Whither
Scofflaw
We had a rowdy discussion re: subcontracting at the last union meeting. Word is, the IBT fears getting bad decisions in arbitration (the company is deadlocking these grieves at every step of the grievance procedure) and plans to address subcontracting during negotiations. I pointed out this is no answer at all. We already have clear enough language; the company is flagrantly violating it. Meanwhile they have been laying off Teamsters while dispatching their Coyotes, etc. They hired dozens of feeder drivers off-the-street in 2021, and turned eligible seniority employees away "for lack of trainers." This year there's been no feeder school here, only a "Q" list. The company keeps pressuring the local to agree to a call-board in feeders. Our sleeper-team drivers have reported that previously strong UPS yards have been swarming with subcontractors.
Our livelihoods and working conditions should not be decided by the whims of arbitrators. We must refuse to sign away our full rights to strike, walkout, engage in slowdowns, and the like. (See Article 8 of the National Master Agreement, Article 5 of the Central Supplement, etc.) What have we gotten in exchange for surrendering our power? A promise from the company to not lock us out? Subcontracting is already locking out our brothers and sisters, and in the long run it's a scheme to replace us all with cheaper, non-union labor.
Tough talk is cheap. A great contract is worthless if we can't do what it takes to enforce it. If the new leadership means what they say, then enough pusillanimous-footing around with a grievance procedure that we can't trust. The grievance procedure can be useful but we need a trump card.
One thing is certain: the company would never agree to removing the "no-strike" clauses that currently choke our contracts. To win our full rights to strike we would have to strike in 2023.
Our livelihoods and working conditions should not be decided by the whims of arbitrators. We must refuse to sign away our full rights to strike, walkout, engage in slowdowns, and the like. (See Article 8 of the National Master Agreement, Article 5 of the Central Supplement, etc.) What have we gotten in exchange for surrendering our power? A promise from the company to not lock us out? Subcontracting is already locking out our brothers and sisters, and in the long run it's a scheme to replace us all with cheaper, non-union labor.
Tough talk is cheap. A great contract is worthless if we can't do what it takes to enforce it. If the new leadership means what they say, then enough pusillanimous-footing around with a grievance procedure that we can't trust. The grievance procedure can be useful but we need a trump card.
One thing is certain: the company would never agree to removing the "no-strike" clauses that currently choke our contracts. To win our full rights to strike we would have to strike in 2023.
