UPS has announced adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.06 for the third quarter of 2011, a 14 percent improvement over the adjusted $0.93 for the prior-year period. CEO Scott Davis said, “We produced another solid quarter of earnings growth against the backdrop of a deceleration in exports from Asia and a challenging global economic environment.”
Key Messages
In the third quarter, UPS delivered 965 million packages, an increase of 0.7percent over the prior-year period.
Highlights from the quarter include:
U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent and operating profit improved more than 11 percent over 2010 third quarter adjusted results.
Total domestic volume growth was flat as a result of the slow U.S. economy; however, UPS Next Day Air volume rose 1.3 percent.
International revenue improved more than 14 percent, driven by export volume growth of 6.5 percent. Operating profit and margin for the segment declined due to excess capacity.
UPS Freight drove segment results as operating profit improved and operating margin expanded. Revenue for the quarter jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year on a slight decline in daily shipments.
Conclusion
In summary, Scott said, “The resilience of our global model was evident during the quarter and we remain confident in our ability to perform in both good and bad economies.”
And we are still getting benefits and gifts, awards, etc taken away
0
19 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 17 2011 - 09:09 AM
-Members-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you did read that "Total domestic volume growth was flat", and that "U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent", while "International revenue improved more than 14 percent", and that while Freight revenue (not "profit") "jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year" (from a - relative to the company as whole - small base), there was actually "a slight decline in daily shipments".
That, to me, doesn't indicate that much could be expected in the way of DOMESTIC investment (in either labor or capital) by the company. Rather, it would tend to follow the growth...and that doesn't appear to be any longer primarily in the province of the Teamsters. Rather, it would seem to indicate a "mature" domestic revenue environment in which profit - if any - is going to have to be squeezed-out by a maintenance, or perhaps even a reduction, in costs.
Understand where you're coming from, and appreciate your position. Just want to inject a dose of reality.
-scb-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you did read that "Total domestic volume growth was flat", and that "U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent", while "International revenue improved more than 14 percent", and that while Freight revenue (not "profit") "jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year" (from a - relative to the company as whole - small base), there was actually "a slight decline in daily shipments".
That, to me, doesn't indicate that much could be expected in the way of DOMESTIC investment (in either labor or capital) by the company. Rather, it would tend to follow the growth...and that doesn't appear to be any longer primarily in the province of the Teamsters. Rather, it would seem to indicate a "mature" domestic revenue environment in which profit - if any - is going to have to be squeezed-out by a maintenance, or perhaps even a reduction, in costs.
Understand where you're coming from, and appreciate your position. Just want to inject a dose of reality.
-scb-
#3
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 17 2011 - 10:56 AM
No concessions, on November 17 2011 - 03:45 AM, said:
UPS has announced adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.06 for the third quarter of 2011, a 14 percent improvement over the adjusted $0.93 for the prior-year period. CEO Scott Davis said, "We produced another solid quarter of earnings growth against the backdrop of a deceleration in exports from Asia and a challenging global economic environment."
Key Messages
In the third quarter, UPS delivered 965 million packages, an increase of 0.7percent over the prior-year period.
Highlights from the quarter include:
U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent and operating profit improved more than 11 percent over 2010 third quarter adjusted results.
Total domestic volume growth was flat as a result of the slow U.S. economy; however, UPS Next Day Air volume rose 1.3 percent.
International revenue improved more than 14 percent, driven by export volume growth of 6.5 percent. Operating profit and margin for the segment declined due to excess capacity.
UPS Freight drove segment results as operating profit improved and operating margin expanded. Revenue for the quarter jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year on a slight decline in daily shipments.
Conclusion
In summary, Scott said, "The resilience of our global model was evident during the quarter and we remain confident in our ability to perform in both good and bad economies."
And we are still getting benefits and gifts, awards, etc taken away
Key Messages
In the third quarter, UPS delivered 965 million packages, an increase of 0.7percent over the prior-year period.
Highlights from the quarter include:
U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent and operating profit improved more than 11 percent over 2010 third quarter adjusted results.
Total domestic volume growth was flat as a result of the slow U.S. economy; however, UPS Next Day Air volume rose 1.3 percent.
International revenue improved more than 14 percent, driven by export volume growth of 6.5 percent. Operating profit and margin for the segment declined due to excess capacity.
UPS Freight drove segment results as operating profit improved and operating margin expanded. Revenue for the quarter jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year on a slight decline in daily shipments.
Conclusion
In summary, Scott said, "The resilience of our global model was evident during the quarter and we remain confident in our ability to perform in both good and bad economies."
And we are still getting benefits and gifts, awards, etc taken away
#4
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 17 2011 - 10:58 AM
scb, on November 17 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:
-Members-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you did read that "Total domestic volume growth was flat", and that "U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent", while "International revenue improved more than 14 percent", and that while Freight revenue (not "profit") "jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year" (from a - relative to the company as whole - small base), there was actually "a slight decline in daily shipments".
That, to me, doesn't indicate that much could be expected in the way of DOMESTIC investment (in either labor or capital) by the company. Rather, it would tend to follow the growth...and that doesn't appear to be any longer primarily in the province of the Teamsters. Rather, it would seem to indicate a "mature" domestic revenue environment in which profit - if any - is going to have to be squeezed-out by a maintenance, or perhaps even a reduction, in costs.
Understand where you're coming from, and appreciate your position. Just want to inject a dose of reality.
-scb-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you did read that "Total domestic volume growth was flat", and that "U.S. small package revenue increased 6.5 percent", while "International revenue improved more than 14 percent", and that while Freight revenue (not "profit") "jumped approximately 15 percent over the same quarter last year" (from a - relative to the company as whole - small base), there was actually "a slight decline in daily shipments".
That, to me, doesn't indicate that much could be expected in the way of DOMESTIC investment (in either labor or capital) by the company. Rather, it would tend to follow the growth...and that doesn't appear to be any longer primarily in the province of the Teamsters. Rather, it would seem to indicate a "mature" domestic revenue environment in which profit - if any - is going to have to be squeezed-out by a maintenance, or perhaps even a reduction, in costs.
Understand where you're coming from, and appreciate your position. Just want to inject a dose of reality.
-scb-
#5
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 17 2011 - 12:34 PM
-Rainman-
They don't have to cry "poormouth". Rather, they only need to point out which segment of the company is generating the most revenue and profit growth, and what the current market value of domestic labor is.
Personally, I think the domestic Teamster UPS'ers are going to have a hard time convincing the company that THEY deserve consideration based on the gains made by the NON-Teamster portion of the workforce. Nor do I think it would be easy for the company to convince those non-Teamsters that the burden of Teamster preference should be a burden they have to bear on their backs.
In essence, the Teamsters are in competition with both FedEx employees and non-Teamsters UPS employees (particularly those overseas) in terms of "profit sharing". That competition is going to make itself felt, in one way or another, on any Teamster contractual demands.
The business just isn't the same one it was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. And, unfortunately, the lazy attitude of the Teamsters (seen much FedEx organizing, have ya'?) has been a major contributor to the change.
-scb-
They don't have to cry "poormouth". Rather, they only need to point out which segment of the company is generating the most revenue and profit growth, and what the current market value of domestic labor is.
Personally, I think the domestic Teamster UPS'ers are going to have a hard time convincing the company that THEY deserve consideration based on the gains made by the NON-Teamster portion of the workforce. Nor do I think it would be easy for the company to convince those non-Teamsters that the burden of Teamster preference should be a burden they have to bear on their backs.
In essence, the Teamsters are in competition with both FedEx employees and non-Teamsters UPS employees (particularly those overseas) in terms of "profit sharing". That competition is going to make itself felt, in one way or another, on any Teamster contractual demands.
The business just isn't the same one it was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. And, unfortunately, the lazy attitude of the Teamsters (seen much FedEx organizing, have ya'?) has been a major contributor to the change.
-scb-
#6
-
- Members
- 16 posts
New Member
- Local Union Number:89
Posted November 17 2011 - 04:57 PM
They have taken away holiday gifts, stock incentives and milestone awards to name a few
#7
-
- Members
-
- 138 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:NC
- Local Union Number:71
Posted November 17 2011 - 05:12 PM
Rainman, on November 17 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:
Exactly what benefits have been taken away?
#8
-
- Members
- 16 posts
New Member
- Local Union Number:89
Posted November 18 2011 - 03:12 AM
As they would do to our benefits if the union wasn't in place. Thank you-
#9
-
- Members
-
- 138 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:NC
- Local Union Number:71
Posted November 18 2011 - 05:59 AM
No concessions, on November 18 2011 - 03:12 AM, said:
As they would do to our benefits if the union wasn't in place. Thank you-
#10
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 19 2011 - 11:44 AM
scb, on November 17 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:
-Rainman-
They don't have to cry "poormouth". Rather, they only need to point out which segment of the company is generating the most revenue and profit growth, and what the current market value of domestic labor is.
Personally, I think the domestic Teamster UPS'ers are going to have a hard time convincing the company that THEY deserve consideration based on the gains made by the NON-Teamster portion of the workforce. Nor do I think it would be easy for the company to convince those non-Teamsters that the burden of Teamster preference should be a burden they have to bear on their backs.
In essence, the Teamsters are in competition with both FedEx employees and non-Teamsters UPS employees (particularly those overseas) in terms of "profit sharing". That competition is going to make itself felt, in one way or another, on any Teamster contractual demands.
The business just isn't the same one it was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. And, unfortunately, the lazy attitude of the Teamsters (seen much FedEx organizing, have ya'?) has been a major contributor to the change.
-scb-
They don't have to cry "poormouth". Rather, they only need to point out which segment of the company is generating the most revenue and profit growth, and what the current market value of domestic labor is.
Personally, I think the domestic Teamster UPS'ers are going to have a hard time convincing the company that THEY deserve consideration based on the gains made by the NON-Teamster portion of the workforce. Nor do I think it would be easy for the company to convince those non-Teamsters that the burden of Teamster preference should be a burden they have to bear on their backs.
In essence, the Teamsters are in competition with both FedEx employees and non-Teamsters UPS employees (particularly those overseas) in terms of "profit sharing". That competition is going to make itself felt, in one way or another, on any Teamster contractual demands.
The business just isn't the same one it was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. And, unfortunately, the lazy attitude of the Teamsters (seen much FedEx organizing, have ya'?) has been a major contributor to the change.
-scb-
#11
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 19 2011 - 01:23 PM
-Rainman-
Perhaps you're right...."what the Hell would I know about UPS" or "negotiating a contract", anyway? Guess I should bow to the obviously superior knowledge of an expert such as yourself, 'eh?
I was thinking, however, that there are literally thousands upon thousands of "non Teamsters" UPSers - particularly in the right to work states - who might have questions upon hearing from you that the Teamsters have illegally chosen *NOT* to "negotiate" for them. Perhaps you could pass on that little tidbit of information regarding the union's position that it negotiates for members only (it *IS* the union's position, isn't it?) to the NLRB as well; I'm sure they would LOVE to hear all about it.
-scb- (who's "convinced"...grin!)
Perhaps you're right...."what the Hell would I know about UPS" or "negotiating a contract", anyway? Guess I should bow to the obviously superior knowledge of an expert such as yourself, 'eh?
I was thinking, however, that there are literally thousands upon thousands of "non Teamsters" UPSers - particularly in the right to work states - who might have questions upon hearing from you that the Teamsters have illegally chosen *NOT* to "negotiate" for them. Perhaps you could pass on that little tidbit of information regarding the union's position that it negotiates for members only (it *IS* the union's position, isn't it?) to the NLRB as well; I'm sure they would LOVE to hear all about it.
-scb- (who's "convinced"...grin!)
#12
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 20 2011 - 09:40 AM
scb, on November 19 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:
-Rainman-
Perhaps you're right...."what the Hell would I know about UPS" or "negotiating a contract", anyway? Guess I should bow to the obviously superior knowledge of an expert such as yourself, 'eh?
I was thinking, however, that there are literally thousands upon thousands of "non Teamsters" UPSers - particularly in the right to work states - who might have questions upon hearing from you that the Teamsters have illegally chosen *NOT* to "negotiate" for them. Perhaps you could pass on that little tidbit of information regarding the union's position that it negotiates for members only (it *IS* the union's position, isn't it?) to the NLRB as well; I'm sure they would LOVE to hear all about it.
-scb- (who's "convinced"...grin!)
Perhaps you're right...."what the Hell would I know about UPS" or "negotiating a contract", anyway? Guess I should bow to the obviously superior knowledge of an expert such as yourself, 'eh?
I was thinking, however, that there are literally thousands upon thousands of "non Teamsters" UPSers - particularly in the right to work states - who might have questions upon hearing from you that the Teamsters have illegally chosen *NOT* to "negotiate" for them. Perhaps you could pass on that little tidbit of information regarding the union's position that it negotiates for members only (it *IS* the union's position, isn't it?) to the NLRB as well; I'm sure they would LOVE to hear all about it.
-scb- (who's "convinced"...grin!)
#13
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 20 2011 - 12:17 PM
-Rainman-
H.m.m.m....Here I thought that you previously stated that "we don't negotiate for the "non-Teamsters"? Did I get that wrong? And surely after such an edifying remark as...
"What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS"
...there's no way the rest of your commentary could be called into question. For example, there must be a high degree of validity in your most recent claim that "we do negotiate on behalf of 'scabs'", speaking of UPS employees that the Teamsters specifically REQUESTED to represent as "scabs"....right? I assume that's another official position of the union (i.e. - that represented employees are "scabs") ; after all, it's just not possible that someone such as yourself would go spouting crap like some ignorant poser, is it? [grin!]
Sorry, "Rainman", but I don't think I'll ever quite be "on the same page" as someone who has so readily and enthusiastically demonstrated his "knowledge" in such a fashion.
-scb-
H.m.m.m....Here I thought that you previously stated that "we don't negotiate for the "non-Teamsters"? Did I get that wrong? And surely after such an edifying remark as...
"What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS"
...there's no way the rest of your commentary could be called into question. For example, there must be a high degree of validity in your most recent claim that "we do negotiate on behalf of 'scabs'", speaking of UPS employees that the Teamsters specifically REQUESTED to represent as "scabs"....right? I assume that's another official position of the union (i.e. - that represented employees are "scabs") ; after all, it's just not possible that someone such as yourself would go spouting crap like some ignorant poser, is it? [grin!]
Sorry, "Rainman", but I don't think I'll ever quite be "on the same page" as someone who has so readily and enthusiastically demonstrated his "knowledge" in such a fashion.
-scb-
#14
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 20 2011 - 02:05 PM
-Rainman-
As an addendum, could you amplify on your statement...
"We are required to represent them in right-to-work-for-less states"
...in that I was curious; is the Teamsters union REQUIRED to "represent them"?; i.e. - did the government came down and say unequivocally that you, as a union, HAVE to "represent" these employees"? Are you telling me that the Teamsters could NOT function as the non-exclusive bargaining agent if they so chose, and limit themselves to bargaining on a non-exclusive, non-mandatory basis, representing just those who actually WANTED such representation....and were willing to be members? And are you telling me that the Teamsters only represent non-members in RTW states as well? I.e. - that those who voluntarily choose to exercise their right to not to be members, albeit being in the defined "bargaining unit" that the Teamsters obtained in their request to be "sole bargaining agent" in a non-RTW state such as Ohio, for example, are NOT represented by the Teamsters? Say when they wish to file a grievance, the Teamsters union will NOT represent them? That the case, is it?
Lastly, in terms of those you referred to in the "right-to-work-for-less states", specifically say the PT'ers, who - being under Teamster "representation" are employed at wage and benefit levels substantially lower than were available to those similarly situated a decade or even two decades ago - often would much prefer to do their OWN bargaining so as to have a chance at a more substantial compensation level. Are those who you are referring to when you say "they receive the BENEFITS [my emphasis added] we negotiate"? For that matter, I guess the question could apply to similarly situated members in non-RTW states as well. Just what have you [the Teamsters] "negotiated" on their behalf?
Just an inquiring mind wanting to know.....especially since apparently it was *me* who used the "wrong terminology" earlier. [smile]
-scb-
As an addendum, could you amplify on your statement...
"We are required to represent them in right-to-work-for-less states"
...in that I was curious; is the Teamsters union REQUIRED to "represent them"?; i.e. - did the government came down and say unequivocally that you, as a union, HAVE to "represent" these employees"? Are you telling me that the Teamsters could NOT function as the non-exclusive bargaining agent if they so chose, and limit themselves to bargaining on a non-exclusive, non-mandatory basis, representing just those who actually WANTED such representation....and were willing to be members? And are you telling me that the Teamsters only represent non-members in RTW states as well? I.e. - that those who voluntarily choose to exercise their right to not to be members, albeit being in the defined "bargaining unit" that the Teamsters obtained in their request to be "sole bargaining agent" in a non-RTW state such as Ohio, for example, are NOT represented by the Teamsters? Say when they wish to file a grievance, the Teamsters union will NOT represent them? That the case, is it?
Lastly, in terms of those you referred to in the "right-to-work-for-less states", specifically say the PT'ers, who - being under Teamster "representation" are employed at wage and benefit levels substantially lower than were available to those similarly situated a decade or even two decades ago - often would much prefer to do their OWN bargaining so as to have a chance at a more substantial compensation level. Are those who you are referring to when you say "they receive the BENEFITS [my emphasis added] we negotiate"? For that matter, I guess the question could apply to similarly situated members in non-RTW states as well. Just what have you [the Teamsters] "negotiated" on their behalf?
Just an inquiring mind wanting to know.....especially since apparently it was *me* who used the "wrong terminology" earlier. [smile]
-scb-
#15
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 21 2011 - 07:30 AM
scb, on November 20 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:
-Rainman-
As an addendum, could you amplify on your statement...
"We are required to represent them in right-to-work-for-less states"
...in that I was curious; is the Teamsters union REQUIRED to "represent them"?; i.e. - did the government came down and say unequivocally that you, as a union, HAVE to "represent" these employees"? Are you telling me that the Teamsters could NOT function as the non-exclusive bargaining agent if they so chose, and limit themselves to bargaining on a non-exclusive, non-mandatory basis, representing just those who actually WANTED such representation....and were willing to be members? And are you telling me that the Teamsters only represent non-members in RTW states as well? I.e. - that those who voluntarily choose to exercise their right to not to be members, albeit being in the defined "bargaining unit" that the Teamsters obtained in their request to be "sole bargaining agent" in a non-RTW state such as Ohio, for example, are NOT represented by the Teamsters? Say when they wish to file a grievance, the Teamsters union will NOT represent them? That the case, is it?
Lastly, in terms of those you referred to in the "right-to-work-for-less states", specifically say the PT'ers, who - being under Teamster "representation" are employed at wage and benefit levels substantially lower than were available to those similarly situated a decade or even two decades ago - often would much prefer to do their OWN bargaining so as to have a chance at a more substantial compensation level. Are those who you are referring to when you say "they receive the BENEFITS [my emphasis added] we negotiate"? For that matter, I guess the question could apply to similarly situated members in non-RTW states as well. Just what have you [the Teamsters] "negotiated" on their behalf?
Just an inquiring mind wanting to know.....especially since apparently it was *me* who used the "wrong terminology" earlier. [smile]
-scb-
As an addendum, could you amplify on your statement...
"We are required to represent them in right-to-work-for-less states"
...in that I was curious; is the Teamsters union REQUIRED to "represent them"?; i.e. - did the government came down and say unequivocally that you, as a union, HAVE to "represent" these employees"? Are you telling me that the Teamsters could NOT function as the non-exclusive bargaining agent if they so chose, and limit themselves to bargaining on a non-exclusive, non-mandatory basis, representing just those who actually WANTED such representation....and were willing to be members? And are you telling me that the Teamsters only represent non-members in RTW states as well? I.e. - that those who voluntarily choose to exercise their right to not to be members, albeit being in the defined "bargaining unit" that the Teamsters obtained in their request to be "sole bargaining agent" in a non-RTW state such as Ohio, for example, are NOT represented by the Teamsters? Say when they wish to file a grievance, the Teamsters union will NOT represent them? That the case, is it?
Lastly, in terms of those you referred to in the "right-to-work-for-less states", specifically say the PT'ers, who - being under Teamster "representation" are employed at wage and benefit levels substantially lower than were available to those similarly situated a decade or even two decades ago - often would much prefer to do their OWN bargaining so as to have a chance at a more substantial compensation level. Are those who you are referring to when you say "they receive the BENEFITS [my emphasis added] we negotiate"? For that matter, I guess the question could apply to similarly situated members in non-RTW states as well. Just what have you [the Teamsters] "negotiated" on their behalf?
Just an inquiring mind wanting to know.....especially since apparently it was *me* who used the "wrong terminology" earlier. [smile]
-scb-
Secondly, your question about the Union being required to represent and negotiate on behalf of "scabs"....the answer is yes. Unfortunately, Taft-Hartley gave states the right to pass so-called right-to-work laws requiring Unions to represent employees in the bargaining unit who choose to be "scabs". Believe me....if we weren't required to represent the pieces of ****, we certainly wouldn't.
Third, I haven't run across any of those folks you say would rather negotiate their own wages and benefits. The "scabs" would much rather have us spend our time and our member's money negotiating for them. And anyone who thinks they could get a better deal negotiating for themselves is living in fantasy land. That kind of rhetoric usually comes from some Union-busing lawyer or consultant. Maybe thats you.
Hope that helps clear things up for you.....I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
#16
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 21 2011 - 09:03 AM
-Rainman-
Oh, THAT's the "definition" of a "scab", is it? I'm just SURE generations of union members will be glad to hear how it's been modified of late. [smile]
As for "Taft-Hartley", it does *NOT* - got that? **NOT** - "require" a union "to represent and negotiate on behalf of "scabs'! Not sure where you got that information from, but the only requirement I'm aware of is if a union wishes to acquire SOLE bargaining rights for a given unit (via an NLRB election, etc), THEN it's required to "bargain" on behalf of all employees within the unit (i.e. - those which you, in your inimitable way - and a way which must be driving Teamsters apologists and publicists absolute nuts! - define as "scabs"). Otherwise, they are quite able to represent those who CHOOSE individually to be Teamsters; there's not a legal barrier in the world stopping them. Example? Look at the current situation between the NBA owners and the players (maybe they didn't stay in the same "Holiday Inn Express" as you did?)
'Course, perhaps a guy who calls those his union purports to represent "scabs" may not be aware of that. [grin!]
As for you not having "run across any of those folks you say would rather negotiate their own wages and benefit", my guess is that - given your demonstrated level of labor "knowledge" - there's a Hell of a lot of things like that you haven't "run across".
By the way, it's not just states' "right to work" laws which "requir[e] Unions to represent employees in the bargaining unit who choose to be (in YOUR words, at least, are...] "scabs". I suggest you take a look at Federal court decisions such as " Communications Workers of America v. Beck", or perhaps more recent decisions like "Llehnert v. Ferris Facutly Ass'n" among others.
Finally, whether you slept in a Holiday Inn Express or not last night, you've pretty much proven that, when it comes to labor law and custom, you basically don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Beyond that, do you REALIZE just how much damage a bozo like you can cause by not only spouting bad "information", but by casting aspersions at those who SUPPORT the union, and who's support the union needs in turn? Do you really believe that the union wants to NOT represent these "scabs", as you call them, and lose their bargaining numbers...along with dues and pension contributions? REALLY????
Most clowns such as yourself, when it comes to defining a "scab", at least have been indoctrinated enough to regurgitate the trite Jack London soliloquy. You, however, seem either not to not have the intelligence or presence of mind to do even that; rather you apparently just start calling anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you a "scab". Want to see someone who is *REALLY* "scabbing' the Teamsters? Look in the mirror.
Which brings us back to the original question you asked of me; i.e. - "What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS". Well, it turns out quite a bit actually...and I think it's pretty obvious that I've probably already forgotten more information incidentally than you've ever learned, or probably will ever have much hope of learning. Just the way it is.
I'll let you go back to sleep in your "Holiday Express" now [smile]
-scb-
.
Oh, THAT's the "definition" of a "scab", is it? I'm just SURE generations of union members will be glad to hear how it's been modified of late. [smile]
As for "Taft-Hartley", it does *NOT* - got that? **NOT** - "require" a union "to represent and negotiate on behalf of "scabs'! Not sure where you got that information from, but the only requirement I'm aware of is if a union wishes to acquire SOLE bargaining rights for a given unit (via an NLRB election, etc), THEN it's required to "bargain" on behalf of all employees within the unit (i.e. - those which you, in your inimitable way - and a way which must be driving Teamsters apologists and publicists absolute nuts! - define as "scabs"). Otherwise, they are quite able to represent those who CHOOSE individually to be Teamsters; there's not a legal barrier in the world stopping them. Example? Look at the current situation between the NBA owners and the players (maybe they didn't stay in the same "Holiday Inn Express" as you did?)
'Course, perhaps a guy who calls those his union purports to represent "scabs" may not be aware of that. [grin!]
As for you not having "run across any of those folks you say would rather negotiate their own wages and benefit", my guess is that - given your demonstrated level of labor "knowledge" - there's a Hell of a lot of things like that you haven't "run across".
By the way, it's not just states' "right to work" laws which "requir[e] Unions to represent employees in the bargaining unit who choose to be (in YOUR words, at least, are...] "scabs". I suggest you take a look at Federal court decisions such as " Communications Workers of America v. Beck", or perhaps more recent decisions like "Llehnert v. Ferris Facutly Ass'n" among others.
Finally, whether you slept in a Holiday Inn Express or not last night, you've pretty much proven that, when it comes to labor law and custom, you basically don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Beyond that, do you REALIZE just how much damage a bozo like you can cause by not only spouting bad "information", but by casting aspersions at those who SUPPORT the union, and who's support the union needs in turn? Do you really believe that the union wants to NOT represent these "scabs", as you call them, and lose their bargaining numbers...along with dues and pension contributions? REALLY????
Most clowns such as yourself, when it comes to defining a "scab", at least have been indoctrinated enough to regurgitate the trite Jack London soliloquy. You, however, seem either not to not have the intelligence or presence of mind to do even that; rather you apparently just start calling anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you a "scab". Want to see someone who is *REALLY* "scabbing' the Teamsters? Look in the mirror.
Which brings us back to the original question you asked of me; i.e. - "What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS". Well, it turns out quite a bit actually...and I think it's pretty obvious that I've probably already forgotten more information incidentally than you've ever learned, or probably will ever have much hope of learning. Just the way it is.
I'll let you go back to sleep in your "Holiday Express" now [smile]
-scb-
.
#17
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 21 2011 - 09:59 AM
scb, on November 21 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:
-Rainman-
Oh, THAT's the "definition" of a "scab", is it? I'm just SURE generations of union members will be glad to hear how it's been modified of late. [smile]
As for "Taft-Hartley", it does *NOT* - got that? **NOT** - "require" a union "to represent and negotiate on behalf of "scabs'! Not sure where you got that information from, but the only requirement I'm aware of is if a union wishes to acquire SOLE bargaining rights for a given unit (via an NLRB election, etc), THEN it's required to "bargain" on behalf of all employees within the unit (i.e. - those which you, in your inimitable way - and a way which must be driving Teamsters apologists and publicists absolute nuts! - define as "scabs"). Otherwise, they are quite able to represent those who CHOOSE individually to be Teamsters; there's not a legal barrier in the world stopping them. Example? Look at the current situation between the NBA owners and the players (maybe they didn't stay in the same "Holiday Inn Express" as you did?)
'Course, perhaps a guy who calls those his union purports to represent "scabs" may not be aware of that. [grin!]
As for you not having "run across any of those folks you say would rather negotiate their own wages and benefit", my guess is that - given your demonstrated level of labor "knowledge" - there's a Hell of a lot of things like that you haven't "run across".
By the way, it's not just states' "right to work" laws which "requir[e] Unions to represent employees in the bargaining unit who choose to be (in YOUR words, at least, are...] "scabs". I suggest you take a look at Federal court decisions such as " Communications Workers of America v. Beck", or perhaps more recent decisions like "Llehnert v. Ferris Facutly Ass'n" among others.
Finally, whether you slept in a Holiday Inn Express or not last night, you've pretty much proven that, when it comes to labor law and custom, you basically don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Beyond that, do you REALIZE just how much damage a bozo like you can cause by not only spouting bad "information", but by casting aspersions at those who SUPPORT the union, and who's support the union needs in turn? Do you really believe that the union wants to NOT represent these "scabs", as you call them, and lose their bargaining numbers...along with dues and pension contributions? REALLY????
Most clowns such as yourself, when it comes to defining a "scab", at least have been indoctrinated enough to regurgitate the trite Jack London soliloquy. You, however, seem either not to not have the intelligence or presence of mind to do even that; rather you apparently just start calling anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you a "scab". Want to see someone who is *REALLY* "scabbing' the Teamsters? Look in the mirror.
Which brings us back to the original question you asked of me; i.e. - "What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS". Well, it turns out quite a bit actually...and I think it's pretty obvious that I've probably already forgotten more information incidentally than you've ever learned, or probably will ever have much hope of learning. Just the way it is.
I'll let you go back to sleep in your "Holiday Express" now [smile]
-scb-
.
Oh, THAT's the "definition" of a "scab", is it? I'm just SURE generations of union members will be glad to hear how it's been modified of late. [smile]
As for "Taft-Hartley", it does *NOT* - got that? **NOT** - "require" a union "to represent and negotiate on behalf of "scabs'! Not sure where you got that information from, but the only requirement I'm aware of is if a union wishes to acquire SOLE bargaining rights for a given unit (via an NLRB election, etc), THEN it's required to "bargain" on behalf of all employees within the unit (i.e. - those which you, in your inimitable way - and a way which must be driving Teamsters apologists and publicists absolute nuts! - define as "scabs"). Otherwise, they are quite able to represent those who CHOOSE individually to be Teamsters; there's not a legal barrier in the world stopping them. Example? Look at the current situation between the NBA owners and the players (maybe they didn't stay in the same "Holiday Inn Express" as you did?)
'Course, perhaps a guy who calls those his union purports to represent "scabs" may not be aware of that. [grin!]
As for you not having "run across any of those folks you say would rather negotiate their own wages and benefit", my guess is that - given your demonstrated level of labor "knowledge" - there's a Hell of a lot of things like that you haven't "run across".
By the way, it's not just states' "right to work" laws which "requir[e] Unions to represent employees in the bargaining unit who choose to be (in YOUR words, at least, are...] "scabs". I suggest you take a look at Federal court decisions such as " Communications Workers of America v. Beck", or perhaps more recent decisions like "Llehnert v. Ferris Facutly Ass'n" among others.
Finally, whether you slept in a Holiday Inn Express or not last night, you've pretty much proven that, when it comes to labor law and custom, you basically don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Beyond that, do you REALIZE just how much damage a bozo like you can cause by not only spouting bad "information", but by casting aspersions at those who SUPPORT the union, and who's support the union needs in turn? Do you really believe that the union wants to NOT represent these "scabs", as you call them, and lose their bargaining numbers...along with dues and pension contributions? REALLY????
Most clowns such as yourself, when it comes to defining a "scab", at least have been indoctrinated enough to regurgitate the trite Jack London soliloquy. You, however, seem either not to not have the intelligence or presence of mind to do even that; rather you apparently just start calling anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you a "scab". Want to see someone who is *REALLY* "scabbing' the Teamsters? Look in the mirror.
Which brings us back to the original question you asked of me; i.e. - "What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS". Well, it turns out quite a bit actually...and I think it's pretty obvious that I've probably already forgotten more information incidentally than you've ever learned, or probably will ever have much hope of learning. Just the way it is.
I'll let you go back to sleep in your "Holiday Express" now [smile]
-scb-
.
Also, no one can choose individually to be represented by the Teamsters. At some point, we have to be recognized as the bargaining representative for a certain group of employees. I'm sure the employees who support Union representation, but lose their representation elections would love it if you were right. If what you say is true, any employee may choose to have a Union represent them, even though the majority of employees voted the other direction. I like what you're saying, but its bullshit.
One of the most ridiculous things you said was that we wouldn't want to lose (or loose as you put it) the support and dues of these scabs. Hey idiot, we're not getting dues on these scabs and they certainly don't support us if they don't join the Union; so there's nothing to lose or loose.
Also, I respect any opinion of any Teamster or trade unionist; I may not agree with it, but I respect it. Scabs don't get the right *****, moan, complain or otherwise voice their opinion. They give up that right, in my book, when they choose not to join our Union. The rest of your rant is just juvenile bullshit insults directed at me personally, which I won't even dignify with a response.
#18
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 21 2011 - 12:30 PM
-Rainman-
You don't have to "pass the word"...do you REALLY think it would be "news" to them?
Here's news for you....NO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE "RECOGNIZED" (at least in terms of the NLRA), IN ORDER TO REPRESENT THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO BE REPRESENTED!!!
Now I know you're more than a little slow on the uptake, so let me explain this to you REAL methodically . Say there are 10 employees of a company. 3 of those employees approach the Teamsters and ask the Teamsters to represent them in negotiations. The fact is, the Teamsters can - assuming there's no other union certified as sole bargaining agent - represent those 3 employees and not the other 7....and they could do so without an election, or a a card-check or any other piece of artifice, other than the represented employees own consent. Of course, there's no obligation on the part of the employer to counter-negotiate, either...but that's not the issue in question here. Earlier I mentioned the current status of the players association v. the NBA owners earlier, and that's EXACTLY what's happening there now. Guess you didn't pay much attention, 'eh? So let's give another example; the cast of "Friends" a few years ago got together and decided to get "representation" and bargain collectively....WITHOUT HAVING TO BARGAIN FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! And you know what....they were perfectly able to do so. Yet, according to you, that couldn't happen. H.m.m.m.m.!?!?!?!?!!
Now, if you were even half as knowledgeable about "labor" as you seem to think you are, then you would be aware of what Samuel Gompers thought and said about the status of situations like you apparently think are the be-all and end-all of union existence; i.e. - sole representation. He was against the principle, because it DEFEATED THE MEANING OF A "UNION" AS A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION!!!
The truth is, as long as there's no union certified as "sole representative", any employee MAY choose to have a Union - ANY union! - represent him! They would, however, have to accept the consequences of such representation. Why aren't such employees represented more by unions?
Well, it is NOT because of the "scabs" as you call them. For the most part, they don''t see so-called "union representation" as something they either want nor need. The unions, however, being fully aware that they COULD - outside of the auspices AND THE PROTECTIONS of the Wagner Act - just represent those employees who WANTED to be represented by them, almost to a man turn-down such representation. You see, most unions today realize that they CAN'T EXIST on a voluntary basis; they have to have the ability to COERCE "representation"...and collect dues and pension contributions. That "sole representation" status doesn't exist there because your "scabs' want the likes of you to represent them; rather, it's the union that INSISTS on "representing" them...whether they want to be represented or not! It's not "Taft-Hartley" forcing your hand; rather, it's your own damn greed!
Then you say you're "not getting dues on these scabs and they certainly don't support us"....h.m.m.m.! Are you telling me that the union does NOT collect "agency fees" from so-called "scabs" who have exercised their "CWA" rights? Are you telling me that they don't provide support in case of strikes, and that the union has no problem with their crossing the picket lines? Are you also informing me that the union trusts don't collect pension and/or HWI payments on their behalf?
Look, "Rainman", even your namesake could count toothpicks. You, however, seem to be unable to count the fingers on the hand in front of your face. What you ARE able to do, however, is enhance the Teamsters already far-too-large reputation for thuggery ("we have many ways to "convince" the Company"), ignorance ("we don't negotiate for the 'non-Teamsters'"), brute prejudice ("Unfortunately, we do negotiate on behalf of "scabs" [probably such as yourself])", and outright dishonesty (see all three of your quotes above).
Lastly, regarding your comment of....
"Scabs don't get the right *****, moan, complain or otherwise voice their opinion."
Just who made a clown like *YOU* the arbiter of what right those you call "scabs" - or anyone else, for that matter - have to "moan, complain, or otherwise voice their opinion"? Why should *YOU* be the determinate of how they go about exercising their right to speak freely? Who made *YOU* the dictator here????
Sorry, "Rainman", but ignorant, lying thugs like you get my goat....and I suspect they get the goat of most responsible unionists as well. You're the type of union member, unfortunately, that historians can point to when they track the decline in the labor movement, and attempt to explain just how and why it took place. Must make you very proud to be such a "member", 'eh?
As I said before, "Rainman"...you apparently don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And it's equally apparent that, if you WERE able to recognize the difference, you'd lie about it. Join "Farley" and a few other denizens here on T-Net in that regard. You are what you are.
-scb- ("the idiot")
P.S. - Let me know when you're ready for a final tally of all the fibs you've told on just this thread; it must be approaching a T-Net record.
You don't have to "pass the word"...do you REALLY think it would be "news" to them?
Here's news for you....NO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE "RECOGNIZED" (at least in terms of the NLRA), IN ORDER TO REPRESENT THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO BE REPRESENTED!!!
Now I know you're more than a little slow on the uptake, so let me explain this to you REAL methodically . Say there are 10 employees of a company. 3 of those employees approach the Teamsters and ask the Teamsters to represent them in negotiations. The fact is, the Teamsters can - assuming there's no other union certified as sole bargaining agent - represent those 3 employees and not the other 7....and they could do so without an election, or a a card-check or any other piece of artifice, other than the represented employees own consent. Of course, there's no obligation on the part of the employer to counter-negotiate, either...but that's not the issue in question here. Earlier I mentioned the current status of the players association v. the NBA owners earlier, and that's EXACTLY what's happening there now. Guess you didn't pay much attention, 'eh? So let's give another example; the cast of "Friends" a few years ago got together and decided to get "representation" and bargain collectively....WITHOUT HAVING TO BARGAIN FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE REPRESENTED!!! And you know what....they were perfectly able to do so. Yet, according to you, that couldn't happen. H.m.m.m.m.!?!?!?!?!!
Now, if you were even half as knowledgeable about "labor" as you seem to think you are, then you would be aware of what Samuel Gompers thought and said about the status of situations like you apparently think are the be-all and end-all of union existence; i.e. - sole representation. He was against the principle, because it DEFEATED THE MEANING OF A "UNION" AS A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION!!!
The truth is, as long as there's no union certified as "sole representative", any employee MAY choose to have a Union - ANY union! - represent him! They would, however, have to accept the consequences of such representation. Why aren't such employees represented more by unions?
Well, it is NOT because of the "scabs" as you call them. For the most part, they don''t see so-called "union representation" as something they either want nor need. The unions, however, being fully aware that they COULD - outside of the auspices AND THE PROTECTIONS of the Wagner Act - just represent those employees who WANTED to be represented by them, almost to a man turn-down such representation. You see, most unions today realize that they CAN'T EXIST on a voluntary basis; they have to have the ability to COERCE "representation"...and collect dues and pension contributions. That "sole representation" status doesn't exist there because your "scabs' want the likes of you to represent them; rather, it's the union that INSISTS on "representing" them...whether they want to be represented or not! It's not "Taft-Hartley" forcing your hand; rather, it's your own damn greed!
Then you say you're "not getting dues on these scabs and they certainly don't support us"....h.m.m.m.! Are you telling me that the union does NOT collect "agency fees" from so-called "scabs" who have exercised their "CWA" rights? Are you telling me that they don't provide support in case of strikes, and that the union has no problem with their crossing the picket lines? Are you also informing me that the union trusts don't collect pension and/or HWI payments on their behalf?
Look, "Rainman", even your namesake could count toothpicks. You, however, seem to be unable to count the fingers on the hand in front of your face. What you ARE able to do, however, is enhance the Teamsters already far-too-large reputation for thuggery ("we have many ways to "convince" the Company"), ignorance ("we don't negotiate for the 'non-Teamsters'"), brute prejudice ("Unfortunately, we do negotiate on behalf of "scabs" [probably such as yourself])", and outright dishonesty (see all three of your quotes above).
Lastly, regarding your comment of....
"Scabs don't get the right *****, moan, complain or otherwise voice their opinion."
Just who made a clown like *YOU* the arbiter of what right those you call "scabs" - or anyone else, for that matter - have to "moan, complain, or otherwise voice their opinion"? Why should *YOU* be the determinate of how they go about exercising their right to speak freely? Who made *YOU* the dictator here????
Sorry, "Rainman", but ignorant, lying thugs like you get my goat....and I suspect they get the goat of most responsible unionists as well. You're the type of union member, unfortunately, that historians can point to when they track the decline in the labor movement, and attempt to explain just how and why it took place. Must make you very proud to be such a "member", 'eh?
As I said before, "Rainman"...you apparently don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And it's equally apparent that, if you WERE able to recognize the difference, you'd lie about it. Join "Farley" and a few other denizens here on T-Net in that regard. You are what you are.
-scb- ("the idiot")
P.S. - Let me know when you're ready for a final tally of all the fibs you've told on just this thread; it must be approaching a T-Net record.
#19
-
- Members
-
- 208 posts
Member
Posted November 21 2011 - 01:29 PM
Once again, I can't tell if you're acting stupid or if you really are. Frankly, I think you're a belligerent Company suckass that absolutely hates Unions. Sorry for your luck. First of all, yes it would be news to my friends who work in right-to-work states that they don't have to represent scabs (such as yourself). They would be ecstatic to know that the next time a scab gets fired, they can just say good luck and so long.
Comparing 3 out of 10 warehouse guys to the NBA players or the cast of "Friends" just proves what I said in the first paragraph. Kobe Bryant and Co. or Jennifer Anniston and Co. have/had quite a bit more leverage than the people in your example. You said yourself that the Co. would be under no obligation to bargain with them. WOW, I wonder what a Co. would do in that scenario.
No moron, we don't collect "agency fees" in right-to-work states. Those are only collected in closed-shop states, but you already know that. You, as a Union-busting piece of ****, know the law as well as anyone. You must just be practicing you anti-Union speech. I and many others on T-Net recognize your anti-Union rhetoric. I'm sure you've used it before to deceive and intimidate workers into believing that they're better off without a Union.
Finally, Farley, myself and a lot of other hard-working Teamsters on T-Net have to deal with the reality of right-to-work laws and what they do to our ability to bargain a good contract for our members. We know exactly what a "scab" is. Most of us have had to deal with one or two during our careers and I suspect we all have basically the same opinion about them as well as you. You try to sound educated, but you're a Union-busting maggot...nothing more elegant than that.
Comparing 3 out of 10 warehouse guys to the NBA players or the cast of "Friends" just proves what I said in the first paragraph. Kobe Bryant and Co. or Jennifer Anniston and Co. have/had quite a bit more leverage than the people in your example. You said yourself that the Co. would be under no obligation to bargain with them. WOW, I wonder what a Co. would do in that scenario.
No moron, we don't collect "agency fees" in right-to-work states. Those are only collected in closed-shop states, but you already know that. You, as a Union-busting piece of ****, know the law as well as anyone. You must just be practicing you anti-Union speech. I and many others on T-Net recognize your anti-Union rhetoric. I'm sure you've used it before to deceive and intimidate workers into believing that they're better off without a Union.
Finally, Farley, myself and a lot of other hard-working Teamsters on T-Net have to deal with the reality of right-to-work laws and what they do to our ability to bargain a good contract for our members. We know exactly what a "scab" is. Most of us have had to deal with one or two during our careers and I suspect we all have basically the same opinion about them as well as you. You try to sound educated, but you're a Union-busting maggot...nothing more elegant than that.
#20
-
- Members
-
- 5,844 posts
Hardcore Member
Posted November 21 2011 - 02:46 PM
--Rainman-
Well, this "moron" has come to the conclusion that you'll change your story each and every time you're confronted with even a smidgen of evidence.....so what's the point? If it's any consolation, i don't doubt for a minute that, in right-to-work states where union membership is voluntary, an individual such as yourself could find it difficult to "bargain" on the behalf of those who are actually able to exercise free-will. Not much of a surprise there, is it? In that, you make such a fine example of "enlightened" unionism. Your must make your fellow Teamsters so very, very proud! [smile]
Meanwhile, I can't help but recall that you started-off this dialogue with the swarmy statement (no question mark) of....
"What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS"
...and then in your last post seemed to change your tune to...
" I and many others on T-Net recognize your anti-Union rhetoric. I'm sure you've used it before to deceive and intimidate workers into believing that they're better off without a Union."
Gosh "what the Hell"! Figured that out all by yourself, did ya'? My, aren't YOU the bright one!
-scb- (who, "try[ing] to sound educated", is once again reminded of the ol' saw "You can lead a Teamster to T-Net, but you can't neccessarily make him think")
Well, this "moron" has come to the conclusion that you'll change your story each and every time you're confronted with even a smidgen of evidence.....so what's the point? If it's any consolation, i don't doubt for a minute that, in right-to-work states where union membership is voluntary, an individual such as yourself could find it difficult to "bargain" on the behalf of those who are actually able to exercise free-will. Not much of a surprise there, is it? In that, you make such a fine example of "enlightened" unionism. Your must make your fellow Teamsters so very, very proud! [smile]
Meanwhile, I can't help but recall that you started-off this dialogue with the swarmy statement (no question mark) of....
"What the hell would you know about negotiating a contract or UPS"
...and then in your last post seemed to change your tune to...
" I and many others on T-Net recognize your anti-Union rhetoric. I'm sure you've used it before to deceive and intimidate workers into believing that they're better off without a Union."
Gosh "what the Hell"! Figured that out all by yourself, did ya'? My, aren't YOU the bright one!
-scb- (who, "try[ing] to sound educated", is once again reminded of the ol' saw "You can lead a Teamster to T-Net, but you can't neccessarily make him think")
