What's new

ABF | Teamsters, ABF continue labor negotiations

canaryinthemine said:
So....if you're a "shareholder", I expect you're hoping for a concessionary contract that slashes Labor costs...and whatever you lose in wages as an employee, you hope to make it up in increased profits on your shares as a "shareholder"?
Click to expand...

I'm not a shareholder. But a few I work with are. What a conflict if interest uh?

Your the one that made the claim you would like to hurt them.

ABFer said:
Tell us just how many, please. I would like to know how many of us own that stock.
Click to expand...

Now how would I know that? I just know a few that do own ABF stock.
 
Stoney said:
I'm not a shareholder. But a few I work with are. What a conflict if interest uh?

Your the one that made the claim you would like to hurt them.



Now how would I know that? I just know a few that do own ABF stock.
Click to expand...
You said there were many and with such conviction that I thought that, for once, you actually knew what you were talking about. Well, not really, as usual I knew you were full of it so I called you on the carpet for it. You did not disappoint.
 
At Holland the split is for dock casual's only. You are right about the split eating up overtime on dock.
 
ABFer said:
You said there were many and with such conviction that I thought that, for once, you actually knew what you were talking about. Well, not really, as usual I knew you were full of it so I called you on the carpet for it. You did not disappoint.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point. Your union bro wants to hurt other Teamsters Brothers and you want to play silly game of semantics.

Yes I know a few that own ABF stock, and its not a stretch to say that many ABF Teamsters own ABF stock.

Ggetting blinded by you hate again?

So you believe no Teamsters own ABF stock?
 
What gets me is that Canary feels its ok for him and the union should be morally allowed to look out for our self interest, but if the company or shareholders do, they are being heartless and should be hurt physically for that.
 
Stoney said:
What gets me is that Canary feels its ok for him and the union should be morally allowed to look out for our self interest, but if the company or shareholders do, they are being heartless and should be hurt physically for that.
Click to expand...

Oh Good Grief! Where to begin?......First let me go and put on my rubber skin-diving suit before I start plumbing the depths of Mr. Stoney's "reasoning".......Ahhh....you're not a shareholder? So....you feel that the shareholders and management have your best interests at heart, and are not really concerned with how much profit they'll reap if they can bully us into a wage-cutting, condition-disintegrating, life-changing, cut-rate contract....which ,..of course...and I reiterate in case you missed the point.....they will do so at the expense, and well-being of me, my family, and my fellow employees and their families, et al?....for no other reason other than the selfish proposition that they....and they only...should be rich and healthy and contented, and not the stupid, dummy drivers and dock-workers who actually provide the blood, sweat , and.....yes....tears that make the actual profit for this company? Would that be your rationale for...once again...bowing down and worshiping that Golden Calf of Big Business, and "investing" at the expense of American workers, that you seem so enamoured of?
 
I had made a proposal several years ago that our Pension plan dump, or sell stock of companies that we are on strike against, or don't have good labor relations with their employees. ....Our Stock.....in Our Pension Funds. Wall Street Journal had several editorials when CALPERS, the largest Union pension fund in the world started doing just that. The editorials in the Wall Street Journal said that "Unions should not be allowed to do "social engineering" with stock they owned."......Let me repeat that..."...."With stock they(the Unions) owned". Wall Street and the "investors" came down firmly on the side of Profits without Morals or Standards. In other words, they think that Unions should put their Morals and Scruples aside concerning Labor rights and worker dignity....especially when it comes to turning a profit in stocks. Do you see what's wrong with that?....or do you just see dollar signs?
 
Stoney said:
Your missing the point. Your union bro wants to hurt other Teamsters Brothers and you want to play silly game of semantics.

Yes I know a few that own ABF stock, and its not a stretch to say that many ABF Teamsters own ABF stock.

Ggetting blinded by you hate again?

So you believe no Teamsters own ABF stock?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, I just asked you to expand on your claim that many teamsters own it.
 
canaryinthemine said:
Oh Good Grief! Where to begin?......First let me go and put on my rubber skin-diving suit before I start plumbing the depths of Mr. Stoney's "reasoning".......Ahhh....you're not a shareholder? So....you feel that the shareholders and management have your best interests at heart, and are not really concerned with how much profit they'll reap if they can bully us into a wage-cutting, condition-disintegrating, life-changing, cut-rate contract....which ,..of course...and I reiterate in case you missed the point.....they will do so at the expense, and well-being of me, my family, and my fellow employees and their families, et al?....for no other reason other than the selfish proposition that they....and they only...should be rich and healthy and contented, and not the stupid, dummy drivers and dock-workers who actually provide the blood, sweat , and.....yes....tears that make the actual profit for this company? Would that be your rationale for...once again...bowing down and worshiping that Golden Calf of Big Business, and "investing" at the expense of American workers, that you seem so enamoured of?
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure out why he works for a union company when there are so many nons out there to choose from. You know, the ones who's first and only priority is owner/stockholders' best interests. But noooooo he's over here at ABF where we are raking management over the coals for our own, selfish, greedy self being.
 
Stoney said:
What gets me is that Canary feels its ok for him and the union should be morally allowed to look out for our self interest, but if the company or shareholders do, they are being heartless and should be hurt physically for that.
Click to expand...

Soney don't take this personal, but if it is my family or myself getting hurt financially then I vote for the company or stockholder taking the hit. Stockholders, and the company will look after each other, and employees are not their first priorities. I really don't think he wanted to hurt anybody, it was just a expression.
 
Mr. Stoney likes to argue for arguments' sake. He'll just take the polar opposite of an opinion and twist himself into a corner. Obviously, he hasn't given much thought as to what Union membership entails. I would imagine he is a "fair share" dues payer under the Beck rulings, or if he's in a Right-To-Work-For Less State, he probably doesn't pay dues at all.
 
canaryinthemine said:
Ahhh,..yes....like so many other companies....the Shareholder and his "needs" are more important than the employees. The company exists for the Shareholder only. What's more important?....People, or Business? I'm sure most of us.....with a soul...can answer that in one word. When Business either impacts badly on the life of it's employees or it's consumers....then is the Business worth existing? To Hades with the "shareholder" and his never-ending quest for more profits from the comfort of his office by squeezing them out of both the employee and the consumer.....I'd like to squeeze a few shareholders.......right between the front bumper and the ICC bar.....
Click to expand...

canaryinthemine said:
Oh Good Grief! Where to begin?......First let me go and put on my rubber skin-diving suit before I start plumbing the depths of Mr. Stoney's "reasoning".......Ahhh....you're not a shareholder? So....you feel that the shareholders and management have your best interests at heart, and are not really concerned with how much profit they'll reap if they can bully us into a wage-cutting, condition-disintegrating, life-changing, cut-rate contract....which ,..of course...and I reiterate in case you missed the point.....they will do so at the expense, and well-being of me, my family, and my fellow employees and their families, et al?....for no other reason other than the selfish proposition that they....and they only...should be rich and healthy and contented, and not the stupid, dummy drivers and dock-workers who actually provide the blood, sweat , and.....yes....tears that make the actual profit for this company? Would that be your rationale for...once again...bowing down and worshiping that Golden Calf of Big Business, and "investing" at the expense of American workers, that you seem so enamoured of?
Click to expand...

Lets see, you call a company or shareholder who is looking only after their own self interest soulless.
I don't understand why they are soulless but we aren't? Both sides are just fighting for thier own self interest.
It's not ABF's job to care about us. Its their job to make a profit and make the shareholders happy.

And do not put words in my mouth. I never said ABF or the evil soulless shareholders have my best interest in heart. Of course they don't. I don't expect them to.

Man up will ya? Your second post came of nothing but emotional, drama queen garbage.
This is just budiness. Neither side is wrong or greedy.

In fact in todays economy, it would have been stupid for ABF to not ask for concessions. Not saying I want to give it to them. But if I were in their shoes, I would be asking for the same thing.

papajohn said:
Soney don't take this personal, but if it is my family or myself getting hurt financially then I vote for the company or stockholder taking the hit. Stockholders, and the company will look after each other, and employees are not their first priorities. I really don't think he wanted to hurt anybody, it was just a expression.
Click to expand...

I know he was using hyperbole. I know he wouldn't really hurt anyone. That wasn't my point.

My point is he is calling the other side evil and soulless for doing the something we are doing. And that's looking out for their own self interest.

You can take it personal, but I don't.

ABFer said:
I didn't say that, I just asked you to expand on your claim that many teamsters own it.
Click to expand...

Back stepping are we? Just making the simple point that many ABF Teamsters are ABF shareholders. The same shareholders Canary holds so much disdain for.

ABFer said:
I'm still trying to figure out why he works for a union company when there are so many nons out there to choose from. You know, the ones who's first and only priority is owner/stockholders' best interests. But noooooo he's over here at ABF where we are raking management over the coals for our own, selfish, greedy self being.
Click to expand...

Just to bug you.
 
Stoney said:
Back stepping are we? Just making the simple point that many ABF Teamsters are ABF shareholders. The same shareholders Canary holds so much disdain for.
Click to expand...
No backstepping here whatsoever, just pointing out that you are making a "simple point" for which you have no data, no support and no idea what you are talking about. Now that is what I call a 'simple point'.
 
ABFer said:
No backstepping here whatsoever, just pointing out that you are making a "simple point" for which you have no data, no support and no idea what you are talking about. Now that is what I call a 'simple point'.
Click to expand...

Lol, I didn't say I had the data. But apparently you believe no Teamsters own no ABF stock if you need data.
No idea what I'm talking about? So my colleagues are lying to me?
Its called anecdotal evidence.
 
foxman042 said:
dont forget that this works to a drivers advantage sometimes. Say if you fail your physical, you are not out of work at 042. you simply go to the dock side and work the yard and you dont lose your job. At other terminals where there is no crossing over if you fail your physical and cant drive, you are finished at abf. plus there would be guys junior to you working on the dock. or say you go out one night and get a DUI. without a crossover, you are done. with one, you can work the dock. Plus if it gets slow on the road you can take a layoff or go to the dock and work, your choice. guys often complain every year in april when we can cross over that someone either comes in or goes out and bumps them off a job they wanted. Well ive been there 22 years and that has only happened to me 2 times and it was never permanent. one time a driver came in to the dock where I was and took a city run i wanted. He came in cuz he was close to retirement and didnt want to chance getting into a wreck. he retired 4 months later and I got the bid anyway. Theres good and bad with it and I can say in my experience that overall it can be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I understand how it works regarding a road driver losing medical,license or if they get laid off. But if a city driver loses medical,license they get the same advantage too. If in april you choose local side and you can't get a 6 punch in on the dock I don't think it's fair to go run the road. When a road driver sits a couple of days during the week ABF doesn't offer them city or dock work.If ABF wants cross cassification then they should offer it to road drivers too.The road board has been shrinking for years and they are the ones who always get screwed. This is just my opiion.
 
canaryinthemine said:
Conway, in our area , has been doing split-shifts for as long as I remember. They have a guy come in to work the inbound around 7 or 8.... work til about noon...go home for 4 hours,..and then come in to turn Toledo or Columbus. They're told "hell or high water" punch out by midnight. I'm not sure how they're logging it...if they're illegally using "sleeper bunk" during their time home, or what. Or maybe they're just not logging the dock time. That would be a typical non-Union trick, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

i thought they were having trouble hiring guys for the road. this will really bring in the prospects wont it hahaha especially when they will only be paying 15/hour if they get their way...but it seems thats what they want, isnt it? lower wages means lower expectations, lower standards. lower productivity, etc etc..one thing that will be higher right away is HIGHER EMPLOYEE TURNOVER!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top