Just curious... how irreplaceable do you think we are here, in case of a strike??

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrom;

Unfortunately, ULP sometimes ARE "rather vague", which is why the courts are often brought in after the NLRB has made it's own determination. And bear in mind that they're not effectively "law" at all (except in as much of it has been determined in the "common law" sense), but rather bureaucratic decisions...another matter entirely. "Yes", companies may be fined, forced to perform corrective actions, etc....but if they're really forceful impediments to the company, then it will see that there IS no "afterwards", either by waiting-out the striking workers, or by making it clear that an agreement won't be reached until the union withdraws chargers. Also, ULP charges are a two-way street; companies can raise them against unions as well, and have been more and more inclined to do so over the past few years.

For an indication of how such things play out, I suggest a look at the [relatively] recent Teamsters strike against Oak Harbor Trucking; charges were flung all over the place, but see what stuck in the end....and who came out with the short end of the straw. To counter-paraphrase, you'd be surprised at how many UNION tactics are illegal...and quite a few of them aren't just bureaucratic missteps, but actual criminal violations as well. Look at the recent job action by the longshoremen up in Longview, WA, by way of example....or, closer to home, the stabbings and the like the Teamsters engaged in during the '97 UPS strike.

A few years ago, I would have agreed with you that "And most settlements involve insuring all non-violent strikers get their jobs back" (a key phrase being "all NON-VIOLENT workers", which is rather an important limitation!). Today, however, and perhaps because there are few strikes, I'm not so sure. Perhaps there are fewer strikes today BECAUSE workers don't always get their jobs back, or perhaps because there are fewer strikes, the ones that do take place are more intense, and employers see to it that the workers don't get their jobs back. Either way, it's not at all uncommon today for workers who engage in a job action to not go back to work at the firm they walked away (or were locked-out) from. Note again the examples i've given just on this thread.

As for the "victory" of the '97 strike, I suggest you take a look at the "Sprague v. CSPF" link I provided and, while doing so, consider the spectacular growth of FedEx Ground (with corresponding diminishing Teamster job growth) which was a result of that strike, and the consequences to UPS retirees and the Teamster pension trust plans. Then couple that with the increased emphasis UPS has put since then on business opportunities that aren't entwined with the Teamsters. I think if you do so objectively, you'll reach the conclusion that most responsible viewers have; i.e. - the Teamsters aren't going to be able to withstand many more "victories" like that one.

While I'll grant you that "UPS is extreemly [sic] vulnerable to a strike of any length", I'd submit that it's light years away from being as vulnerable as the Teamsters. Without UPS to support it, the Teamsters are essentially dead. Meanwhile, without the Teamsters, UPS still has one of the largest functioning transportation businesses in the world. I also think that, if there's a strike this time, in consideration of the strong management/shareholder feeling last time that the company relented far too quickly, and that it cost it in the long run to do so (there will always be pointing at the ultimate $6 billion or whatever CSPF withdrawal fee), then the company will be far less tolerant, and far more willing to "go the distance" if called upon to do so, and essentially break the union in the process. Is that likely? Probably not. Is it possible? Definitely...and, ultimately, there wouldn't be much the Teamsters could do about it. Far too many of them, in this economic environment, would simply want the opportunity to go back to a job. They wouldn't be all that concerned about giving-up on ULP charges are whatever; rather, they'd simply want to be able to pay their bills and support their families.

Again, I'm not saying it WOULD happen...but the circumstances are there such that it COULD happen. Would UPS suffer from it? In the short term, of course! But over the long term? Well, as I see it, it might actually come out of it a leaner, more compact enterprise with a higher level of profitability....plus a much greater growth potential to boot.

In the end, I think the Teamsters (as an organization - not speaking here of the individual members) will be happy if they can simply maintain a contract that doesn't deviate TOO far from what they already have. With the demise of CFWY, what amounts to a bankruptcy of YRCW (I myself purchased 20,000 shares of that firm when it fell to a nickel a share...down from more than $44 just a few short years before - and it's worth less than half of what I paid for it today), I think that would be a "little piece of heaven" as far as the union honchos were concerned. Oh, there'll be some posturing and such, but the economic handwriting is on the wall. And right now I think that handwriting will dictate the results; not some membership wish list or whatever.

​

 

[PobreCarlos]

UpstateNYUPSer;

Not qualified to speak about the NFL, but in terms of the ATC strike, it was against the law for the controllers to go out on strike....a condition they knew about when they were hired in. Technically speaking, by the terms of his oath of office, Reagan had no choice but to fire the controllers (although, being government, there was always wiggle-room). The NLRB doesn't govern all labor situations; for example, FedEx Express (and for that matter, UPS Airlines, as well, I believe), function under the auspices of the Railway Labor Act, which has an entirely different set of rules. Federal employees function under neither, and may not be able to (like the ATCs) to engage in job actions to begin with. Then there's the local government employees. Many jurisdictions are like Wisconsin, in that public employees effectively aren't allowed collective bargaining rights. And often those that are, are denied the right to strike. For example, the transport workers in New York are subject to the state's Taylor Act, which prescribes fines and jail terms as punishment for strikes, which are essentially outlawed. The transport workers have gone on strike anyway and, although most of them got their jobs back, they've paid fines (both as individuals and as the union), and their leaders have occasionally been jailed.

Anyway, Reagan didn't need an excuse per se to fire the ATC strikers; the law was on his side from the get-go in that instance.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The company will be far less tolerant, and far more willing to "go the distance" if called upon to do so, and essentially break the union.

Are you speaking for the company ?

Or, is this one of your long winded narcissistic rants ?



-Bug-

 

[JonFrum]

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.

I know nothing about the NFL strike.

President Ronald Reagan had no choice but to fire the PATCO strikers. As President he took an oath to uphold the Law. PATCO broke the law by striking. Reagan, (a former president of the Screen Actors Guild,) had no choice but to uphold the Law. He gave them ample warning and time to return to work. Those that didn't, in effect, fired themselves. Regan could have been impeached if he didn't enforce the Law.

I don't know enough of the details of the issues Patco was striking over. The illegality of the strike was the big issue.

 

[moreluck]

Reagan did the right thing. Today Obama would probably weigh it as to how many votes he would lose depending which way he decided.

Because law and constitution are for other people.

 

[JonFrum]

JonFrom;

Unfortunately, ULP sometimes ARE "rather vague", which is why the courts are often brought in after the NLRB has made it's own determination. And bear in mind that they're not effectively "law" at all (except in as much of it has been determined in the "common law" sense), but rather bureaucratic decisions...another matter entirely. . .

When Congress legislates it authorizes agencies like the NLRB to fill in the details of its Laws, and to render decisions. Those rules, regulations, decisions, etc., have the force of law, unless and until they are successfully overturned in Court. Court decisions that back-up NLRB decisions become Case Law, which is Law unless and until someone successfully overturns it by appealing. Case Law has been accumulating for decades now, and is real Law. If Congress doesn't overturn a Case Law decision by passing new legislation, then the Case Law decision has even more weight as Law.
- - - -
For years you have believed UPS is ready for all-out war, will wage it, and can survive and prosper after a lengthy battle. Do you have any analysts or UPS officials that agree with your fantasies?

 

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrum;

Case law, when it comes to NLRB complaints, often is limited to the jurisdictions of the courts and/or the appellate courts involved. Witness the infamous "9th Circuit" Federal decisions that come out of the west coast. They're often at odds with those of courts in other parts of the country; until appealed higher, they're valid only in that district. Even then, the possible circumstances of ULP complaints are many and varied, and can be quite technical; they are FAR from "cut 'n' dried".

As for your "analysts or UPS" officials" stuff, well first of all, if you read what I wrote again, you'll notice that I most emphatically stated that it would probably NOT happen; I'm only speaking of a "POSSIBILITY", most assuredly not of a "certainty", nor even of a "likelihood". However, I'd assert that anyone who thinks that such a possibility doesn't exist in one form or another is being rather naive. Secondly, I'll have to admit that I'm not that familiar with any outside "analysts" who would postulate how the company might react to a strike. However, I'm also not familiar with any OUTSIDE analyst who would be much better - or even as well - informed on the situation as I. And, in terms of CURRENT UPS officials who WOULD have much in the way of relevant information on the topic, they're simply not going to discuss it. That's just the nature of business....as it is with union affairs as well.

That said, it doesn't take a genius to see which direction the company has taken over the 15 years. If, in looking at that direction, you think the company HASN'T made itself "ready" to a degree, then you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I can tell you, however, that if the union looks at such possibilities as mere "fantasies", then its potentially resigning itself to the same type of consequences as those suffered in those job actions mentioned above...and those consequences were NO mere "fantasies"..

 

[brown_trousers]

I think the only thing UPS would consider under threat of a strike is how much profit they would lose in the short term vs how much profit they could gain in the long term.

so the big question then becomes, how long-term are they willing to invest themselves?

would they be willing to hold their ground on the strike costing them huge profit losses and market share. It could be a solid investment for them if they are looking 15-20 years in the future

 

[PobreCarlos]

BigUnionGuy;

If you go back and review what I wrote, I think you'll find that, in actuality, my sentence was considerably longer than the one you posted, and it began with the qualifier of "I also think", as in......

"I also think that, if there's a strike this time, in consideration of the strong management/shareholder feeling last time that the company relented far too quickly, and that it cost it in the long run to do so (there will always be pointing at the ultimate $6 billion or whatever CSPF withdrawal fee), then the company will be far less tolerant, and far more willing to "go the distance" if called upon to do so, and essentially break the union in the process."

...which defined quite clearly who I was "speaking for".

With that in mind, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you didn't misquote me.

​

 

[PobreCarlos]

brown_trousers;

That's the $64,000 question. I'm not sure there's much willingness to go that route, but I believe the company is far better prepared for such an eventuality now than it was 15 years ago. The only real difference I see is the debt now vs. the cash position then....but that debt was brought on by the Central States fiasco, which many believe the company could perhaps have been avoided with a little more fortitude in '97. As I recall, UPS's withdrawal liability would have been a billion or so back then, which is substantially less than the reported $6 billion they eventually paid. Things like that have to weigh on a company's decision. And I've little doubt that UPS could find the financial wherewithal to absorb a job action.

That said, is the willingness there? Probably not....but who knows? This is a more than a hundred year old company, with a history of long-term thinking. And even though it's "public" today, ownership control is essentially still "private", meaning that short-term public pressure might not be that big a consideration.

 

[packageguy]

I heard start saving our money,

 

[JonFrum]

. . .I most emphatically stated that it would probably NOT happen; I'm only speaking of a "POSSIBILITY", most assuredly not of a "certainty", nor even of a "likelihood". . .

Precisely my point.

For years now you have set up straw men in your posts and argued with them by relying on unlikelyhoods to "win" the argument. You have nothing to back up your fantasies, except that, well, it's theoretically possible, and therefore we can't dismiss it completely. You're like a guy who predicts "the marriage won't last" because the bride and groom might get a paper cut that gets infected and they die of blood posioning, or they get struck by lightening, or they blow a tire and go off a cliff, or they get abducted by space aliens.

Meanwhile many decades of Court-tested Law, and settled Case Law leaves you unconvinced, because there are some recent issues that have grey areas around the edges, or that haven't been fully litigated yet.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrum;

Sounds like recent events have gotten your dander up. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. If you think what I've outlined as possible is mere "fantasy", then more power to you. Your opinion, however, doesn't really change the situation's potential...nor have you provided any sort of valid argument that such a potential doesn't exist. Obviously, I'd have a lot more respect for that opinion if you had...or were at least able to try.

Moreover, I'd submit that, over the years, the Teamsters have been confronted by similar "fantasies" that they were unprepared to deal with; "fantasies" that unfortunately came true. After all, it wasn't facing reality that led the union to lose half of its members jobs....or well more than half of them in the core transportation industry. In that vein, I can remember back when there were tons of Teamsters like you equally prepared to call the possibility of trucking deregulation nothing but a "fantasy". Unfortunately, that "fantasy" proved all-too-real, and bit the union in the behind big-time. Over and over again, there were members telling themselves that such-and-such "couldn't happen"...then situations like Central States, CFWY, YRCW, the rise of FedEx, etc., came along. Were those events all simply "straw me" that were set up?

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But, using your analogy, the last time I looked, 50% of ALL marriages DIDN'T last...and I can't help but believe that those who maintain that it's a "fantasy" to even consider that there's at least a chance of their failure are incredibly naive.

 

[JonFrum]

. . . I can remember back when there were tons of Teamsters like you equally prepared to call the possibility of trucking deregulation nothing but a "fantasy". Unfortunately, that "fantasy" proved all-too-real, and bit the union in the behind big-time. Over and over again, there were members telling themselves that such-and-such "couldn't happen"...then situations like Central States, CFWY, YRCW, the rise of FedEx, etc., came along. Were those events all simply "straw men" that were set up? . . .

An excelent example of setting up straw men, attributing wrong opinions to them, and then, since normal events "prove" them wrong, stepping in appearing to be so much wiser than all those clueless naive bumpkins.

 

[Jones]

Meanwhile in the real world, Pobre (scb) has spent the last 15 years on various websites predicting that UPS is going to "break the union". Even a broken watch is right twice day, but Poor Carlos can't even meet that low standard.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JonFrum & Jones;

Perhaps you're right...but, then again, a more pertinent example might be of one who assumes that quite normal events are only "straw men" that should be dealt with as "fantasies". I guess what I'm getting at is that, if the union prepares for the possibilities, the only cost if the worst DOESN'T happen is that a minimal amount of resources have been squandered on that preparation. On the other hand, if it DOESN'T prepare, and the worst DOES occur, then what happens? I think you know the answer to that, because that's EXACTLY the scenario that the Teamsters faced when "de-reg" came into play. Are you're saying that, after that experience, the union SHOULDN'T be prepared for the possibility of an event of equally disastrous potential?

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But if, as a Teamster, you think that the possibility of a strike being dealt with in forceful fashion is a "fantasy", then might I suggest you're forgetting Teamster history. As an example, why don't you review how the Red Star Teamsters similar "straw man" turned out for them? Or the Oak Harbor job action I've mentioned elsewhere here? Or what castigations of "fantasy" were being tossed-about by Teamsters such as yourself regarding the possibilities they might encounter with YRCW a few short years back? I, for example, can remember a quite dedicated Teamster deriding the idea that Teamster-organized YRCW lacked investment potential...when it was selling for $44/share, and it employed scores of thousands of Teamsters. Now it's trading in a range of 1/400th or so of that....and thousands upon thousands of YRCW Teamsters have lost there jobs, with even more having had their wages and retirement potential cut. The point being, of course, is that if the union doesn't prepare for what people like you view as "fantasies", then there's a good chance it's going to get creamed. Life is full of the unexpected.

As for "breaking the union"...well, why don't you take a closer look at the threads on this board. Seems to me that a lot of Teamsters think that, in terms of UPS, the union has ALREADY been "broken". For example, I see declarations of "victory" concerning the '97 strike...but, ultimately, what was it that the company really wanted that it didn't get? Remember that the job action was resolved by the Teamsters OFFERING A $100 MILLION PENSION REBATE IN ORDER TO GO BACK TO WORK! And that the main item of disagreement - the continued participation of UPS in the CSPF - was eventually resolved with the company's withdrawal. Meanwhile, there's been SurePost, driver team long-haul, sub-contracting, the 23.2 situation,the growth of NON-Teamster FedEx Ground, etc., etc, while UPS has spent the bulk of its resources developing NON-Teamster business overseas. The fact is that many have reason to say that the Teamsters exist as a "tamed" entity at UPS now. And, given that the company is essentially its only significant financial base, that's probably to be expected.

Sorry, but I just don't see how calling a very possible reality a "fantasy" is going to change what it is. Nor, I suspect, is basic denial going to be all that effective in dealing with it. But, again, you're entitled to your opinions.

 

[Bubblehead]

JonFrum & Jones;

Perhaps you're right...but, then again, a more pertinent example might be of one who assumes that quite normal events are only "straw men" that should be dealt with as "fantasies". I guess what I'm getting at is that, if the union prepares for the possibilities, the only cost if the worst DOESN'T happen is that a minimal amount of resources have been squandered on that preparation. On the other hand, if it DOESN'T prepare, and the worst DOES occur, then what happens? I think you know the answer to that, because that's EXACTLY the scenario that the Teamsters faced when "de-reg" came into play. Are you're saying that, after that experience, the union SHOULDN'T be prepared for the possibility of an event of equally disastrous potential?

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But if, as a Teamster, you think that the possibility of a strike being dealt with in forceful fashion is a "fantasy", then might I suggest you're forgetting Teamster history. As an example, why don't you review how the Red Star Teamsters similar "straw man" turned out for them? Or the Oak Harbor job action I've mentioned elsewhere here? Or what castigations of "fantasy" were being tossed-about by Teamsters such as yourself regarding the possibilities they might encounter with YRCW a few short years back? I, for example, can remember a quite dedicated Teamster deriding the idea that Teamster-organized YRCW lacked investment potential...when it was selling for $44/share, and it employed scores of thousands of Teamsters. Now it's trading in a range of 1/400th or so of that....and thousands upon thousands of YRCW Teamsters have lost there jobs, with even more having had their wages and retirement potential cut. The point being, of course, is that if the union doesn't prepare for what people like you view as "fantasies", then there's a good chance it's going to get creamed. Life is full of the unexpected.

As for "breaking the union"...well, why don't you take a closer look at the threads on this board. Seems to me that a lot of Teamsters think that, in terms of UPS, the union has ALREADY been "broken". For example, I see declarations of "victory" concerning the '97 strike...but, ultimately, what was it that the company really wanted that it didn't get? Remember that the job action was resolved by the Teamsters OFFERING A $100 MILLION PENSION REBATE IN ORDER TO GO BACK TO WORK! And that the main item of disagreement - the continued participation of UPS in the CSPF - was eventually resolved with the company's withdrawal. Meanwhile, there's been SurePost, driver team long-haul, sub-contracting, the 23.2 situation,the growth of NON-Teamster FedEx Ground, etc., etc, while UPS has spent the bulk of its resources developing NON-Teamster business overseas. The fact is that many have reason to say that the Teamsters exist as a "tamed" entity at UPS now. And, given that the company is essentially its only significant financial base, that's probably to be expected.

Sorry, but I just don't see how calling a very possible reality a "fantasy" is going to change what it is. Nor, I suspect, is basic denial going to be all that effective in dealing with it. But, again, you're entitled to your opinions.

I don't think you really mean that.

 

[bigblu 2 you]

JonFrum & Jones;

Perhaps you're right...but, then again, a more pertinent example might be of one who assumes that quite normal events are only "straw men" that should be dealt with as "fantasies". I guess what I'm getting at is that, if the union prepares for the possibilities, the only cost if the worst DOESN'T happen is that a minimal amount of resources have been squandered on that preparation. On the other hand, if it DOESN'T prepare, and the worst DOES occur, then what happens? I think you know the answer to that, because that's EXACTLY the scenario that the Teamsters faced when "de-reg" came into play. Are you're saying that, after that experience, the union SHOULDN'T be prepared for the possibility of an event of equally disastrous potential?

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But if, as a Teamster, you think that the possibility of a strike being dealt with in forceful fashion is a "fantasy", then might I suggest you're forgetting Teamster history. As an example, why don't you review how the Red Star Teamsters similar "straw man" turned out for them? Or the Oak Harbor job action I've mentioned elsewhere here? Or what castigations of "fantasy" were being tossed-about by Teamsters such as yourself regarding the possibilities they might encounter with YRCW a few short years back? I, for example, can remember a quite dedicated Teamster deriding the idea that Teamster-organized YRCW lacked investment potential...when it was selling for $44/share, and it employed scores of thousands of Teamsters. Now it's trading in a range of 1/400th or so of that....and thousands upon thousands of YRCW Teamsters have lost there jobs, with even more having had their wages and retirement potential cut. The point being, of course, is that if the union doesn't prepare for what people like you view as "fantasies", then there's a good chance it's going to get creamed. Life is full of the unexpected.

As for "breaking the union"...well, why don't you take a closer look at the threads on this board. Seems to me that a lot of Teamsters think that, in terms of UPS, the union has ALREADY been "broken". For example, I see declarations of "victory" concerning the '97 strike...but, ultimately, what was it that the company really wanted that it didn't get? Remember that the job action was resolved by the Teamsters OFFERING A $100 MILLION PENSION REBATE IN ORDER TO GO BACK TO WORK! And that the main item of disagreement - the continued participation of UPS in the CSPF - was eventually resolved with the company's withdrawal. Meanwhile, there's been SurePost, driver team long-haul, sub-contracting, the 23.2 situation,the growth of NON-Teamster FedEx Ground, etc., etc, while UPS has spent the bulk of its resources developing NON-Teamster business overseas. The fact is that many have reason to say that the Teamsters exist as a "tamed" entity at UPS now. And, given that the company is essentially its only significant financial base, that's probably to be expected.

Sorry, but I just don't see how calling a very possible reality a "fantasy" is going to change what it is. Nor, I suspect, is basic denial going to be all that effective in dealing with it. But, again, you're entitled to your opinions.

pessimist?optimist? owner of a mayan calendar ?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

the 23.2 situation

Exactly, what is the 23.2 situation ??


Ha Ha Ha Ha !!



-Bug-

 

[PobreCarlos]

BigUnionGuy & others;

Glad I was able to give you a laugh! Truth be told, I'm rather surprised that you were able to get even that much out of my post. Meanwhile, I appreciate the other "substantive" responses as well; very enlightening!