The same thing that makes you believe whatever it is that you believe - opinion. Oh and by the way, about a year ago we rejected the MOU as it was first proposed. They tweaked it a little and we then accepted it. I don't know how long you've been around but that's the same way things are done at "normal" contract negotiations.
Yellow | Union response
- Thread starter anotherdayanother85cents
- Start date
The same thing that makes you believe whatever it is that you believe - opinion. Oh and by the way, about a year ago we rejected the MOU as it was first proposed. They tweaked it a little and we then accepted it. I don't know how long you've been around but that's the same way things are done at "normal" contract negotiations.
LEHIGH vALLEY
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
There is a reason(s) that Persion said what he said, When he said it!
CFO's of major Companies do not go off "Half cocked" And stay CFO's. There is a reason for everything! (And everything said or printed)
CFO's of major Companies do not go off "Half cocked" And stay CFO's. There is a reason for everything! (And everything said or printed)
twisted-hippie
Twisted Herb Plantation CEO
- Credits
- 153
Pierson will say whatever Welch tells him to say. 
Pierson is Welch's hand puppet?Pierson will say whatever Welch tells him to say.
highheadblues
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 141
I've been around a long time, and I can guarentee that these mou's are not the same as "normal negotiations". They are proposed as take it or were closing down, so no the mou's are not negotiated in any way similar to regular contract negotiations. About the only thing tweaked on the second vote was Hoffa; they were neutral on the first vote then pushed real hard on the second. And it matters what Pierson says because they are trying to set the table by reducing expectations for the next contract by saying our pay is where it should be at and not to expect significant wage or pension increases in the future, even though were $7-8 behind Abf and Ups frt in wages and pension contribution.
Last edited:
The whole reason for the MOU in the first place was the precarious financial situation of the company. Deny it all you want but that was the reality. The initial proposal was rejected. The company modified the proposal and when that was presented it was accepted. No different from what happens when any contract proposal is initially presented and rejected. And once again it doesn't matter one bit what Pierson says today. The only thing that matters is what condition the company is in when this MOU is close to expiration, period. Anything else is just blather. If you are so terribly concerned about what he is saying today then you obviously haven't been around long enough to have learned something.
The so called "tweek" in the most recent MOU was the 180 degree reversal on raises for ALL Teamsters, not just CDL drivers!
And we will never know whether there would have been modifications to any of the other MOUs. With the exception of a handful of local "white paper" locals that rejected them, those MOUs were overwhelmingly ratified.
Zollars made it clear that there would not be any improvements to the ratified agreements.
In all labor negotiation, the employer decides when "the last best and final offer" is made. At that point, the union members have a limited number of options. Reject and begin a work stoppage. Vote to accept. Or vote to reject, which may or may not lead to a work stoppage.
Last edited:
By the way, do you think ABF executives don't feel the same way as Pierson? Check out what they said a couple of years ago.
TOUGH TALK ON WAGES
Arkansas Best and ABF executives have been very vocal about the need to drive down labor expenses through a new contract. ABF has the highest labor costs in the LTL sector, and management said its workers would still be the best paid after the agreement takes effect.
It is widely believed that ABF has been unable to bid on new business or has been forced to shed existing business because it cannot overcome its labor cost disadvantage. Most of the LTL industry is nonunion, and ABF's costs are significantly higher than those of its nonunion rivals.
The company has played public hardball over the issue. In December, it warned of "extensive changes" to its network, which could include the shuttering of terminals and distribution centers, if it couldn't reduce labor costs and increase flexibility through a new labor agreement. It also used the specter of YRC buy-out talks as leverage, saying in an e-mail communiqué earlier this year that failure to ratify an agreement could weaken ABF and make it easier for YRC to consummate its buy-out plans.
In the e-mail, executives told union workers that "if you vote yes and ratify the agreement... then ABF can continue on with our own plan to improve profitability, take back market share, [and] grow and protect your jobs and retirement benefits." By contrast, a contract rejection means the "likelihood that YRC would be able to consummate a deal grows higher," the document said. The date of the communiqué was unknown.
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20130628-teamsters-ratify-five-year-national-agreement-with-abf/
TOUGH TALK ON WAGES
Arkansas Best and ABF executives have been very vocal about the need to drive down labor expenses through a new contract. ABF has the highest labor costs in the LTL sector, and management said its workers would still be the best paid after the agreement takes effect.
It is widely believed that ABF has been unable to bid on new business or has been forced to shed existing business because it cannot overcome its labor cost disadvantage. Most of the LTL industry is nonunion, and ABF's costs are significantly higher than those of its nonunion rivals.
The company has played public hardball over the issue. In December, it warned of "extensive changes" to its network, which could include the shuttering of terminals and distribution centers, if it couldn't reduce labor costs and increase flexibility through a new labor agreement. It also used the specter of YRC buy-out talks as leverage, saying in an e-mail communiqué earlier this year that failure to ratify an agreement could weaken ABF and make it easier for YRC to consummate its buy-out plans.
In the e-mail, executives told union workers that "if you vote yes and ratify the agreement... then ABF can continue on with our own plan to improve profitability, take back market share, [and] grow and protect your jobs and retirement benefits." By contrast, a contract rejection means the "likelihood that YRC would be able to consummate a deal grows higher," the document said. The date of the communiqué was unknown.
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20130628-teamsters-ratify-five-year-national-agreement-with-abf/
And Hoffa negotiated UPS out of CSPF
twisted-hippie
Twisted Herb Plantation CEO
- Credits
- 153
Not sure if "hand" accurately describes the type of puppet.Pierson is Welch's hand puppet?
highheadblues
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 141
Upsf provides a better pension than ours so that certainly costs them money, probably more than the $34 wk that Yrc is paying.
highheadblues
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 141
All executives want to pay their employees less. My hope is the rank and file dont get complacent and settle. This company has money for whatever they want, finger scanners, intermecs, uniforms, executive bonuses, but no money for wage or pension payments.
Maybe YRC could by UPS. They would save $$$ not paying multi employer funds!!!!
