What's new

the contract #8

deanx said:
how hard is it to understand that people don't want to lose seniority on the dock and don't want the companies health care plan. all you have to understand is that going backwards in contracts is never going to be allowed.
Click to expand...

Concessions would not be all that unreasonable expectation if the company were to share financial books with the union to prove they were necessary. Not the case here, cash everywhere except employee pocketbooks that is why it was taken to the street.
 
deanx said:
how hard is it to understand that people don't want to lose seniority on the dock and don't want the companies health care plan. all you have to understand is that going backwards in contracts is never going to be allowed.
Click to expand...

The information about the sick pay is innacurate. I know because I live under the new plan. How can I believe that the other things you stated are accurate? Authoritative information is all I ask.
 
silvertooth said:
Drive up to the Auburn tent, it is in there. We approve a strike vote and then leave it up to Teamster leadership that we elect, to make a decision based on what they know we expect. For the Teamsters to call a strike recklessly would serve nobody's purpose, the local's strike funds are getting tapped hard by this and the Intl. is also shelling out strike pay as well. We cannot agree to a substandard Teamster contract in freight, or we will drag our standards down industry wide, a company that is cash heavy like Oak Harbor should not expect concessions. It's called union busting, and I hope the Labor Boards sees it for what it is.
Click to expand...

To call a strike could benefit IBT even if it's not in the best interest of its members. You may not want to believe that but it is possible, even likely.
 
Please explain how it would be beneficial to the IBT. Facts are that the locals and IBT are draining their strike fund while not getting union dues. So please enlighten me because I don't see how it could benefit the IBT.
 
teamster in wa said:
Please explain how it would be beneficial to the IBT. Facts are that the locals and IBT are draining their strike fund while not getting union dues. So please enlighten me because I don't see how it could benefit the IBT.
Click to expand...

If IBT has a proposal that gives Teamster members the opportunity to opt out of Teamster benefits if favor of company benefits, even if the proposal could be acceptable to members, a precedent would be set that other represented companies could follow. That could be devastating to IBT. They know that they would be better off to sacrafice their represented members and 'kill' the company than to accept such a proposal. That is why I would like so much to see that represented employees know for certain what, exactly, they are striking for.
I hope you all can see where I'm coming from. I never inteded any animosity or any kind of debate. I am only here seeking information.

This, by the way, is only one of many possible scenarios.
 
I believe the Teamsters already have members that belong to company health plans. But not in freight, you are correct in that it is all about maintaining standards industry wide and other companies have gone out for the same reasons. It doesn't sound particularly selfish on the part of the IBT to me, we have to improve conditions, we cannot go backwards with a company that is raking in the cash. You are absolutely correct though, it had not occurred to me that this was not obvious to everyone.
 
At a different company, we had the Teamster medical lost it in one contract to the company medical. They jacked the amount up so much every year and the coverage was much lower than the Teamster coverage. We fought to get the Teamster coverage back the next contract. Thankfully we were able to get it back. There is no perfect contract by no means and it is a give and take on both sides I understand that. Holding on to what you have is also just as important.
 
concerned employee said:
Just asking. Do you vote in elections (state ,county, federal) ?
Majority rules in a democracy.
Click to expand...

You are correct, majority does rule in a democracy but you might want to talk to Al about why majority does NOT rule in a democracy. :)

concerned employee said:
Perhaps you are a person that violates laws because you don't agree. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes I do. I speed every chance I get and have the tickets to prove it. :)


concerned employee said:
ways for you to learn about honor loyalty brotherhood dignity etc. Please go to the library and read what unions have done for you .
Click to expand...
Would that be about how Hoffa was convicted of jury tampering in 1963, IBT President Roy Williams was convicted of bribing a U.S. senator in 1982, and President Jackie Presser was indicted for embezzling union funds, and Carey participated in a plan to funnel dues money into his 1996 reelection campaign.

I realize that different unions throughout the history of the world did a LOT of good for the working people. Would the wages and benefits be where it is if we did not have unions, probably not, but there comes a time when things change and world moves on. I would have a lot more respect for IBT if they were a true volunteer organization. People that negotiate contract were the people that actually work for the company. IBT would provide any help, legal or otherwise. Like I said, unions have done a LOT of great work but maybe, just maybe, it has run it's course, just a thought.
 
Just asking
You seem very well versed in the history of the Teamsters. Could you give me a list of corporate execs indicted for corruption over the same time period. We the tax payers just bailed out a bunch of greedy creeps who I
guarantee walked away with more money than your aforementioned few. AIG AND Enron !!! A worse betrayal at the expense of tens of thousands of citizens ! I thought you were mgt. But now maybe labor attorney . I know no name calling right . Labor consultants are the only parasites making any money at Oak at this time.
 
concerned employee;

Just off hand, over the term of the last 50 years, I can't think of a single head of a corporation that was predominately organized by the Teamsters who was criminally indicted. During that same period of time, though, - with the exception of the current one, who's term hasn't passed yet - hasn't EVERY Teamsters head been at LEAST "indicted"....and a large percentage of 'em actually convicted?

Sorry, but don't think you're going to make much headway comparing apples to oranges. "Yes", there have been some corporations which have had their officers indicted and convicted. But no where in corporate history has there been a sequence of executives officers over such an extensive period of time who have brought upon themselves such a fate as the Teamsters have.

It's not a case of a one-time "betrayal" with the Teamsters, but rather example after example, time after time of corruption and criminality.

There's a reason the Teamsters are associated in the public eye with corruption and malfeasance; it's a reputation that history has deservedly handed to them. And the fact that the union continues to hero-worship those criminals that infested its past - such as J.R. Hoffa - means that association is, unfortunately, going to have some long legs.
 
Wilbur
Thanks for the info I am sure you know your stuff. I was
just saying that corporate America can not necessarily be trusted to always do what is best for the workers I did not
indicate Teamster representation as part of the criteria.Who knows Oak Harbor might be the exception if the unfair labor charges stick.
 
concerned employee;

Your point is taken; sorry if I went overboard.

As for the ULP charges, even if upheld, they don't indicate criminality....and such charges today are more and more seen simply as a device used by unions to stay the hiring of permanent replacement workers without having any real credibility in and of themselves. Do companies "stretch" the law sometimes? Sure...but mostly in minor, accidental ways; for the most part they're much too savvy to deliberately set themselves up for trouble. I'm not so sure the same thing can be said about unions and a large number of their members. For example, take the "assault" topic brought out on this forum. From what I've read, the trucker stopped before proceeding for a picketer who was standing in place....apparently with the intention of impeding ingress. The pickter knew - or at least SHOULD have known - that attempting to block ingress or egress is illegal and that it was, in and of itself, an "ULP" as well...and a matter of criminality to boot. In a world with a level playing field, the union (and the individual involved) would be charged and held accountable for such an "unfair labor practice"...but is it likely they will be? I doubt it.

Union members tend to forget the HUGE amount of "slack" they're presented with, simply because they're considered to be less intelligent (as in "informed") and as having fewer resources; i.e. - the law is biased in organized labor's favor, and they're given the benefit of the "handicap". And, unfortunately, all too many authorities who sway to the political winds when it comes to their obligation to uphold the law tend to forget it as well. When called upon to adhere to even the biased law they swore to uphold, they often chicken-out. (remember the mention by someone that supposedly the police told the picketers they could block traffic for three minutes or whatever? If true, what chance is there that the police officers will be held accountable for such actions)

Sorry to use your post as an object to "preach" on...that probably *IS* unfair! Like I said, your original point is well-taken.
 
Are you saying because a person was illegally blocking your entrance to a property you are allowed to run them over with a truck?:hide:
 
ryerke said:
None of this is really definitive. I would have like to see something directy from the proposal from OHFL and the demands from IBT. I would also think that if nobody can answer authoritatively, you would not have enough information to make an informed decision to strike.
Click to expand...

you sir are not ever a member of the bargaining unit so why is it even important for you to see the last piece of garbage the call a proposal yes i have seen it its been three weeks since we have been on strike and i would have authorized a strike again you can always join up with us for this fight or butt out but believe me you will feel the same hardships as us if this deal goes south the union wich is us the members have the same views as the ibt and that is to secure the health care or our retirees as becuase some day we hope to retire as well and WE DESERVE to have affordable health care provided to us from the company we have helped make rich I know that you are ignorant to this stand that we have taken on these issues we have had all the information we needed to make this decision from both the union side and the:butt kiss: company side i have seen a lot of your post on here and if you cant read all the post on here about what has been going on for this last year than butt out we are doing something that should have been done on the last contract
 
TheBigR;

Question you need to ask yourself in that regard is "what was the precipitous action?" Are you "allowed" to? No....but first the picketer wasn't allowed to block ingress; i.e. - he precipitated the action. And the primary responsibility resides with the party that initially broke the law. And "yes", I think a good case could be made that the person who illegally blocked the truck with his body could be held liable for any damage caused to the truck or the driver.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that a individual who tried to block ingress on a rail entrance to a plant (and was run over and had his legs cut off as a result by a locomotive) was successfully sued by the locomotive engineer who ran over him for emotional stress? A good case, I think, could be made here for the same. If an individual is stupid enough to illegally attempt to block the ingress of a truck with his body, then he should have a reasonable expectation of being run over; simple as that. 'Course, if he thinks he can run over the truck with his body instead, I guess that's his prerogative.

In any case, what I was getting act is that, no matter how they may wish it were so, Teamsters in such situations are NOT above the law and the can NOT always depend on other parties to be responsible while they're not. Teamsters aren't - or at least shouldn't be - above having at least a BIT of common sense of their own; society is rather tired of giving them a "bye" in that regard.

Obviously, however, not all Teamsters feel that way.
 
I'm just trying to see if Iam getting this right. I am sure you have all encounted someone crossing the road n traffic against the light which is illegal and that gives me the right to just run them over?
 
Wilbur are you saying that you think that the Pasco Police Dept. was biased when they wrote the ticket to the driver and not the picketer. She was not stopped in front of the truck she was picketing meaning walking back and forth. When you are in a parking lot and you walk in front of an upcoming car do you expect that they are going to pull right up to you, or do you run thinking they are going to hit you? Not really that much different only thing is she was holding a sign when she walked in front of the truck. I wonder what he was thinking when he first stopped then laughed and lunged towards her pushing her.
 
teamster in wash;

I can only point to the Teamsters *OWN* press release, dated Oct. 2nd., which reads as follows:

"Eydie Dean, a business agent for Local 117 in Tukwila, was walking the picket line when a truck driven by a replacement worker pulled into the Oak Harbor Freight facility in Pasco. Teamster officials are concerned about numerous safety issues surrounding replacement drivers. Some of the incidents have been captured on video and posted on YouTube. Links to the videos are provided below.

"I was ****STANDING**** [my emphasis added] on the picket line with my sign way up high and the driver could see it," Dean said. "He pulled forward and I said stop and he just laughed and kept going, pushing me about three feet."

Note that the picketer stated his/herself that he/she was STANDING (his/her word); not "walking" and allowing ingress. In fact, by his/her own admission, he/she specifically commanded the driver to "stop"

Meanwhile, it's been claimed by Teamsters (whether here or on other forums) that the police allegedly told them that they were allowed to block incoming/outgoing traffic for (as I recall) up to "three minutes"....but that now the police have backed away from that story. Supposedly the union's lawyers are looking into it, blah, blah, blah....the same tune that's been repeated time after time on picket lines with similar situations.

By the way, the only mention I've seen of the driver being ticketed was in the Teamster release; I haven't seen than mentioned in any independently originated news source; i.e. - I don't know if it's true or not I do know that if the picketers were trying to block ingress (and, after all, the picketer admitted that he commanded the driver to "stop", and additionally several Teamsters have claimed they WERE trying to block ingress) and the driver was ticketed, then the wrong individual received the citation; i.e. - the Teamsters received a "bye" for an illegal activity (nothing real new there, either)

I realize that's a spin on the topic a lot of Teamsters don't like to hear....but there's that side, never-the-less.
 
Wouldn't you think that if the Pasco Police did not cite the driver and it is all over the internet regarding this article, that they would make a correction to this if it were not true? All the times that I have been on any picket line you don't just stand on the line. And I have not witnessed any picketer just blantly just stand in one place holding their sign they may move very slowly in front of them to reach the other side of the picket line. So I will admit her wording is incorrect. If someone asks me what I am doing that day I let them know I am going to go stand out on the picket line that doesn't mean I am going to literally stand in front of them. Stand the line could possible be a striking union worker phrase. Stand walk whatever if she was standing there doesn't mean that gave him the right to do what he did either. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top