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
Scabs complaining about the steward not representing them
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: 978350" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>CharleyHustle;</p><p></p><p>Believe it or not, I'm in agreement with much of what you say. Where we disagree, however, seems to be in the area of employee/union responsibility. For example, what "better conditions" should unions be seeking? If they seek "conditions" which are going to drive employers away, in what way are they bettering the lot of their members...or domestic workers generally? I do agree that "employers, bare the sole responsibility for the success or failure of their enterprise"....but when employers, reflecting on their experiences in dealing with union labor, come to feel that their success depends on their NOT being "organized", what is a union's response? Take the Teamsters pension funds, for example. While they've made some (rather artificial) changes of late in terms of withdrawal liability, what chance do they have of organizing new entities within their traditional industry when the very prospect of being organized - with the subsequent pension liability - is seen as a death sentence by potential employers? Employers literally (and rightly, I think) believe that, while fighting the union today might be a costly and risky process, its a vastly superior choice to being organized and virtually assured of being put out of business. "Yes", there are exceptions, UPS being the most notable. But of the largest 100 trucking companies of a few decades ago - virtually all of which were "Teamsters" - how many are still in existence today? And even at UPS, many contribute the company's success to the fact that the Teamsters have a far lower level of penetration than they did 20 or 30 years ago...to the point where less than 50% of the company's employees are actual Teamster members today.</p><p></p><p>In that sense, I think I have a *LOT* of sympathy for "the hired help", if only because so many of them have thrown their lot in with a losing cause. I feel for the once-upon-a-time employees of CFWY, Red Star, and the scores of other Teamster-organized companies that are no longer in existence...while their NON-organized brethren have prospered. I feel for all the "could-have-been" full-time UPS employees who DON'T enjoy that status because the union stupidly put selfish short-term interests above its members long-term welfare....thus allowing a non-organized competitor to take all those jobs off the table. To me, when you're talking about "put[ting] coins in your pocket", a worker's first concern is having a SOURCE to OBTAIN those coins to put in their pocket. Without that, talk of anything else is mere rhetoric. And in that sense - and I think it's a very real sense - those of the "union" persuasion (as many of the unions are constituted TODAY, at least), have been anything but "achievers". Instead, they've been losers...big time losers! The numbers don't lie.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, companies have learned that they can exist - and even prosper! - without today's domestic unions. And, along the way, they've also discovered that, if push comes to shove, they can even exist without domestic labor period. For many of them, that realization now directs the path they follow. How do workers - particularly "union" workers change the direction of that path? By being even MORE obstinate? To me, the ONLY way that has a chance of bringing about real change is showing employers that choosing domestic "union" labor is the most VIABLE option in terms of cost-effectiveness; i.e. - employers have to be seduced by what workers/unions have to OFFER, not by threats of the damage they can do....threats which successful companies are already aware of and have taken effective measures to nullify. </p><p></p><p>I just don't see the logic behind the sort of attitude based on beating an employer to submission. Over the long run - and corporations do think of the "long run" - it just doesn't work. So why completely alienate an entity on which your very livelihood depends? Makes no sense to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 978350, member: 16651"] CharleyHustle; Believe it or not, I'm in agreement with much of what you say. Where we disagree, however, seems to be in the area of employee/union responsibility. For example, what "better conditions" should unions be seeking? If they seek "conditions" which are going to drive employers away, in what way are they bettering the lot of their members...or domestic workers generally? I do agree that "employers, bare the sole responsibility for the success or failure of their enterprise"....but when employers, reflecting on their experiences in dealing with union labor, come to feel that their success depends on their NOT being "organized", what is a union's response? Take the Teamsters pension funds, for example. While they've made some (rather artificial) changes of late in terms of withdrawal liability, what chance do they have of organizing new entities within their traditional industry when the very prospect of being organized - with the subsequent pension liability - is seen as a death sentence by potential employers? Employers literally (and rightly, I think) believe that, while fighting the union today might be a costly and risky process, its a vastly superior choice to being organized and virtually assured of being put out of business. "Yes", there are exceptions, UPS being the most notable. But of the largest 100 trucking companies of a few decades ago - virtually all of which were "Teamsters" - how many are still in existence today? And even at UPS, many contribute the company's success to the fact that the Teamsters have a far lower level of penetration than they did 20 or 30 years ago...to the point where less than 50% of the company's employees are actual Teamster members today. In that sense, I think I have a *LOT* of sympathy for "the hired help", if only because so many of them have thrown their lot in with a losing cause. I feel for the once-upon-a-time employees of CFWY, Red Star, and the scores of other Teamster-organized companies that are no longer in existence...while their NON-organized brethren have prospered. I feel for all the "could-have-been" full-time UPS employees who DON'T enjoy that status because the union stupidly put selfish short-term interests above its members long-term welfare....thus allowing a non-organized competitor to take all those jobs off the table. To me, when you're talking about "put[ting] coins in your pocket", a worker's first concern is having a SOURCE to OBTAIN those coins to put in their pocket. Without that, talk of anything else is mere rhetoric. And in that sense - and I think it's a very real sense - those of the "union" persuasion (as many of the unions are constituted TODAY, at least), have been anything but "achievers". Instead, they've been losers...big time losers! The numbers don't lie. Meanwhile, companies have learned that they can exist - and even prosper! - without today's domestic unions. And, along the way, they've also discovered that, if push comes to shove, they can even exist without domestic labor period. For many of them, that realization now directs the path they follow. How do workers - particularly "union" workers change the direction of that path? By being even MORE obstinate? To me, the ONLY way that has a chance of bringing about real change is showing employers that choosing domestic "union" labor is the most VIABLE option in terms of cost-effectiveness; i.e. - employers have to be seduced by what workers/unions have to OFFER, not by threats of the damage they can do....threats which successful companies are already aware of and have taken effective measures to nullify. I just don't see the logic behind the sort of attitude based on beating an employer to submission. Over the long run - and corporations do think of the "long run" - it just doesn't work. So why completely alienate an entity on which your very livelihood depends? Makes no sense to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Scabs complaining about the steward not representing them
Top