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
Just curious... how irreplaceable do you think we are here, in case of a strike??
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: 1021955" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>JonFrum & Jones;</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 1021955, member: 16651"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Just curious... how irreplaceable do you think we are here, in case of a strike??
Top