PVD'S

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
I remember a separate strike vote. I remember a stike notice, a deadline. In my area, the issues were full time jobs (the slogan was we can't have a part time America) and taking control of our pension. For me, in hindsight, we won. I would have a part time pension right now (with the ups proposal). And could not afford to retire until 67 instead of 52. That is 15 years of life.....priceless.

Besides, being pt sup, off the street hire. The $300 a week in stike pay was a welcomed raise.

The strike vote was earlier in July that gave Carey the power to strike anytime after July 31. I suspect the strike notice people are thinking of is when the union officially notified the company of the result of that vote.

A lot of the rest of your post makes little sense - The strike pay from the IBT was $55/week. You must have been in a very healthy local if they were adding $245 on top of that. Of course, as a pt sup, they would have paid you $0. ???
 

1989

Well-Known Member
The strike vote was earlier in July that gave Carey the power to strike anytime after July 31. I suspect the strike notice people are thinking of is when the union officially notified the company of the result of that vote.

A lot of the rest of your post makes little sense - The strike pay from the IBT was $55/week. You must have been in a very healthy local if they were adding $245 on top of that. Of course, as a pt sup, they would have paid you $0. ???
Yes, notice to the company, or a deadline. Driving starting pay was a pay cut. Our dues put $3 a month into a strike fund.
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
The strike vote was earlier in July that gave Carey the power to strike anytime after July 31.


Of course it was.

You can't verify, and count, that many votes in a matter of 3 days.


The strike pay from the IBT was $55/week.


That's correct.

Your assumption that there was no other compensation.... is wrong.


Our dues put $3 a month into a strike fund.


There are Joint Councils, State or Regional Conferences, and Locals that

offer additional strike benefits.


@brownIEman is out of his element, as far as total knowledge.



-Bug-
 

1989

Well-Known Member
The strike vote was earlier in July that gave Carey the power to strike anytime after July 31. I suspect the strike notice people are thinking of is when the union officially notified the company of the result of that vote.

A lot of the rest of your post makes little sense - The strike pay from the IBT was $55/week. You must have been in a very healthy local if they were adding $245 on top of that. Of course, as a pt sup, they would have paid you $0. ???
Did you see the part about an extra 15 years of life? Due to not having a part time pension.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
I do not remember any 3 day strike notice.

The strike vote was earlier in July that gave Carey the power to strike anytime after July 31.

Carey told UPS that if a deal was not reached, there would be a strike on July 31 after the strike vote by the members. Carey postponed the strike on July 31 to give UPS one last chance to sit down and negotiate. This was publicly announced.

I've read in the interim, Carey had the power to call a strike at anytime after the expiration of the old contract after July 31st.

And he informed UPS that there would be a strike on July 31 if an agreement was not reached. He postponed the strike on that day to try and reach a deal with UPS. It was publicly announced that the strike was postponed so he could continue to negotiate. He was still willing to negotiate. UPS was not.

The negotiations were ongoing Aug 1st-3rd, mostly through the mediators, but they were continuing when Carey called for the strike to start at 12:00AM the start of Aug 4th. That is my recollection.

Good recollection. They were ongoing, but only through a mediator. But to say they were negotiations, is putting it mildly. UPS changed nothing from that last, best and final offer during these mediated talks. They were not negotiating. They did not "negotiate" anything in that last, best and final. They were pretty much silent during these mediated talks.

You seem to be in the union camp of the company was just being greedy and out to screw the employees anyway they could

I am in the union camp, but not greedy. This contract was worse than the previous contract, and UPS had made more money than the previous years. So, yes, we feel that we should also reap the benefits of a company making billions. We just wanted a contract slightly better than the previous one, since UPS was obviously doing better financially.

But here were some of the issues that UPS never budged on.

The raises for this contract were less than the previous contract. Why? UPS was making more money.

UPS wanted to take over the health & welfare and the pensions, completely.

No increase in starting pay for part timers.

A 7 year contract.

Wanted part timers to deliver all the air.

Wanted us to cross all picket lines of other companies, even Teamster authorized picket lines.

Wanted to step back the innocent until proven guilty language we won in the last contract.

Even during mediation, UPS would not budge on any of the key issues.

Suffice to say, it performed that process in the manner of a company that did indeed care about its employees.

I have to admit, I have seen instances where the Company does something with their employees well being in mind, but hardly ever during contract negotiations. And 20 years ago, I would say I saw it a lot.

Today, not so much.

Admittedly, other experiences years after the strike were much different...

It's been 20 years, get over it.

We remember things from that contract also, but we have gotten over it.

Remember Murray's quote, the UPS lead negotiator responding to our wages that the Union proposed?

"that $8 an hour was not only an adequate part-time wage, but in many areas of the United States it would be “a fine full-time wage.”

How about Lenhart's quote, another UPS lead negotiator?

“All these little nobodies come to work for us and now they think they’re somebody because they work for UPS.”

And you wonder why we struck.

As to a famous Kelly quote,

The quote I'm referring to by James Kelly is,

"I never thought they'd walk"

The negotiations were done. UPS refused to negotiate anymore, even with the mediator.

He gave us two choices, accept his last, best and final, or strike.

He expected us to accept his offer. He did not expect us to strike.

At 12:01 AM on August 4, 1997, 3 days after Carey postponed the first strike, we called James Kelly's bluff and struck.

And 3 days into the strike, UPS spokesperson Patrella told the New York Times “We are willing to continue to discuss the matter with the Teamsters, but we must emphasize that our last, best and final offer remains unchanged,”

Like I said, UPS had absolutely no intention of negotiating, no intention of compromising on their last, best and final offer, even as the strike was ongoing.

Another quote from then CEO James Kelly less than a week into the strike,

“If you were to pit a large corporation against a friendly, courteous UPS driver, I’d vote for the UPS driver, also.”

Management needs to get over it and realize that you were the ones wanting us, forcing us, to strike. We didn't want to walk and lose 2 weeks pay, but we had no choice due to your decisions.

I also have to thank the UPS pilots and the IPA. They stood behind us and they did not fly.

Thank you.
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
The raises for this contract were less than the previous contract. Why? UPS was making more money.

Why? That is a very astute question and the crux of the whole matter. The company was and still is making good profits.
Why would they ask the workforce to accept concessions compared to prior contracts? The answer is the same as the answer
given when UPS announced that it would be closing the district CSTC's and eliminating those jobs. I sat through several of the
meetings they held with those employees. (BTW, they announced those closings a full year before they actually shut them down,
pushing hard to find those employees other positions and back filling with temps as they did so). This was in '95 or '96 I believe.

The reason was that competition was taking market share from UPS. And they were doing so mostly on price. UPS had become
the high cost provider. And UPS's biggest cost is, rightly, the union payroll. The leaders were not looking 3 years toward the end of
the next contract, they were trying to look decades down the road. They knew that if they could not get UPS cost growth under
control they would be in trouble, despite what that years revenue were. The union only looked at the profits UPS was making at
that moment. Their view is understandably much shorter in reach. UPS management were trying to get back to a place where they could compete
on price. They failed. UPS is now running a business model that allows them to be profitable, but not competitive. Thanks to the
growth of ecomerce it has been sustainable for a much longer time than I think Kelley ever envisioned it could but it is not sustainable
indefinitely.
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
That's correct.

Your assumption that there was no other compensation.... is wrong.


-Bug-

Well, I have had other members on here cut out salient points when quoting me to basically lie about the position I was making.
I know we are from different perspectives and will likely not agree on much, but I did think that you were above that.
I stated that he must be in a very strong local if they are adding $245 on top of the international's $55 dollars. I would have
thought that would indicate I never assumed there were no other forms of compensation.

Aside from that, the amount he claimed to be making during the strike was not my real question anyway. He said in his post
that he was a pt sup. How much did the IBT or any of the other compensation channels pay to pt sups during the strike?
That just struck me as odd and something is clearly not adding up, be it typo or whatever I was curious.
 

1989

Well-Known Member
Why? That is a very astute question and the crux of the whole matter. The company was and still is making good profits.
Why would they ask the workforce to accept concessions compared to prior contracts? The answer is the same as the answer
given when UPS announced that it would be closing the district CSTC's and eliminating those jobs. I sat through several of the
meetings they held with those employees. (BTW, they announced those closings a full year before they actually shut them down,
pushing hard to find those employees other positions and back filling with temps as they did so). This was in '95 or '96 I believe.

The reason was that competition was taking market share from UPS. And they were doing so mostly on price. UPS had become
the high cost provider. And UPS's biggest cost is, rightly, the union payroll. The leaders were not looking 3 years toward the end of
the next contract, they were trying to look decades down the road. They knew that if they could not get UPS cost growth under
control they would be in trouble, despite what that years revenue were. The union only looked at the profits UPS was making at
that moment. Their view is understandably much shorter in reach. UPS management were trying to get back to a place where they could compete
on price. They failed. UPS is now running a business model that allows them to be profitable, but not competitive. Thanks to the
growth of ecomerce it has been sustainable for a much longer time than I think Kelley ever envisioned it could but it is not sustainable
indefinitely.
IMG_0499.JPG

Profitable, but not competitive? Must be a monopoly.
Comparing Shipping Rates in 2017: FedEx vs. UPS vs. USPS [INFOGRAPHIC] - Online Shipping Blog | Endicia
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
Did you see the part about an extra 15 years of life? Due to not having a part time pension.

I did but that makes no sense to me either. UPS offered stronger pensions to its employees in the negotiations back then. There was language in the offer that specifically stated that if an employee was in a plan that at that time was calculated to be higher than what UPS was offering for its pension, those employees would get at least that calculated benefit. The UPS benefit offer would not have screwed UPS employees at all. If you were told that by the union back then, you were mislead. The non-UPS teamsters in the multi-employer plans, however, would have been completely hosed, and I surely understand why that was a huge concern for the union.
 

1989

Well-Known Member
I did but that makes no sense to me either. UPS offered stronger pensions to its employees in the negotiations back then. There was language in the offer that specifically stated that if an employee was in a plan that at that time was calculated to be higher than what UPS was offering for its pension, those employees would get at least that calculated benefit. The UPS benefit offer would not have screwed UPS employees at all. If you were told that by the union back then, you were mislead. The non-UPS teamsters in the multi-employer plans, however, would have been completely hosed, and I surely understand why that was a huge concern for the union.
I don't remember any increases to their pension offer. No increases would give me less than half my current pension. And where would it be now? I mean with the freezing of mgmt.
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
Always has. Have you seen the usps balance sheet? Did you know the usps is having financial problems?

Got it. My bad I misinterpreted the point you were making. The USPS is in the opposite mode of UPS - they are competitive but not profitable.
Course they have a rich uncle they can go to for cash to stay afloat. (Shhhh, don't tell anyone the rich uncle is actually broke too, or we're all screwed)
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
I don't remember any increases to their pension offer. No increases would give me less than half my current pension. And where would it be now? I mean with the freezing of mgmt.

That would all be speculation.
But if you're in the western region you'll be happy to know I got my letter last year after leaving UPS. They officially informed me that the $600 ish that had accrued from when I worked twilight will go back into the fund and I will never see 1c. You're welcome :)
 

1989

Well-Known Member
That would all be speculation.
But if you're in the western region you'll be happy to know I got my letter last year after leaving UPS. They officially informed me that the $600 ish that had accrued from when I worked twilight will go back into the fund and I will never see 1c. You're welcome :)
You need to speculate in order to make rational decisions. You need to look at all the what ifs. $600 part time sounds like you had the 5 years to be vested.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
The reason was that competition was taking market share from UPS. And they were doing so mostly on price. UPS had become
the high cost provider. And UPS's biggest cost is, rightly, the union payroll. The leaders were not looking 3 years toward the end of
the next contract, they were trying to look decades down the road. They knew that if they could not get UPS cost growth under
control they would be in trouble, despite what that years revenue were.

Good theory in practice, but UPS knew they low-balled us on the wages. even planning years down the road. They assumed that we would have to accept their low-ball offer because we would not strike. James Kelly admitted to it.

Can't blame them. Negotiating 101.

When Carey called the strike on Sunday August 3rd effective 12:01 AM August 4th, you would have thought that UPS would have said "wait, let's sit back down and talk about this."

UPS let us walk even though they admitted that we could have gotten what we wanted without striking.

Really? At what part of the negotiations was this?

UPS did nothing to stop it.

Even 3 days into the strike UPS still stood hard and fast by their last, best and final.

The blame is all theirs. They could have easily stopped the strike. They didn't.
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
Good theory in practice, but UPS knew they low-balled us on the wages. even planning years down the road. They assumed that we would have to accept their low-ball offer because we would not strike. James Kelly admitted to it.

Can't blame them. Negotiating 101.

When Carey called the strike on Sunday August 3rd effective 12:01 AM August 4th, you would have thought that UPS would have said "wait, let's sit back down and talk about this."

UPS let us walk even though they admitted that we could have gotten what we wanted without striking.

Really? At what part of the negotiations was this?

UPS did nothing to stop it.

Even 3 days into the strike UPS still stood hard and fast by their last, best and final.

The blame is all theirs. They could have easily stopped the strike. They didn't.

To be honest, while I do believe that Carey had a broader agenda and wanted a strike, I will also admit the UPS chiefs could have done more to avoid the strike and were probably naive enough to think they would win the strike as more drivers would cross than did. As I have said, Carey played that way better than they did.
I disagree with your idea that the fault was 100% on UPS' side. It takes 2 to tango.
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
You need to speculate in order to make rational decisions. You need to look at all the what ifs. $600 part time sounds like you had the 5 years to be vested.

No, the $600ish is the total value accumulated in my account, not a calculated monthly or anything of that nature. So everyone in the fund can enjoy a beer with my compliments! :) (assuming you can find someone to sell you a beer for $0.00000001. And come to think it, if you can find that beer, for the love of God don't drink it!)
 
Top