwing out there? Read the below charges. Why would anyone vote for a union after hearing all the "good things" (which inadverdently happen to be illegal) the company was doing leading up to the election? Question is, if these charges are true, should the people be given a chance to vote again after realizing the company tried to buy them out?

    Union files objections to UPS Freight vote in KCK
    Kansas City Business Journal - 2:27 PM CDT Wednesday, August 15, 2007
    by Jerry LaMartina

    The Association of Parcel Workers of America filed a list of five objections to last week's election in which workers at UPS Freight in Kansas City, Kan., rejected union representation by a 3-1 margin.

    The union filed the objections with the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday, Dan Hubble, spokesman for the NLRB's Overland Park regional office, said Wednesday.

    "(The union) indicated to us that they intend to file charges alleging an unfair labor practice," Hubble said......

    In a release Wednesday, the union, based in Raleigh, N.C., listed five objections to the election, alleging that UPS Freight:
    • Granted benefits to employees during the voting period by awarding part-time dock workers full-time employment, giving them substantial wage and benefit increases.
    • Told part-time dock workers that it planned to substantially increase the number of full-time dock workers to influence employees to vote against union representation.
    • Identified road drivers who hadn't voted in the election, contacted them while they were working and directed them to return to the polling area with their loads and vote, resulting in the drivers getting additional compensation for voting.
    • Told employees eligible to vote in the election that if they voted for the union their pensions may be frozen, causing them to lose benefits.
    • Falsely told employees eligible to vote that the amount of the pension they would get through their current benefits was more than it actually was.
  9. 705red

    705red Browncafe Steward

    Im really sure some of this could be possible, it happens during every organizing effort. The problem here more lies with the apwa and not preparing these employees of what to expect in the months, weeks and days before an election. Lets not fool anyone evrey union has had to overcome obstacles like this and even more the employees if were strong in their beliefs for the union would not have been bought out so easy and wouldnt have fallen for ups's tactics. Especially since 80% of them signed the cards as what has been said on this site in ths past, ups might have gotten to some of them but its basically imposssible to turn 80% in favor of to a losing percentage of 3 to 1.
  10. Cole

    Cole New Member

    My friend no spin, if the results were closer it would make more sense, but the fact that it was such a huge margin tells me it would be a waste of resources to try them again, even if it was done by partially illegal means. I would suggest moving on to the next one and go after even harder and make known to the next group what to expect and to let you know if any such activity takes place. You have to "know when to hold e'm, know when to fold e'm, know when to walk away, know when to run".

    Rejection is tough, but twice would be worse.
  11. nospinzone

    nospinzone New Member

    I recognize and agree with yall's pragmatic and realistic opinions that the margin of defeat may be to great to simply be explained by company misconduct. A repeat of the election may only show the same result but with a smaller margin.

    However, if the charges are true, then UPS violated the law (NLRA). Should APWA give them a free pass to abuse the law in KCK and thus setting a precedent and trend for future elections in SC and Pittsburgh? Filing NLRB charges is the only way the APWA can hold the company accountable when they choose to be a hostile employer in these labor activities. People wrongly assume that the APWA would be a weak labor union when battling the company based on the lack of prior history. Filing NLRB charges and forcing the company to admit their impropriaties when they intentionally mislead the employees to defeat an organization movement is one of the main tools the APWA has to show its ability to effectively handle the company. If you deny the APWA the right to fight the company's misconduct in KCK, you deny them the opportunity to prove themselves to the people, which is what has been asked of the APWA all along.

    In addition, the people in KCK need to see and realize that the company has never intended to play fair. KCK's vote demonstrates their misperception that the company will treat them fairly. Therefore, the APWA AND THE TEAMSTERS need to demonstrate to the anti-union crowd within UPSF that union and contract protection is a necessity when working for the big brown machine.

    As red and Cole have said, these NLRB charges may not alter the election results, but the reasons stated above are why they are necessary.
  12. Cole

    Cole New Member

    I agree with why the charges are being filed, and I think you should file then, but as far as the numbers, they are likely sold on what the company promised them etc...but I think if the charges can be proved then it should be pushed as expeditiousley as possible.
  13. krash

    krash Go big orange

    Makes me wonder if this will just net a more defiant workforce toward Unions. Also, why wasn't APWA prepared for these tactics to begin with. If they couldn't see this coming, I'd hate to have them at the bargaining table on my behalf.
  14. Cole

    Cole New Member

    I know Krash, because and I mean no offense by this, but Tom Coleman I would imagine has taught employers to use these very tactics, and likely written about it. They will tell them to brake the law, and do what's necessary to win the election etc... There again though, if they can prove those charges, then that will likely help at other areas they're trying to organize etc...
  15. badpas

    badpas Member

    On the contrary, we're not talking about children here. Unfortunatly the good people of KC had to make a hard decision based on the info at hand. If these charges are true then the company needs to relize that this kind of behavior is exactly what most of us on the brown side have seen for quite some time and are tired of dealing with. Too many times this goes on unreported when something should be done. But it is good to see that they are not willing to continue putting up with the lies they obviously don't deserve. I do agree that even if KC turns the apwa down again its more of setting things right with the company more than who represents them. After all nothing worth doing is ever easy. But I'll bet the eye's of KC have been pried open alittle more now.
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I don't see the benifit of this legal action. Seems like the same things happened when the teamsters tried to organize overnight. I believe they filed all kinds of nlrb cases against overnite and won quite a few. I could be wrong but I don't believe it helped the cause at all.

    Strategically speaking it seems APWA should carefully pick a barn that is almost a sure win and make that their first organizing effort. The fact that KC voted the teamsters out should have sent the apwa organizers some warning flares. JMHO

    At this point what happens if they win their case? Do we get a revote in KC? What would cause the KC'ers to change their minds and vote differently this time?
  17. Cole

    Cole New Member

    It could bring about a revote, but I can't aswer the last question.
  18. krash

    krash Go big orange

    I'm just amazed that APWA didn't plan on these "tactics". I do agree that UPS needs to be held accountable but the vote wasn't even close. Also, I can't see freight voting APWA in since they realize they are not getting there core industry and there first objective to sign up. It appears they are going after freight for that very reason. Knowing the majority want a Union and feel the IBT isn't moving fast enough. I believe the IBT is working much smarter this go around by hammering out a contract that the rest can get an idea on what to expect. We all know how slow a process this can be. I wouldn't wanna be APWA's Ginny pig.