TRUCKING MANAGEMENT INC.
566 El Dorado Street Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 792-9621 Fax: (626) 792-9628
May 14, 2008
VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Michael A. Lass
Union Representative
Teamsters Local Union No. 705 1645 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60612
Dear Mr. Lass:
Given the direction our negotiations took last week, I thought it might be useful to summarize the status of our contract talks and our view of them. We have been at this for a while, and it is becoming more apparent every day that you are more interested in pursuing various bargaining tactics than you are about bargaining a contract. If we are going to reach an agreement, you are going to have to negotiate in good faith, which means actually talking about proposals and issues and getting serious about what is important and what is not.
From the outset, you have tried every possible roadblock to avoid discussing bargaining proposals. You have demanded that our proposals across the bargaining table be in the form of comprehensive proposals covering all items in the entire contract. Although we attempted to cooperate with this bargaining approach, you did not pay us the courtesy of giving us time to explain our proposals because you said you had already read and rejected them. In light of the lack of progress, we suggested last week establishing various bargaining subcommittees that might facilitate discussions on certain topics in smaller groups. After initially indicating some openness to the idea, you rejected it. Instead, rather than explain why you would not agree to subcommittees, you gave CSMCA-TMI the choice of one of three options: (1) FMCS mediation; (2) a certification that Employer Proposal #4, and the employer monetary proposal of March 29, 2008 together are a so-called "last-and-final" offer; or (3) a new comprehensive proposal. These are games to avoid real bargaining, and they have to stop.
In addition to your ridiculous bargaining gimmicks, your attempt to hold up negotiations with ludicrous bargaining proposals also strongly suggests that you're not serious about concluding a contract. You are still wasting time with your proposal regarding the expansion of Local 705's jurisdiction to include work being performed by employees who are represented by other Teamster local unions. You know that we cannot agree to this demand, but you continue to say that it is one of your most important items. Even if you were serious about this proposal, you have not made any attempt to work these issues out with the International, the Joint Council, or any other Teamster local unions. You also continue to insist C unlawfully we believe C on the inclusion of parties to the agreement that are not part of these negotiations or the existing multi-employer unit. Despite our repeated explanations about what companies we represent, you continue to use this false issue to hold up negotiations. There are other examples as well, such as your absurd demand for a one-year contract. We are not aware of any labor agreements C in the freight industry or otherwise C that have a one-year contract, particularly not when the parties have an established relationship. These proposals are just another way for you to play games at the expense of getting an agreement. It's time for the games to end.
You also have done nothing to help us understand what issues are important to the Union in these negotiations. The parties have met 13 times to date, yet remain far from a resolution on the majority of issues. In an effort to keep the negotiations moving, CSMCA-TMI has tentatively agreed to 64 Union proposals, while receiving a tentative agreement on only 1 of our proposals. Even with these tentative agreements, the Union has over 100 proposals remaining on the table. Notably, CSMCA-TMI has made several attempts at comprehensive proposals, only to have them rejected out-of-hand and without discussion. Continuing to refuse substantive negotiations is going to get us nowhere.
CSMCA-TMI will not tolerate your attempt to merely go through the motions in these negotiations. We believe the three options you gave us last week are more of the same C simply going through the motions of some negotiations playbook. For this reason, CSMCA-TMI declines each of your new suggestions. FMCS mediation is premature given the substantive areas the parties have yet to explore. Moreover, the people who make-up both the Employer and Union negotiating committees collectively have hundreds of years of experience in the freight industry in Chicago. We are in an infinitely better position to conclude an agreement fair to all parties than an individual with no knowledge of the industry in Chicago C assuming we can finally begin substantive negotiations. Similarly, CSMCA-TMI is not willing to certify that Employer Proposal #4 is a last-and-final given the lack of ground the parties have covered in these negotiations. Finally, CSMCA-TMI will not continue to provide comprehensive proposals, only to have them rejected without explanation.
As I have explained on numerous occasions, CSMCA-TMI remains dedicated to reaching an agreement in these negotiations. Every day these companies go without a contract puts them and their employees in greater jeopardy because of the risk of business losses and the inability to compete to retain current customers and, hopefully develop new business. There is too much at stake for the companies and your members not to approach these negotiations in good faith and with the attention they deserve.
I look forward to working with you toward the resolution of these issues, and toward more productive negotiations going forward.
Sincerely,
f
Phillip D. Stanoch, Chairman
CSMCA C TMI Negotiating Committee
cc: Jim Roberts, President, TMI
Bob Davidson, VP Labor
CSMCA-TMI Negotiating Committee
Stephen Pozctowski, Secretary/Treasurer IBT Local 705
May 15, 2008 Mike Lass Across the Table Response to TMI Letter Dated May 14, 2008.
1. The Employers' representative is correct in observing that we (the company and the union) have been meeting since March 18t'', through to today for a total of 14 meetings.
2. Like the Employer, the Union is anxious in reach an agreement, and will continue to bargain in good faith toward that end. If as your letter asserts, the employer believes that I, on behalf of the Union, is bargaining in bad faith, then your association has a lawful remedy and recourse should your belief be supportable by the union's acts or conduct at the bargaining table. If, in fact you believe me, as the union's representative engaged in bad faith bargaining, I await TMI's filing an appropriate charge with the labor relations board so I can defend the Union bargaining proposals and bargaining strategies you erroneously believe to be in bad faith.
The Union's demand for "comprehensive proposals covering all items in the entire contract" is based upon the requirements placed upon the Union and the Employer under the National Labor Relations Act, in Section 8(d), when it requires the parties "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party." On behalf of the union I have stated and reiterated our understanding of the act's obligation by making and expecting full comprehensive proposals be exchanged between 705 and TMI.
4. Your complaints, regarding the lack of courtesy shown, by the union, to your proposals, is if fact a measured response, as a part of our rejection of your proposals and lack of counter proposals. The Union has never refused to answer any and all questions TMI representatives have regarding our proposals and counter proposals. It's very apparent that TMI and certain representatives at the table haven't like our responses. I believe that such displeasure is shown because the union has refused to agree to the employer proposals.
Subcommittees - You seem to forget that either at our first or second negotiation's session, I verbally told the TMI committee that the union was not going to engage in any "side bar meeting" or utilize subcommittees when we believed all bargaining can be done with the committee remaining as a whole. TMI or you should not have been surprised by the Union's response at our 13"' meeting when you and TMI had been giving early notice of our position on subcommittees.
Given the Employer's steadfast reluctance to change its proposals from those offered in late March and early April, the union is left with the three options suggested last week. The fact that you have chosen to see and characterize those suggested options "as games
Page 1 of 3
to avoid real bargaining," while no new proposals are forthcoming from the association, truly is a spectacular game of TMI brinkmanship, bordering on the absurd, in its failure to come to grips with the legitimate demands made by the Union on behalf of its members.
7. The union understands why TMI representatives think that our "area of agreement and scope of work" proposals are "ludicrous" in the light of recent history where the represented companies with the aid of cooperative Teamster Locals and elected officials have eroded the 705/TMI bargaining unit membership and work. The issues of "area of agreement and scope of work" are fundamental to a fair collective bargaining agreement. The current absence of such provisions in our expired agreement has allowed the cooperative internal union "jurisdictional" disputes to be instigated by and between certain local unions and with employer business decisions and actions aimed to exploit the union's internal processes, procedures and politics to the determent of Local 705. It has worked well as long as the contract remains silent or has outdated and insufficient language to protect the work covered by the contract. TMI's continuing insistence that it "cannot agree to this (area of agreement and scope of work proposals) only convinces the Union that we are making the right proposal at the right time. The issues of "area of agreement and scope of work" are precisely the terms that can only have contract weight and are enforceable when mutually agree and put into a ratified and executed agreement. The IBT, Joint Council 25 or any other Teamster Local Union is not a party to nor will be a party to the TMI/705 Joint Area Agreement and once the "area of agreement and scope of work" are agreed the Union and TMI will defend the work provided and protected by such agreement.
8. Your letter continues to make reference to what TMI believes to be an "unlawful"
position regarding the scope and/or make up of the TMI/705 bargaining unit. The Union has a good faith belief that neither TMI nor any past or present association member can, without the union's express agreement or labor board decision and order, change the bargaining unit created under the expired 705/TMI agreement into the successor agreement.
9. The reference to the Union's one year CBA proposal is not accurate and our one year wage and benefit proposal was explained during our initial few meeting. The Union's proposal document shows and represents what the Union's bargaining position is; we want the best first day, month, year contract that we (the Union and Employer) can agree to and then ask what is it worth to the employers for the union to wave the right to bargain annually, in favor of a multiple year deal. The union's proposal has no expiration date proposed, only an effective date, and each table for wages and benefits are constructed to be filled in with wage and benefit rates for up to five years, thereby showing that the union is not adverse to a multiple year deal.
Page 2 of 3
10. Like TMI the Union is frustrated with the slow pace in reaching an agreement. The Union, while rejecting the recent employer proposals, with little or no comment, has lead the way by making immediate counter proposal to those made by the employer. The absence of comment and counter proposal by the union is born out of its position that we are not going to bargain against our own position when the employer has made no change in its positions take in late March and early April.
11. TMI's reject of mediation is wholly understandable by the union and we tacitly agree that mediation may be premature, if ever needed, but given the lack of substantive written counter proposals and continued posturing by the employers' representatives mediation may have been a means to use to get to our mutually desired end.
12. Likewise the Union can understand why TMI wouldn't risk allowing the union to vote on the employer's #4 proposal and economic package in a last best and final offer.
13. The Union is most disappointed in TMI's decision to not continue to provide comprehensive proposals. Piecemeal bargaining will take even longer.
14. The Union understands and shares the concerns the employers have regarding potential loss of business. But the union has also lost business (work and members) under the previous agreement and the membership demands return of lost work and protect from further membership erosion and guarantees to grow with the growth of the employers' businesses.
Note:
The 64 TA'd proposals they are talking about were language clean up and things that there was no change as it was staying the same as the current contract language.
**WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS,
Everything they have accused the union of is EXACTLY what has been their behavior.
And has NOT been what has actually happened.
They are so full of sh-t they believe their own lies**
After this exchange, Lass told them,
"Call us when you want to talk"
Then in All their brilliance they said,"
Call us when you want to talk",
then they got up and left in a huff.
Makes it easy to understand why it is taking so long!
You can find this dialog and all other documents relating to the 705 contract negotiations @
Welcome to Local 705's Web Site
566 El Dorado Street Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 792-9621 Fax: (626) 792-9628
May 14, 2008
VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Michael A. Lass
Union Representative
Teamsters Local Union No. 705 1645 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60612
Dear Mr. Lass:
Given the direction our negotiations took last week, I thought it might be useful to summarize the status of our contract talks and our view of them. We have been at this for a while, and it is becoming more apparent every day that you are more interested in pursuing various bargaining tactics than you are about bargaining a contract. If we are going to reach an agreement, you are going to have to negotiate in good faith, which means actually talking about proposals and issues and getting serious about what is important and what is not.
From the outset, you have tried every possible roadblock to avoid discussing bargaining proposals. You have demanded that our proposals across the bargaining table be in the form of comprehensive proposals covering all items in the entire contract. Although we attempted to cooperate with this bargaining approach, you did not pay us the courtesy of giving us time to explain our proposals because you said you had already read and rejected them. In light of the lack of progress, we suggested last week establishing various bargaining subcommittees that might facilitate discussions on certain topics in smaller groups. After initially indicating some openness to the idea, you rejected it. Instead, rather than explain why you would not agree to subcommittees, you gave CSMCA-TMI the choice of one of three options: (1) FMCS mediation; (2) a certification that Employer Proposal #4, and the employer monetary proposal of March 29, 2008 together are a so-called "last-and-final" offer; or (3) a new comprehensive proposal. These are games to avoid real bargaining, and they have to stop.
In addition to your ridiculous bargaining gimmicks, your attempt to hold up negotiations with ludicrous bargaining proposals also strongly suggests that you're not serious about concluding a contract. You are still wasting time with your proposal regarding the expansion of Local 705's jurisdiction to include work being performed by employees who are represented by other Teamster local unions. You know that we cannot agree to this demand, but you continue to say that it is one of your most important items. Even if you were serious about this proposal, you have not made any attempt to work these issues out with the International, the Joint Council, or any other Teamster local unions. You also continue to insist C unlawfully we believe C on the inclusion of parties to the agreement that are not part of these negotiations or the existing multi-employer unit. Despite our repeated explanations about what companies we represent, you continue to use this false issue to hold up negotiations. There are other examples as well, such as your absurd demand for a one-year contract. We are not aware of any labor agreements C in the freight industry or otherwise C that have a one-year contract, particularly not when the parties have an established relationship. These proposals are just another way for you to play games at the expense of getting an agreement. It's time for the games to end.
You also have done nothing to help us understand what issues are important to the Union in these negotiations. The parties have met 13 times to date, yet remain far from a resolution on the majority of issues. In an effort to keep the negotiations moving, CSMCA-TMI has tentatively agreed to 64 Union proposals, while receiving a tentative agreement on only 1 of our proposals. Even with these tentative agreements, the Union has over 100 proposals remaining on the table. Notably, CSMCA-TMI has made several attempts at comprehensive proposals, only to have them rejected out-of-hand and without discussion. Continuing to refuse substantive negotiations is going to get us nowhere.
CSMCA-TMI will not tolerate your attempt to merely go through the motions in these negotiations. We believe the three options you gave us last week are more of the same C simply going through the motions of some negotiations playbook. For this reason, CSMCA-TMI declines each of your new suggestions. FMCS mediation is premature given the substantive areas the parties have yet to explore. Moreover, the people who make-up both the Employer and Union negotiating committees collectively have hundreds of years of experience in the freight industry in Chicago. We are in an infinitely better position to conclude an agreement fair to all parties than an individual with no knowledge of the industry in Chicago C assuming we can finally begin substantive negotiations. Similarly, CSMCA-TMI is not willing to certify that Employer Proposal #4 is a last-and-final given the lack of ground the parties have covered in these negotiations. Finally, CSMCA-TMI will not continue to provide comprehensive proposals, only to have them rejected without explanation.
As I have explained on numerous occasions, CSMCA-TMI remains dedicated to reaching an agreement in these negotiations. Every day these companies go without a contract puts them and their employees in greater jeopardy because of the risk of business losses and the inability to compete to retain current customers and, hopefully develop new business. There is too much at stake for the companies and your members not to approach these negotiations in good faith and with the attention they deserve.
I look forward to working with you toward the resolution of these issues, and toward more productive negotiations going forward.
Sincerely,
f
Phillip D. Stanoch, Chairman
CSMCA C TMI Negotiating Committee
cc: Jim Roberts, President, TMI
Bob Davidson, VP Labor
CSMCA-TMI Negotiating Committee
Stephen Pozctowski, Secretary/Treasurer IBT Local 705
May 15, 2008 Mike Lass Across the Table Response to TMI Letter Dated May 14, 2008.
1. The Employers' representative is correct in observing that we (the company and the union) have been meeting since March 18t'', through to today for a total of 14 meetings.
2. Like the Employer, the Union is anxious in reach an agreement, and will continue to bargain in good faith toward that end. If as your letter asserts, the employer believes that I, on behalf of the Union, is bargaining in bad faith, then your association has a lawful remedy and recourse should your belief be supportable by the union's acts or conduct at the bargaining table. If, in fact you believe me, as the union's representative engaged in bad faith bargaining, I await TMI's filing an appropriate charge with the labor relations board so I can defend the Union bargaining proposals and bargaining strategies you erroneously believe to be in bad faith.
The Union's demand for "comprehensive proposals covering all items in the entire contract" is based upon the requirements placed upon the Union and the Employer under the National Labor Relations Act, in Section 8(d), when it requires the parties "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party." On behalf of the union I have stated and reiterated our understanding of the act's obligation by making and expecting full comprehensive proposals be exchanged between 705 and TMI.
4. Your complaints, regarding the lack of courtesy shown, by the union, to your proposals, is if fact a measured response, as a part of our rejection of your proposals and lack of counter proposals. The Union has never refused to answer any and all questions TMI representatives have regarding our proposals and counter proposals. It's very apparent that TMI and certain representatives at the table haven't like our responses. I believe that such displeasure is shown because the union has refused to agree to the employer proposals.
Subcommittees - You seem to forget that either at our first or second negotiation's session, I verbally told the TMI committee that the union was not going to engage in any "side bar meeting" or utilize subcommittees when we believed all bargaining can be done with the committee remaining as a whole. TMI or you should not have been surprised by the Union's response at our 13"' meeting when you and TMI had been giving early notice of our position on subcommittees.
Given the Employer's steadfast reluctance to change its proposals from those offered in late March and early April, the union is left with the three options suggested last week. The fact that you have chosen to see and characterize those suggested options "as games
Page 1 of 3
to avoid real bargaining," while no new proposals are forthcoming from the association, truly is a spectacular game of TMI brinkmanship, bordering on the absurd, in its failure to come to grips with the legitimate demands made by the Union on behalf of its members.
7. The union understands why TMI representatives think that our "area of agreement and scope of work" proposals are "ludicrous" in the light of recent history where the represented companies with the aid of cooperative Teamster Locals and elected officials have eroded the 705/TMI bargaining unit membership and work. The issues of "area of agreement and scope of work" are fundamental to a fair collective bargaining agreement. The current absence of such provisions in our expired agreement has allowed the cooperative internal union "jurisdictional" disputes to be instigated by and between certain local unions and with employer business decisions and actions aimed to exploit the union's internal processes, procedures and politics to the determent of Local 705. It has worked well as long as the contract remains silent or has outdated and insufficient language to protect the work covered by the contract. TMI's continuing insistence that it "cannot agree to this (area of agreement and scope of work proposals) only convinces the Union that we are making the right proposal at the right time. The issues of "area of agreement and scope of work" are precisely the terms that can only have contract weight and are enforceable when mutually agree and put into a ratified and executed agreement. The IBT, Joint Council 25 or any other Teamster Local Union is not a party to nor will be a party to the TMI/705 Joint Area Agreement and once the "area of agreement and scope of work" are agreed the Union and TMI will defend the work provided and protected by such agreement.
8. Your letter continues to make reference to what TMI believes to be an "unlawful"
position regarding the scope and/or make up of the TMI/705 bargaining unit. The Union has a good faith belief that neither TMI nor any past or present association member can, without the union's express agreement or labor board decision and order, change the bargaining unit created under the expired 705/TMI agreement into the successor agreement.
9. The reference to the Union's one year CBA proposal is not accurate and our one year wage and benefit proposal was explained during our initial few meeting. The Union's proposal document shows and represents what the Union's bargaining position is; we want the best first day, month, year contract that we (the Union and Employer) can agree to and then ask what is it worth to the employers for the union to wave the right to bargain annually, in favor of a multiple year deal. The union's proposal has no expiration date proposed, only an effective date, and each table for wages and benefits are constructed to be filled in with wage and benefit rates for up to five years, thereby showing that the union is not adverse to a multiple year deal.
Page 2 of 3
10. Like TMI the Union is frustrated with the slow pace in reaching an agreement. The Union, while rejecting the recent employer proposals, with little or no comment, has lead the way by making immediate counter proposal to those made by the employer. The absence of comment and counter proposal by the union is born out of its position that we are not going to bargain against our own position when the employer has made no change in its positions take in late March and early April.
11. TMI's reject of mediation is wholly understandable by the union and we tacitly agree that mediation may be premature, if ever needed, but given the lack of substantive written counter proposals and continued posturing by the employers' representatives mediation may have been a means to use to get to our mutually desired end.
12. Likewise the Union can understand why TMI wouldn't risk allowing the union to vote on the employer's #4 proposal and economic package in a last best and final offer.
13. The Union is most disappointed in TMI's decision to not continue to provide comprehensive proposals. Piecemeal bargaining will take even longer.
14. The Union understands and shares the concerns the employers have regarding potential loss of business. But the union has also lost business (work and members) under the previous agreement and the membership demands return of lost work and protect from further membership erosion and guarantees to grow with the growth of the employers' businesses.
Note:
The 64 TA'd proposals they are talking about were language clean up and things that there was no change as it was staying the same as the current contract language.
**WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS,
Everything they have accused the union of is EXACTLY what has been their behavior.
And has NOT been what has actually happened.
They are so full of sh-t they believe their own lies**
After this exchange, Lass told them,
"Call us when you want to talk"
Then in All their brilliance they said,"
Call us when you want to talk",
then they got up and left in a huff.
Makes it easy to understand why it is taking so long!
You can find this dialog and all other documents relating to the 705 contract negotiations @
Welcome to Local 705's Web Site
