33 replies to this topic

[Ernie]

My name is Ernie and I am new to this board. I just joined last weekend and have been reading alot about the creation of this APWA at UPS. I have a couple of questions that I posted last weekend and have not seen an answer. I kind of firgured that the questions were too deep into a subject matter (page 8) and you could have possibly missed them. SO I am posting them here. Thank you in advance for your answers.


1. What would your new union pensions rules be concerning portability? I would like to know that if a UPS'er got fired after 19 years of employment and then went to work for another union employer - would they continue with their pension accural, like what the central states offers now?

2. I would also like to know when your new union will be filing it's first LM-2 report. Many requests have been made fo you to reveal the source(s) of your money and apparently you will not delvuge it. So as a recognized labor union, when will your LM-2 report be filed with the Labor dept?

[sawman]

Ernie,

These are good questions, unfortunately I do not know the answers, but if you go to ITSMYMAP.COM there is a contact us page and you can ask these questions and be in contact with the officers of the APWA.

[101st_Airborne]

Ernie, Ed, Teamstersman, Alex_y or who ever you are,

You certainly not new and that said, are a liar!

So, we will call Ernie, LIAR! Which of course is the heart and soul of the Teamsters.

I am not a officer or agent of the APWA, but I would imagine the same if not better VESTED rights would be enforce. Better because there would be MORE MONEY FOR UPSERS.....DOPE!!!

Portability, in a shrinking union that can't organize core industries that rely on fleecing a few wealthy companies for there bread and butter. What side of the bong pipe are you smoking from? Portability is a dinosaur. In practical and pragmatic reality, a NON-ISSUE!!!!!!!!

The LM 2 report will come when they are ready and not a minute later. I just guessing here but it does seem logical....DOPE!!!!!!!!!!

[saddletramp]

Good recruiting tool there airborne, down to the point where you call anyone who has a question about your new union a degrating name! Makes everyone want to participate in this sham!

[RG]

In this thread, there is a typical response from APWA activist Airborne. He can only attack and belittle.

But, he comes from it honestly. He gets it from the two that run the APWA scam. They too, sue people that criticize or do not buy their garbage. And then they brag about suing them. Wonder how many people would have been sued if the Teamsters acted like the APWA associates and sued those that spoke negatively about them.

Airborne, I could respect you if you indeed were Airborne, but that does not give you license to call a new guy to the board a Dope. You have no clue at all if Ernie is new or just re-enlisted on here. But going back through the other threads, I do not see Ernies style in previous T-Net posts.

[Over9five]

"...would have been sued if the Teamsters acted ..."

None. The Teamsters don't sue.....they break kneecaps.

[Ernie]

Airborne

Portability is a very revealant issue. Let's say you are successful in getting this new union off the ground and have the responsibility of representing the workers. What would happen to the pension of a 15 year employee that got terminated from the UPS if the pension system at the APWA covered only UPS employees?

From my own past experiences I can tell you that portability in my Teamster pension allowed me to work for several Teamster employeers and continue to grow my Teamster pension plan. Now had I been working under a company plan and got terminated or quit, my pension would of terminated at the same time. So you can see why the question of portability is a valid one.

UPS can be a hard employer to work for and they are known for terminating employees for trivial reasons. Would you like to lose you pension for a trivial reason?

sawman - I'll check out the website. Thank you.

[scb]

-Ernie-

I'm happy to see that "portability" worked out for you. And I'm glad to see that, under the circumstances, so many newcomers like yourself have decided to make an appearance here all of a sudden. (although I admit that I *am* somewhat curious as to what motivated the migration....grin!)

Anyway, I have to question just how signficiant "portability" is to UPSer's today....or even Teamsters generally. In the first place, vesting of funds already does a pretty good job of preserving pensions (especially if, unlike the Teamster plans, they're credited to the individual earning them immediately) ....and nothing in the Teamster plans could begin to approach the "portability" of even basic 401k plans. But, beyond that, where are 240,000 UPS'ers supposed to "port" their pensions over to when their funding goes broke? (which it would, if UPS is forced to try and prop-up all the Teamsters underfunding) Would there even be any other Teamster pension-backed jobs to "port" over to?

I mean "get real".....portability isn't even a valid illusion for UPS'ers today. There simply isn't a comparative firm out their to "port" to. No big deal, perhaps....except in attempting to preserve that invalid illusion serves to destroy what should be their very real NON-ILLUSIONARY pensions; pensions they've earned working for UPS.

But I'm willing to be corrected. You tell me where a quarter of million UPSer's can "port over" today to other Teamster pension-covered jobs, and I'll readily concede the point. Though given the weeping and gnashing of teeth that went on when even the relatively minutely-sized Consolidated went under, I have to think myself fairly "safe".

-scb-

[Ernie]

I feel that portability is important for any Teamster, especially UPS. Now the question of 240,000 people looking for portable positions all at one time is a little unreal. After all when would all of the 240,000 people be looking for a new job at the same time?

The issue pertains to any member that either needs or wants to change jobs and keep their pension in place. I assume that you are aware of the way UPS can fire a long term employee - right? So put yourself in that position. You are working for UPS and represented by any union (not just the APWU) that does not have portability written into their pension plan and you get fired. The termination is upheld and you find yourself out on the street looking for another job. Wouldn't you like to be able to find another union job and take your pension credits with you to the new job?

This is what portability is all about. It is not a trick question meant to fool anyone or catch them in an embarrassing position.

[scb]

-Ernie-

Re: your statement of...

"After all when would all of the 240,000 people be looking for a new job at the same time"

...to which I have to respond with "perhaps you'd better start paying attention to what's going on around you."

The fact is, if UPS is forced to cover the underfunding of *ALL* the bad-check Teamsters *AND* try to compete against an unorganized FedEx competitor while dead-ass Teamster organizers sit on the sidelines, then damned soon each and every one of those "240,000 people" will be looking for a new job....and at the same time.

But, beyond that, just how much portability do you think there is now for even individual UPSers? While I'm sure there are some, during my entire time of association with UPS, I can't think of one single instance in which a former UPS employee was able to "port" his pension over to another Teamster employer. Hell, with the conditions today, just how many *other* Teamster pension employers - particularly in the transportation industry - are even out there? In spite of the stunning growth of UPS, there are a million fewer Teamster jobs out there now than when I first got my card. And, if you knock out all the public service and other non-pension covered jobs, the loss is a lot greater than that. In short - portability is a thing of the past and a modern-day chimera....an illusion promoted by those who have their own particular fish to fry - to the loss of those UPSers who are supposed to be their "brothers".

Yes, it would be nice "to be able to find another union job and take your pension credits with you to the new job". But, in truth, it doesn't happen...or at least not often enough to be relevent. And using the cruel lie of saying that it could in order to rob UPSer's of their rightful pensions seems the antithesis of Teamster "brotherhood", to me. In short, a bird firmly in the hand is worth two in the bush...especially when there's no real bush.... and even no "two birds"..... to begin with.

Lastly, although I have no means of proving or disproving this, the simple fact that so many "new" posters have suddenly popped out of the woodwork to address this issue here on T-Net makes me think of the old saw about "me thinks they doth protest too much". I'm not a proponent of this new union stuff (hell, anybody who's read many of my posts knows that I'm not a great proponent of ANY union in many circumstances), but I can't help but observe that suddenly there are a lot of people showing a lot of concern about this particular topic.....and one can't help but wonder why. One can almost smell the fear.

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, could anybody tell me why this peculiar subject warranted the sudden mass appearance when all the other, seemingly more Teamster-significant topics, couldn't attract them?

-scb-

[plot]

Over9five said:

"...would have been sued if the Teamsters acted ..."

None. The Teamsters don't sue.....they break kneecaps.

at one point in time... as soon as Hoffa Jr. joins Hoffa Sr. we may be on the right track again

[alex_y]

scb- you have been hopping aboard every apwa related thread and providing them cover (ditto for UPSsup) the best you can, yet you wonder why others are on these threads. Huh? What's your point? You employer guys always show your true colors when you rise up in support of unonbusting organizations that you know damn well are frauds pretending to be Unions.

The DOL crearly specifies what it takes to be a Union and clearly forbids misrepresewnting oneself as a Union when one is not. Misrepresenting oneself as a Union and soliciting donations is fraud and subject to criminal sanctions. That's pretty basic stuff and the two of you almost certainly know the DOL rules on this, yet you persist in aiding and abetting apwa's cause. The token disclaimer that you do not REALLY support apwa means very little. I would guess that apwa has already been turned in to the DOL, if not, its going to happen very soon. And you know what, one of the first places that the DOL will come to will be TeamsterNet and check out the apwa related posts. Easy to do, just punch up apwa into the search engine and its all there, and with subpoaena in hand, the IP addresses of the posters are easily attainable by the DOL.

There is no grey area when it comes to these fraudulent parasites that seem to pop up every year and suck up some donations or advance their Union bashing agenda and create opportunities to denigrate Unions. Nothing cute about these efforts. This most recent flim flam one seems to be about as ridiculous an effort as I've seen. As I've previously stated they are a threat to no one but themselves because they have been found out. Perhaps you two feel a kinship to them because of their Union bashing, but you do not do your own credibilities much good when you constantly rise up to back up these idiots.

alex y.

[scb]

-alex-

Whooaaa there, bud....seems like you're back to your old trick of not being completely honest with your statements, aren't you? For example, just when did I....

"rise up in support of unonbusting organizations that you know damn well are frauds pretending to be Unions."

....when, in fact, I've gone on record a couple of times already to say that I am *not* such a supporter.

What I have done, however, is protest the bullsh_t the "anti" crowd (an "anti" crowd, I might point out, that seems to consist primarily of new T-Net arrivals....wonder why that is?) has thrown out....of which this latest post of yours is but another example. I have no problem with you being against the proposed new union...but go about it HONESTLY! Quit putting words into others mouths (especially mine, thank you!), and quit making up "facts" and ludicrous intimidations (your "DOL" remark for example...do you know just how childish that remark sounds...and is?!!!). Don't you realize that, by trying to blow smoke, you're only giving credence to the contentions of those who say it's a neccessity that there BE a new union?

Now I don't know anything about this new union dealie at all...and really don't care to know (frankly, I doubt if it would be any better for the UPSers than the Teamsters but - then again - the Teamsters haven't been too good to UPSers of late, either, have they?). But I have to think that, given the intense animosity guys like you have shown toward it - and, apparently, against the idea of workers controlling their OWN destiny as well- that maybe, just maybe, there's some justification in a movement such as this surfacing at this time.

Which begs the question....just what do you have against people making up their own minds? Why would you want to short-circuit worker democracy? What has made you and all the other honchos that have so recently appeared here act with such desperation? Why aren't you guys willing to let the proposition rise or fall based on it's own merits....and at the free choice of the members you're supposed to be representing? In short, I can see the "new union guys" acting in this way, but you folks are supposed to have the winning hand. So one has to ask; what's your motivation for your behavior? Or, more to the point, what have you got to hide?

One can't help but notice how strident on the topic you've become of late. And, for the life of me, I can't understand why. If this new "union" (or whatever) is no threat, or *is* the choice of UPSers, then what's you're problem? Seems to me that the only concern you're showing here is for your own personal interests. If so, then so be it, but PLEASE at least express those interests with a degree of honesty and forthrightness....and don't confirm the public's stereotypical view of the Teamsters by resorting to hyperbole and the spouting of untruths (like your "Worldcom" deal, for example). You're not going to "win friends and influence people" for the IBT among intelligent UPSers via that path.

-scb-

[upsbrother]

Well, I finally went and looked at this site. What a joke. Are these three guys trying to start a union, or just a financial management company? First, if there was a decert at UPS, these three guys are going to have to negotiate a new contract. Any chance the contribution levels even remain close to what they are now? No. Same for wages. No. Same for vacations, personals all 248 pages...GONE. Blank slate, man. Start from scratch. Take away everything we have fought for. Do these guys think they can replace the infrastructure that Teamsters have built in 100 years? Where will the Union hall be? Long damn way to North Carolina. Hell, in their own state, people are working at UPS enjoying our contract and paying NOTHING in dues. These guys have no idea what kind of cut-throat bastards UPS is at the bargaining table, or at the grievance panels. Maybe they think they can just take the Teamster contract and run with it. Fools. In fact, these guys are probably scabs now! Otherwise, they would be thrown out of for violation of the constitution. Anyone from NC know these rat bastards?

[krash]

Well siad, Brother!!!

[Teamsterman]

Amen brother. (grin)

[alex_y]

Double-speak and resorting to insults are the tactics of losers scb. The way you carry on shows that you have a tough time dealing with getting called to task for your wavering positions.
As to labor law, scb, my experience and knowledge of it, far surpasses yours and it shows in your statements that conflict with mine. You try to disparage me and defend the illegal actions of apwa inferring that its OK for them to misrepresent themselves as a Union and while so misrepresenting themselves to seek donations.

I'll try to be a little less arrogant than you and not say that I am holding class here. You do know that in the US all Unions have to register with the DOL. I felt that you already knew that but now I am not sure, however, that is the case. There is a registry, and I checked and there is no Union identified as apwa. That should mean that they are not a Union.The DOL is charged with the responsibility of policing that law and they do so, especially if a complaint is filed. If they feel that there is criminal intent or action, as a general rule they refer the matter to the appropriate agency for prosecution. Apwa's so called organizers leaders and people that provide these scoflaws cover all refer to apwa as a Union. That's wrong and it misrepresents who they are. They are either knowingly lying or else they do not know the law, but in any event they are violating the law. That's fraudulent activity. scb-, let me suggest that you call the Department Of Labor and ask them if what I say is in fact the law of the land. Its really a simple question. Ask them if you can misrepresent yourself as a Union to get workers to join your organization and donate money to your cause? Give me a break scb, you must know that is illegal, can it be then that perhaps you actually believe that apwa is a Union? Look I don't know why you disputed my assertions, perhaps you thought that I was needlessly banging on you and you are quick to overreact, but what I was trying to do was point out to you the quagmire that you were enterring. I personally do not think that you are aligned with the dodos that are speaking for apwa but you are constantly there trying to provide them cover despite your feeble disclaimers and you come out looking like their stauchest advocate/ally with outragious statements such as the one that the Teamsters are looting the workers' pensions. you know that's not true. Why would you say that in an apwa thread if it was not to promote their cause.
One or two last pet peeves; when you are talking pensions you know damn well that UPS does not contribute the same level of pension contribution for part timers in those areas where they actually have a pension contribution for part timers, so quit using the quater of a million UPS pension recipients figure when you damn well know that is not true. Even in areas where the part timers do now receive a token pension contribution, none was paid out for them for deades/years. Also quit pandering to our Teamster UPS members when its convenient for your argument, when its obvious that you do not mean it. The UPS contract represents the Teamsters largest single company and I value those worker's well being a lot more than you do and more so because they are brother Teamsters. There are issues in which you and I agree that would better protect their well being, but after all of these years on T/N one would think that you would realize that UPS is just a part, albeit a large part of our total Union. They are not a unit unto themselves but a part of a larger family and that they are better off for it being that way.
Damn, my posts are getting as long as your scb.

alex y.

[scb]

-alex-

Re: your comment of...

"Double-speak and resorting to insults are the tactics of losers scb"

....to which I guess I should respond with "Well, you should know, shouldn't you son?"

After all, Alex, that's pretty much all you've had to offer lately, isn't it? "Double-speak" and "insults". Go back and look at your posts regarding this "new union" matter. Tell me you haven't used "double-speak" (or, more to the point, been outright dishonest). Tell me you haven't been insulting as well?

Alex, you may hate to hear this - and I'm sort of sorry to be the one to inform you - but your numerous comments here on T-Net have spoken volumes about your level of "experience and knowledge"; I think you're as much aware of that fact as I am. Note that I'm not saying that you're stupid or anything of the kind...far from it.....but face it, guy; there's a reason you remain a Teamster and not something else.

Take your last little flare-up here....you know, your rave about the D.O.L and such. First of all, as hope you'd be aware that most certainly not all "unions" "have to register with the D.O.L." (didn't I suggest that you look up the word "union"). Do you think "The Union of South Africa", for example, had to register with the Department? Or "The Union of Concerned Scientists", etc? The fact is that "unions" can form for all sorts of reasons - including the advancement of working peoples' objectives - without having to "register" with the D.O.L ....so save your posturing.

Bu then, of course - and I almost hate to bring this up - no where on the "apwa" site, or in their official literature, do those guys ever CLAIM to *BE* a "union", do they? (talk about "double-speak"....isn't it amazing that you failed to mention that in your discourse?) Rather, they pronounce themselves an association that some day - some day, mind you! -may, after a decertification vote, replace the Teamsters. Now, of course, you noticed that fact when you checked your "registry", didn't you? And you were cognizant of it when you claimed that donations requested by and to them would be illegal as well, right? (and, since it's involved in practically the same activities, while you were at it, you ALSO checked to see whether or not Phil's site requesting donations here - and your responding to him - was "illegal" and "fraudulent" too, right? S.h.e.e.e.s.h...did you think I wouldn't notice the "donation" medallions that stand beside your name as well as mine?)

Now, while I may not support the "apwa" (hell, I think some of their claims regarding funding are downright farcifal!), it's obvious that - legally, at least - they availed themselves of enough TRUE expertise to place themselves on fairly firm footing....and that it's highly unlikely that bozos of the Teamster "locker room lawyer" variety are going to be able to knock the props out from under them on that basis. So it would seem useless to "blow smoke" in that direction.

Be that as it may, it obviously, isn't going to keep guys like you from trying, though, is it? But, again, "why"? If this "apwa" deal is so far off-base, then where's the threat? What's got you so worked-up? Why not just simply stick to relating the facts AS THEY EXIST rather than making things up (like your "D.O.L" deal and "union" stuff, for example) in a manner that only serves to damage your credibility?

Lastly, alex, I take issue with your statement of.....

"I value those worker's well being a lot more than you do and more so because they are brother Teamsters"

...in that "heh, they were MY brother Teamsters, too....probably before they were yours". And, beyond that, if you value their well-being so much, then just what have *YOU* done to support it? What jobs have *you* offered them? What wages have *you* paid them? What pension contributions have *YOU* made in their name? Sorry, alex...but it "peeves" *me* when union hacks try to claim credit for I and my partners' accomplishments. In my book, until you've accomplished even a tiny fraction toward benefiting your "brother" Teamsters welfare as we have, you don't have a reason to brag...or make ludicrous claims. And, until you do, I suggest you "save it"....or, more to the point, why don't you do something constructive, like address the issue of how much guys like you were thinking of your "brothers" well-being when you COST them those million or so jobs over the last few decades; that would seem more relevant.

As for your assertions about what the "Teamsters" are, and UPSer's place in them, let me reiterate....UPS (and UPSers') could get along just fine without the Teamsters ("get along"....heck, as far as I can tell, the company AND it's employees would actually be better off. At least, by the company once more being able to compete on a level playing field, it could provide the employees with a higher degree of job security...something the union sure as hell doesn't seem to care about!); without UPS, however, the Teamsters effectively cease to exist. You may not like that fact, or even to hear it...but there it is.

I could go on and on...but what would be the point? After all, you're just glancing over my stuff anyway, right? [grin!] So I'll close now and wait until you have "the time" to peruse my material again.

Have a good one.....

-scb-

P.S. - Got me curious...what brought about this outburst of ....

"when you are talking pensions you know damn well that UPS does not contribute the same level of pension contribution for part timers in those areas where they actually have a pension contribution for part timers, so quit using the quater of a million UPS pension recipients figure when you damn well know that is not true"

In that it seems like you're tilting at windmills again. I mean just when did I claim that UPS *DOES* "contribute the same level of pension contribution for part timers in those areas where they actually have a pension contribution for part timers"???????? And just when did I ever make an assertion that there *ARE* a "quater of a million UPS pension recipients"??????

It's apparent that you just can't get over that habit of putting words into other peoples mouths, isn't it "alex"? Again, such matters can't help but bring up credibility issues. You should be better than that.

[SWdriver]

scb is back to his boring and baseless commentaries! Alex y made some excellent points, however, as always, scb fell short of any!

scb- you must be so proud of originating the idea of a delivery and pickup service now called UPS. You should be commended for all the jobs you have created at your great company! Frightening how disillusioned you are. You were a terrified yes man that simply followed orders and kicked the heels of package drivers. You and your partners crap is a joke. Just too bad you don't see it.

The teamsters have helped UPS find a way to take better care of the employees. Just in case you can't understand that let me drive it home again. The teamsters have helped UPS find a way to take better care of the employees. We would all a very mediocre job, at best, if it weren't for the teamsters. The teamsters aren't perfect, but we owe them a lot for what they have done for the employees at UPS. Don't even try to pretend that UPS would provide for their employees if they didn't have to. NOOOO! Don't even try to say different!!

Alex y- you made some great points regarding the legitimacy of the mock union trying to form. The APWA will fail, so spending too much time worrying about them is pointless.

It is too bad that teamster bashers can't be forced to have reduced benefits, lower wages, no pension contributions, shorter vacations, no attorney coverage, no sick pay, no short and long-term disability coverage, no job security, and no protection against management games. I challenge any employee at UPS to dare say that the teamsters haven't provided a better life for employees at UPS.

attaboy- go down to your union hall and forfeit all of the benefits you enjoy thanks to them. After that, go to the human resources department and discuss the new compensation package you will be under. Oh, and most importantly, discuss the new stops per hour you will be expected to uphold because you are now under a new description of a "fairs days work."

[scb]

-SWDriver-

Tell me...just what were Alex_y's "excellent points". (this ought to be good!).

As for my being "proud of originating the idea of a delivery and pickup service now called UPS"...you're damned right I am! As for you assertion that "teamsters have helped UPS find a way to take better care of the employees"....yeah, right! Tell that to the scores of thousands of p/t'ers who are lingering around waiting for fulltime jobs that aren't going to be made available to them because FedEx employees have taken them. Perhaps you'd like to take your "challenge" to them? After all, I'm sure they'd agree that the Teamsters have offered quite a bit "help" in that area, right? (h.m.m.m....I wonder just how many FedEx people are out there now with jobs that could have UPSer's if it WEREN'T for the Teamsters?!)

Then there's your statement that....

"we would all a very mediocre job, at best if it weren't for the teamsters"

..... tell me...just how does THAT follow? Are you seriously maintaining that the Teamsters are causing you to do ABOVE "mediocre" work? Do you think that UPS couldn't have gotten an above "mediocre" job out of non-Teamster employees? Or, in truth, that they HAVEN'T? (funny...seems like I've dealt with hundreds of them - non-Teamsters, that is - and have gotten quite good results...wonder how that could be?) And just how do you think that the TEAMSTERS have "provided" for the employees? Did the Teamsters provide their jobs? Did the Teamsters provide their wages? In fact, a more pertinent question my be that as to just what, exactly, the Teamsters have provided their UPS employee members AT ALL.....except for a dramatic loss in their potential job security and a reduction in their pensions?

Note that I'm not against the Teamsters (read "a union") as a concept. But when an organization such as exists now shows such little true regard for it's members (i.e. - expends absolutely NO effort toward the long-term security of their jobs and loots them in "rob Peter to pay Paul" operation in order to provide welfare for another less-productive segment), then it's senseless to maintain that anything and everything about them is hunky-dory. Simply put, it's not.

Beyond that, in reference to your comment, I *WILL* "try to say different". In fact, I'll go out of my way to "say different". In case you hadn't noticed, the Teamster members are barely more than one half the total number of UPS employees today....and that "other" portion seems to be taken care of quite well by the company, thank you! On the other hand, just how well have the Teamsters taken care of their members? Say the Red Star ones, for example? Or the CFWY ones? Or the scores of others that used to have jobs at LTL companies the union drove out of business? Or the million or more other ones who, over the past few decades, who have lost their jobs primarily because they WERE Teamsters? Got an answer for that?

Truthfully, I, too, feel that this "APWA" will probably fail. But I can't help but note that the ridiculous arguments that guys like Alex are gushing with are the same - and I do mean EXACTLY the same - as the ones that were used by guys like him when the same situation arose with the NWA flight attendants a short time back...and I think you know what the results were there, don't you? Nor can I help but believe that the ridiculous - and frankly downright dishonest - assertions being used to fight it are probably among the reasons the deal came up in the first place!

Lastly, in reference to your comment of....

"It is too bad that teamster bashers can't be forced to have reduced benefits, lower wages, no pension contributions, shorter vacations, no attorney coverage, no sick pay, no short and long-term disability coverage, no job security, and no protection against management games"

...I have this to say. The "union bashers" probably WON'T be forced to have all those things because they are NOT subjects of the union. You see, those are conditions that the TEAMSTERS have imposed on their members. After all, how much more of a "reduction" can you have than NO benefits, NO wages, NO pension contributions, NO vacation, NO attorney coverage, NO sick pay, NO short and long term disability coverage, NO job security (because you have no job) and NO protection against management games (because you don't have a job to be managed). THAT'S been the consequences for MOST Teamster members in the transportation industry over the last few decades.....and, if it's on that basis that you're promoting Teamster membership, then maybe you'd better go back to the drawing board. (quick....think about Hoffa Sr's "crowning achievement - the NMFA - and of just how many companies and Teamster members are "covered" by it now? See a point there?) Seems to me that the Teamsters are on a path toward "providing" for their employees in much the same way that the Steel and Auto workers union's have. Is that a "good" way of "providing" by your way of thinking?

If you want an effective, productive union, by all means have one. But please don't try to preach some false gospel that maintains that the Teamsters union is currently fullfilling that ideal. It's not. The fact that it countenances a firm like FedEx, with it's more than a quarter million unorganized employees, gnawing at it's vitals more than amply demonstrates that truth.

-scb-