33 replies to this topic

[SWdriver]

-scb- You have to start distinguishing between management failings versus teamster failings. Teamsters do put pressure on companies to take better care of its employees, and yes it does mean the company has to dig deeper, but don't lose sight of why companies go out of business.

I had a conversation with a FedEx driver the other day. He is not contracted, but we discussed our jobs. I honestly would not trade my job for his if my life depended on it. It is a no brainer, and I won't bore you with the details. Everyone seems to forget that the teamsters fight to get what is better for employees. Don't pretend you don't know what I mean. UPS package drivers make a good living, and it is not out of the goodness of UPS' heart. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why people work? Most people, including management personnel, only wish they had some type of protection in the workplace.

A fellow co-worker recently retired from UPS, and he is 51 years old. He collects a nice pension check every month. He is benefitting from peer 80, and I'm sure you will carry on about that will disappear in the near future. I want to hear from one UPS driver who doesn't like their overall compensation package.

Describe the type of compensation package we would get if we weren't union?

[scb]

-SWdriver-

I don't think you're getting it. It's not a question of your "not trad[ing] [your] job for his if [your] life depended on it.....rather, it's a question of him TAKING your job. And, effectively, your work "life" *DOES* depend on it!!!

Now, if your union was working to organize that FedEx driver you had a conversation with the other day, you might have a point....but, needless to say, IT'S NOT!!! Instead, it's standing around while FedEx grabs hundreds of thousands of what should-have-been/could-have-been UPS Teamster jobs right out from under it. Result? The company is less profitable....which means you pay potential is less than it could be. It also means you're being required to work longer (and harder) than you would. And that you have much less job security than you would have had. Plus you're not going to recieve the pension you could have had. And it's also quite possible that, as "bad" comparatively as that FedEx's guy's job CURRENTLY is, at some time in the future, he'll at least HAVE that job while yours is but a distant memory. And as for your "fellow co-worker recently retired from UPS"....what happens if his pension plan goes bust (as it very well could!)? How much will he receive per month then? What kind of medical insurance will he have? Ask yourself...what are the retired steelworkers (who were exactly in the same position) getting now. And note that their's is WITH the backing of the Federal pension insurance guarantee plan...which is now ALSO on the verge of going bust.

Are you finally getting the picture?

Now, perhaps all that is YOUR idea of "protection"? Maybe so...but it seems like "whistling past the graveyard" stuff to me...real short-sighted.

As for the compensation package you would get if you WEREN'T union, under circumstances coming into play today, I'm not at all convinced that, in the long run, it wouldn't be BETTER than what you can hope to have in the near future as things are going. In terms of the part-timers, I'm absolutely sure that's the case....even if just the short term is considered. After all, the company can't continue as successfully as it has in the past on such an unlevel playing field as exists now. Given that, for many UPSers, I think the "compensation package" could well end up being zilch; zero, nada, nothing.

I'll be the first to grant that it doesn't (or at least wouldn't) HAVE to be that way....but, as best I can see, that's the course the Teamsters have set themselves on. I suggest you take a look at the progress of the more recent comparative income statements and stock quotes vis 'a' vis UPS and FedEx for confirmation.....and at the continuing overall demise of Teamster employers in the transportation industry. That very well could be *your* (meaning "current UPSers') future, too.

And that's just not my idea of "protection".

-scb-

[upsbrother]

scb- While I dispute that Fedex has taken "hundreds of thousands" of Teamster jobs, and I completely agree that we need to organize or at least attempt to organize them, let me ask you this: Is it not true that the real reason that FedEx EVEN EXISTS, much less at their current strength, is actually because UPS upper mgmment FAILED TO PLAN AHEAD and see that the air delivery market was there, waiting to be developed? Forget the contract, which in 1985 created Article 40 to help UPS play catch-up. Bottom line is, you guys, and perhaps you were a decision-maker then, let them have the ballfield, while you sat on the sidelines playing "Blue Label". Comments?

[scb]

-upsbrother-

Not at all. Remember, I was around in the mid-70's when UPS approached the union about reworking classifications/rules in order that the company could offer a competitive expedited service ... at a time when FedEx was mere shadow of what is today. The response from the union was a flat "no"; there was absolutely no "give" from them whatsoever.

I've also noted here on T-Net a conversation I had with a union representative in the late 70's in which I was told that "FedEx will be organized in a matter of months" or words to that effect. (just the first of several such conversations I've had, I might add) Even then, FedEx was small potatoes.

Although I'm not entirely convinced that FedEx's expedited service was the problem to begin with (in fact, I think we've pretty much dealt with that situation), the bottom line is that most assuredly management didn't do *all* it could have at to stop FedEx when the time was right. But I'm afraid that doing so during would have required taking the Teamsters "out", simply because they put up such a brick wall against obtaining the needed respite in any other way. In retrospect - in the sense that perhaps all we were doing was postponing the inevitable - maybe that's the way we should have gone. Hindsight is always 20/20, I guess.

Anyway, by the time the union WAS able to see the handwriting on the wall, it was pretty much a case of "too little, too late".....which, if you cared to notice, is pretty much the fate of the union's dealings with many of the [late] firms they [used to] represent.

I can remember my dad complaining in the very early 70's - when I was still a driver - that he, as a small package shipper, resented "UPS being the only game in town". Don't think that management didn't want the game to stay that way....and do all they could to see that it did. After going through "de-reg", they were well aware of the potential problem....and the Teamsters should have been as well. Most assuredly guys like me were vocal enough in pointing it out! But the union ignored us. So one has to ask....just how big of a recess from their meal of "golden goose" would have been required for the I.B.T. to organize FedEx when it had a couple hundred or so employees? Not much, probably. 'Course, at that time, the "big, bad Teamsters" had close 2 million members....most in the transportation industry.... and didn't feel the need to be diverted by some upstart that had the audacity to propose snatching their golden goose away from them, did they?

Which brings things to where they are now....

-scb-

[alex_y]

Quote

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.  

WOW! What an outstanding rebuttal. I am in awe. I don't think that even George Bush could have done any better. The amazing thing is that you actually do think that is a good response. Oh! you mean that you did not know that we were talking about Unions that represent workers? You thought that maybe we were talking about South Africa or scientists and that apwa was trying to raid them? Oh, excuse me for not drawing you a better picture. In case you did not already know, the Department Of Labor (DOL) does not have world wide authority and only deals with labor related matters.

alex Y.

[scb]

-alex-

No....what I think is that - once again - you're trying to blow smoke up my ass because you don't have anything substantive to refute my arguments. What a surprise!

You might note that I've questioned the veracity of several of your assertions now....and that you've conveniently side-stepped each and every one of those queries. I wonder why?

Let's add another one, shall we? On another thread, you claimed that "the apwa credo" is ......

"Join our Union because we are a better Union and oh by the way we are not yet a Union and we have no money but we will have some as soon as you give it to us".

Then you went on to comment (refering to that "credo").....

"Do you actually realize how stupid that makes you sound? Why don't you label your scam the DOTW, Dimwits Of The World, you would have just as much chance of success and it would be a more honest label."

Now, I never saw this notorious "apwa" claim ANY "credo"....let alone the one you've assigned to them. Nor do I recall them - at any time - making the statements that you say makes them "sound stupid". In fact, the ONLY person I've "heard" making that "sound" is you, yourself....and, coming from you, it sounded pretty much like bombastic bullsh_t.

But maybe it isn't. Perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, with that in mind - and fully aware of the fact that the word "credo" is a very specific term - that's exactly what I'll do; I'll give you a chance to tell me just exactly when (and where) the "apwa" manifested this "credo" you say is theirs? And to inform me as to just when and where they made those peculiar statements WHICH YOU ATTRIBUTE AS COMING FROM THEM that you feel makes them sound "stupid".

Can you do that? Hopefully I won't have to assume that this is just one more example of what apparently is a tendency toward dishonest discourse (you know "Worldcom AAA rated", or - when referring to this "apwa" deal - "misrepresenting oneself as a Union and soliciting donations is fraud and subject to criminal sanctions" along side your apparent claim that they had declared themselves a union...and that ANY "union" had to register itself with the D.O.L, etc, etc.?.)

Once again, I'm *NOT* supporting the "apwa", whatever it is. What I *AM* "supporting" is a degree of honesty from those who claim to represent Teamsters. Is there fault to be found in that?

Now, of course, I realize that I have to bear in mind that - as you've made clear - you don't have "the time" to fully read my posts and can just "glance" at them [grin!...you're bound and determined to not only to demonstrate a lack of credibility, but absolutely ADVERTISE, aren't you?)....but does that mean I ought to forgive your little peccadillos altogether?

I think not. Dance all you want....but I'll admit that, for a change, I'd like to see some substantive responses instead of more dogmatic bullsh_t. I don't begrudge you your position - in fact, I probably agree with it! Rather, what I *DO* disagree with - and find reprehensible - is the manner in which you apparently have been promoting it. Please don't lead me to believe that, when the serious stuff hits the fan, ol' "alex" - as a representative Teamster - will always come up wanting by choosing to take the "easy way" out.

-scb-

P.S. - A sidenote: do you remember your comment in another post concerning "double-speak" and "resorting to insults" "alex"? Might I suggest that you apply the reasoning behind that commentary to your quote which starts with "Do you realize how stupid you sound...." and refers to "DOTW, Dimwits Of The World" which I referenced above? Anything about it strike a bell? [last grin!]

[attaboy]

"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.""

I'm not sure why you're dragging me into this, cause I haven't had a comment on this thread, but here goes.

I don't think my job and compensation would be a whole lot different, or else not any worse. Lets see, my pension is bankrupt, my health care is being eroded away. There is growing animosity, as the political sides ratchet up the retoric to prove they hate UPS and their Nazi like managers more. The we hate the company crowd has always mystified me. As for standards, let's say that insead of using "UPS" standards the whole company switched to "SWdriver" standards, do you think we'd make more or less money? I tend to think that standards or stops per hour, are determined because people do the work not neccissarly Teamsters. Thus they would be pretty much the same union or not. The trick is if UPS tries to lower compensation. As discussed on another thread, feeders probably, for the simple fact that I know quite a few flatbed jockeys and gravel train drivers who would love to trade in their backbreaking existence for a nice uniform, steady work, with out having to get dirty. Delivery would be a different story. The biggest threat would be use of more part timers, but in the end delivery is a skilled, dirty, trying task, in order to retain top people UPS would have to pay.

Seniority, on the other hand could take a hugh hit. It is really the only real and concrete "right" that the union still provides. At will employees are at the mercy of their employer. The flip side of this is that if you come to work everyday, do your job to the best of your abilities, keep your mouth shut with no pissin and moanin, you can pretty much work for any company for as long as you want. Workers who cry and whine, disparge the bosses and company at every turn, try to do as little as possible for the most compensation, constantly question and carp about every manegment decision, well..... there just would be many of those left, would there?

I have always tried to be proud of being a Teamster. I always thought that being a Teamster, I was among the best. I just don't know anymore. So many Teamsters now a days say "I can't" instead of "we can!". As a member for 27 years, I saw the downfall but never realized the cause untill recently. It was when the employer became the enemy. Fellas' FedEx and the non union worker is the enemy, certainly not the company that pays the bills.

[SOB]

attaboy.

you hit the nail on the head. ups'ers don't even know where the union hall is.

[UPSSup]

From an outsiders perspective ( grin ) its certainly an interesting issue. I don't know anything about apwa . I don't think I would be all that crazy about a new union stepping in because they would have to prove theirselves and would probably be more antagonistic towards UPS in a time when we really need the company and its union working together. I do see however that this alleged start up is gathering quite a bit of interest in the ranks. To me that means there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the present system. If you want to hold on to the present system then it would seem you need to fix the issues that make the teamsters vunerable rather then expend all your energy trying to discredit this start up.

[alex_y]

You know -scb- you are losing your cool and making yourself look foolish. I hate to see that happen because you used to provide an outsiders perspective that was useful. Pull yourself together, it ain't that bad to get taken on once in a while, it helps everyone shape up.

You know, its not that important to most all of us on this board whether Worldcom was AAA rated at some time or other. I said that they were at one time and if its a big deal to you and if you have information to the contrary, why not simply post it instead of thrashing around wanting me/us to take your word for it. Either way, Worldcom and Enron proved to the world that that the ratings are not bullet proof, and that was the point. By the way, as far as I am concerned, Worlcom was once AAA rated. I posted up an article re what goes on in the 'ratings' world and how scammy it can get. Suggest you read it.

I am disappointed that you actually still believe that apwa is a legitimate effort and that you continue to try and legitimize their effort. They have already been found out and they will be gone soon, and do you think that they will care if they leave you behind with egg in your face? Sure I insult them, because they are what I call them, and that is a lot different than debating or arguing an issue or position. I look on people like that as nothing more than the enemy, or like a thief in the night.

-scb- you should try and learn from the Teamster UPS workers who defend their Union but also stand up and defend the company when UPS is assailed by outsiders for no good reason. You are an outsider here, sort of just like apwa is, and if your sole purpose on this board is to disparage and malign the Teamsters and ridicule workers and those that try to improve their lives, then you turn presence into a POS. Do yourself a favor and get off the apwa bandwagon. I for one am not buying your assertions that your continuing defense of them is only because you want to set any record straight. When you go to bed with dogs you wake up fleabitten.

Lighten up, its Good Friday today but soon it will be Easter Sunday.

alex y.

[scb]

-alex_y

It "isn't important"? Funny...it seemed important enough to you when you made the claim...what happened in the meantime? Needless to say, it seems rather convenient that once you were called on the statement, it suddenly "isn't important" any longer. Curious, 'eh?

Sorry, but I think issues of integrity *ARE* important. And I whether you want to recognize it or not, it's not guys like me who trying to "legitimize their (this "apwa") effort"; seems like you guys are accomplishing that all by your lonesome. Look around....with each and every frivolous Teamsters statement that's promulgated, you guys lend this upstart "association" legitimacy. Is that fact so hard to see?

With each hyperbolic assertion, with each patently dishonest claim, with each frivolous injection of gloom and doom projected on it, you not only draw attention to this new "association", but also seem to encourage the idea that the Teamsters just don't have what it takes to cut it anymore. Needless to say, it wouldn't have to be that way....but guys like you are FORCING IT TO BE!!!! When are you going to learn that, when you don't have anything intelligent responsible, or honest to say, you'd probably be better off NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL!

Finally, Alex, I'd submit that you have to idea of what my "purpose" is whatsoever (in fact, you've demonstrated that in spades). But, whatever it is - or even if it matched what you IMAGINE it to be - it most assuredly wouldn't do as much damage to the Teamsters union as guys like you are engaged in causing. Doubt it? Look at your union's recent history (most notably, it's history since *I* left it....grin!); that ought to convince you.

Which brings us back to the task at hand. Once again, I have to ask you to answer to the issues I brought up concerning your credibility. As you recall, I asked very specific questions regarding it....and they *WEREN'T* limited just to the "AAA" query. Now, if "you" think *you* can represent the union's legitimacy, then show that legitimacy by giving some direct responses. Again, I'm *not* a promoter of any new union...but I *do* think it dwells upon you to prove, by an act of integrity, that this APWA deal is just "wrong".

And spare me the "it isn't important" bully-beef while you're at it, would ya'?

Lastly, in your most recent post, you stated.....

"Sure I insult them, because they are what I call them".

....whereas, in a post to me on 3/24 you claimed.....

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

....which leads one to ask; just how do you go about personally reconciling such claims?

Have a good one.....

-scb-

[Teamsterman]

UPSSup said:

From an outsiders perspective ( grin ) its certainly an interesting issue. I don't know anything about apwa .  I don't think I would be all that crazy about a new union stepping in because they would have to prove theirselves and would probably be more antagonistic towards UPS  in a time when we really need the company and its union working together. I do see however that this alleged start up is gathering quite a bit of interest in the ranks. To me that means there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the present system. If you want to hold on to the present system then it would seem you need to fix the issues that make the teamsters vunerable rather then expend all your energy trying to discredit this start up.

That's probably the best post I've read from you out of the 3064 prior to it.

[101st_Airborne]

"To me that means there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the present system. If you want to hold on to the present system then it would seem you need to fix the issues that make the teamsters vunerable rather then expend all your energy trying to discredit this start up."

Been there done that and we are where we are, and there it is.

I said the comany and even TDU would eventually come out against the APWA. Change is difficult and the devil you know always, at first, seem better, but, I think the opposite is true. As for TDU, there pocket book interest is clear; many of there members are also dependent of the diversion of cash from UPSers pockets into there own.

The relationship with UPS and an employee union would be stronger more attentive and profitable for both parties.

Cut the middle man out, so to speak.

[sawman]

You got that right ! 101st