D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
Do you think ABF is a member of the NMFA or do you believe that they pulled out and are just a "me too" company with no rights as they have asserted in their court case?
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
Can I change that poll to not public?
Done.........
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
I appreciate your comment and input, was actually hoping for a little more discussion...maybe it was the way I worded or didn't word my opening post.
I am curious to hear what others think and what ideas they have on the matter. I wouldn't consider it "disgruntles vs knowledge" though. And I honestly don't think that the majority of the drivers hold anything against the drivers at the other company. It appears as though Bill Zollars is the major fall guy on this one (with a little help from Hoffa and Johnson). I believe there is just more frustration all over the place than anything. I also believe that most drivers would post their honest opinion in an anonymous poll, no reason not to.
As for me, I believe that ABF is a member of the NMFA for the following reasons:
1) Before the NMFA expired ABF did send a letter the the IBT requesting their own contract and the IBT refused to give it to them. There was a bit of discussion on at least one internet BB over this. What I saw posted was an accurate prediction of what happened.
2) ABF Teamsters voted on the same contract, at the same time as the Roadway and Yellow Teamsters.
3) Bob Davidson is listed in the NMFA as a member of Traffic Management, Inc., the negotiating arm for the employers party to the NMFA.
I am interested to hear what others think about this.
I am curious to hear what others think and what ideas they have on the matter. I wouldn't consider it "disgruntles vs knowledge" though. And I honestly don't think that the majority of the drivers hold anything against the drivers at the other company. It appears as though Bill Zollars is the major fall guy on this one (with a little help from Hoffa and Johnson). I believe there is just more frustration all over the place than anything. I also believe that most drivers would post their honest opinion in an anonymous poll, no reason not to.
As for me, I believe that ABF is a member of the NMFA for the following reasons:
1) Before the NMFA expired ABF did send a letter the the IBT requesting their own contract and the IBT refused to give it to them. There was a bit of discussion on at least one internet BB over this. What I saw posted was an accurate prediction of what happened.
2) ABF Teamsters voted on the same contract, at the same time as the Roadway and Yellow Teamsters.
3) Bob Davidson is listed in the NMFA as a member of Traffic Management, Inc., the negotiating arm for the employers party to the NMFA.
I am interested to hear what others think about this.
In theory this is a good idea.
But, as of now.. there is 19 votes and only 1 comment corresponding.
Most of the guys "don't hold anything against us" I agree...
but, what I was concerned about is those disgruntled few, would love to "sway the poll" without comment.
We shall see
But, as of now.. there is 19 votes and only 1 comment corresponding.
Most of the guys "don't hold anything against us" I agree...
but, what I was concerned about is those disgruntled few, would love to "sway the poll" without comment.
We shall see
There used to be a thing called the ''Most Favored Nations Clause'' that usually covered things like this, not sure if it still exists as it was a double edged sword.
"Most Favored Nations Clause
A most favored nations clause specifies that if a the union grants more favorable terms to any employer than those terms already contained in the collective bargaining agreement, then any signatory employer may also apply those favorable terms to its workers. The following is a typical contract clause. “Should the union extend to any other employer within the area covered by this agreement, terms or conditions which are more favorable to said employer than the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement, such terms and conditions shall automatically be extended to all employers, parties to this agreement. “
A most favored nations clause can present great difficulties to an organizer seeking an agreement with open shop contractors. In a non-traditional market segment there may be wide disparities in wages and working conditions. Consider adding contract language that specifically addresses that market segment. For example, if maintenance work in a region was largely performed by non-union contractors, add: “It is understood that this clause does not apply to maintenance contracts.”
In the interest of obtaining uniformity in wages and working conditions, the union also should consider adding a “me too” clause to the collective bargaining agreement. Such a provision would require extending to all crafts any favorable terms that have been granted to one craft.''
( From Building Trades Field Guide To Union Leadership )
"Most Favored Nations Clause
A most favored nations clause specifies that if a the union grants more favorable terms to any employer than those terms already contained in the collective bargaining agreement, then any signatory employer may also apply those favorable terms to its workers. The following is a typical contract clause. “Should the union extend to any other employer within the area covered by this agreement, terms or conditions which are more favorable to said employer than the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement, such terms and conditions shall automatically be extended to all employers, parties to this agreement. “
A most favored nations clause can present great difficulties to an organizer seeking an agreement with open shop contractors. In a non-traditional market segment there may be wide disparities in wages and working conditions. Consider adding contract language that specifically addresses that market segment. For example, if maintenance work in a region was largely performed by non-union contractors, add: “It is understood that this clause does not apply to maintenance contracts.”
In the interest of obtaining uniformity in wages and working conditions, the union also should consider adding a “me too” clause to the collective bargaining agreement. Such a provision would require extending to all crafts any favorable terms that have been granted to one craft.''
( From Building Trades Field Guide To Union Leadership )
truxforever
TB Regular
- Credits
- 66
There is only one NMFA and ABF is a part of it. The IBT itself said so in press releases on it's on website. Would you expect the IBT and YRCW to say anything to confirm this. They have to try and defend what they have done. Tyson himself in the press release said how there was only one NMFA and how the IBT held ABF to the it. It will all come out in the court case. All Teamsters will loose in the end thanks to the IBT. Yrcw has violated the concession agreement on at least three occasions. The YRC teamsters should have bounce back to full scale three times already. I guess they are use to getting the shaft because they or not trying to make the IBT backup what they voted on. One if YRCW defaulted they would snap back. Two they were to raise at least 300 mil in new money which they didn't snap back. Three getting back in the pension funds at the end of 18 months which they didn't snap back. Four 1/25 of pension payments another snap back. They did not vote to extend the NMFA into 2015 the IBT is doing what it wants too.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
I don't see too many men and women sabotaging our poll here, I like to think that we're all adults and the majority would just cast their vote and some will comment. So far there is an overwhelming majority on the yes side. Usually in a poll that is that lopsided the majority are in the right. If it was a 45%-55% tally I would be more leery of the outcome in the courtroom. The facts in ABF's case are pretty well known by the audience on here, some more knowledgeable than others but they have heard about it.
I would like to hear what the naysayers see that has them voting no. They could very well see things that I don't.
As I know it the Most Favorable Nations clause has/had two ways it was used and I never heard of it coming into play.
1) When a local union represented two different companies in one industry-let's use concrete for an example. If the union gave one company a concession, say overtime for example, then they could be forced to give the other company the same concession.
2) When two different groups of workers work at one company under two different contracts. A warehouse would be a good example where the inside workers could be under one contract and the drivers could be under another, could have the same or different locals. If the company gave one group a better health care plan, for example, then they would have to provide the same plan to the other group of workers if they had the right Most Favorable Nations clause in their contract.
I don't recall such a clause in the NMFA and I don't see how it would apply in this case since both companies are operating under the same contract to start with. Well....they were operating under the same contract.
grimreaper
caddy
- Credits
- 372
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
clydesdale
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 285
hoffa said abf is not totally part of nmfa because abf said.. me too at the last minute.. so they are not.. its a no brainer.. to whole idea of the law suit was to scare off yrcw investors ... the real question is why abf is able to sue yrcw for $750.000.000... when they have a contract dispute with the teamsters???
With all your legal experience makes me wonder why your driving truck?
R-14Driver
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
Since nobody believes the IBT anymore here's a couple of articles from TDU that some may find interesting .
ABF Agrees to Match NMFA
January 30, 2008: As expected, ABF management has signed a "me-too" to be bound by the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA).
The ABF me-to means we will retain a united freight contract. This outcome was never really in doubt. The International Union said all along that it would hold ABF to the NMFA—just like it did when other companies including Yellow tried to break away. ...............
ABF Agrees to Match NMFA | Teamsters for a Democratic Union
And another here : Traffic World: ABF to Withdraw from TMI
August 18, 2007: From Traffic World: ABF Freight System is seeking its own road toward a new Teamster contract and single employer pension plan.
The LTL carrier Aug. 17 said it is pulling out of Trucking Management Inc., the multiemployer bargaining unit that negotiates the National Master Freight Agreement, and plans to seek its own contract with the Teamsters union.
That decision is a step toward withdrawing from the union's multiemployer pension plans, a company spokesman said.
In an Aug. 17 Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company said it would conduct future contract negotiations directly with the Teamsters "for the purpose of entering into a new collective bargaining agreement applicable only to ABF.".....................
Traffic World: ABF to Withdraw from TMI | Teamsters for a Democratic Union
ABF Agrees to Match NMFA
January 30, 2008: As expected, ABF management has signed a "me-too" to be bound by the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA).
The ABF me-to means we will retain a united freight contract. This outcome was never really in doubt. The International Union said all along that it would hold ABF to the NMFA—just like it did when other companies including Yellow tried to break away. ...............
ABF Agrees to Match NMFA | Teamsters for a Democratic Union
And another here : Traffic World: ABF to Withdraw from TMI
August 18, 2007: From Traffic World: ABF Freight System is seeking its own road toward a new Teamster contract and single employer pension plan.
The LTL carrier Aug. 17 said it is pulling out of Trucking Management Inc., the multiemployer bargaining unit that negotiates the National Master Freight Agreement, and plans to seek its own contract with the Teamsters union.
That decision is a step toward withdrawing from the union's multiemployer pension plans, a company spokesman said.
In an Aug. 17 Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company said it would conduct future contract negotiations directly with the Teamsters "for the purpose of entering into a new collective bargaining agreement applicable only to ABF.".....................
Traffic World: ABF to Withdraw from TMI | Teamsters for a Democratic Union
The first paragraph says Abf is part of the nmfa. What Abf wanted did not happen Hoffa told them take it or take it they had no choice.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
The date of the article proclaiming "me too" for ABF is January 30, 2008. I would not call that "the last minute" since the contract expired March 31, 2008. I expect this question to get its share of argument in the courtroom. I also expect that either ABF will be sorry that they asked to be removed from the NMFA or the IBT will be sorry that they denied their request.
ABF has sued everyone is sight, as is normal in a civil suit. I expect that YRC lawyers will make the argument that they should not be a party to the suit and ask the judge to be removed from the case. It's a shot they have to take and it would assist in slowing the wheels of progress on the case.
I don't believe that you, me or anyone else has the evidence to prove that ABF filed the suit to scare off investors. I honestly believe that they have filed the suit to level the playing field as they have claimed. ABF has proven that they do not need YRC to go out of business to survive, they just need a comparable cost structure and YRC has gone rate cutting with their concessions. Concessions that were meant to be used to get their finances in order. A base Hoffa and Company failed to cover in their MOU's.
This would be the place for you to get it straight..The facts and questions cover most of what people are wondering....come on, it won't hurt too bad to read it.
FAQs | ABF Legal Action.
truxforever
TB Regular
- Credits
- 66
Like I said the IBT and TDU both posted press releases saying ABF was part of the NMFA. Thanks R-14 you posted what i was saying, now the IBT is crawfishing.
And you know they will plan on doing it by lowering ABF Teamster employees to YRCW's labor cost structure, don't you? I hope you don't think they want to keep you at your present wages and benefits if they win this lawsuit.
Then why are they suing for 750 million?