What's new

TForce | The strike call, was the end for yellow freight

Abfhammer said:
Did you ever hear of the boy who cried wolf ? Yellow has been telling the Teamsters they were drowning for the last 15 years and were thrown billions in life preservers by these hard working Teamsters. Maybe the last time they yelled help, it fell on deaf ears !
Click to expand...
Was there ever a negotiated decision that was put to a vote by the Yellow employees to see if they chose to keep their jobs going?
 
Triplex said:
Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth? I never said that at all. Good grief, I simply asked a question to prod some thinking. Are you so intimidaded by the answer that you skirt around with your insinuations that I'm saying something I never said? Come on, I think I know you better than that.
Click to expand...
Ok, maybe I was little harsh with that one, and I apologize. I was not trying to put words in your mouth.
The answer to your question would have been “Yes”.
We all know that non-union companies can change their direction at will and are able to adjust more quickly because there is no contract language to abide by. They can also reduce wages and benefits if needed and simply let employees go instead of layoff’s with return rights (seniority).
But, if Hawkins had handled this properly, he would have made his request to re-open the contract before the Teamsters were knee deep in negotiations with T-Force and ABF.
 
Triplex said:
Was there ever a negotiated decision that was put to a vote by the Yellow employees to see if they chose to keep their jobs going?
Click to expand...
In a dire situation you should put your best offer out there....not we will give you a dime....maybe.....if the banks allow it...maybe the funds will forgoe a 40 cent raise....maybe.....that is the reason for no negotiations.....Yellows offer of $11 was probably BS, but if it wasn't Hawkins should have led with that rather than a dime...
 
Steward of the Rock said:
Ok, maybe I was little harsh with that one, and I apologize. I was not trying to put words in your mouth.
The answer to your question would have been “Yes”.
We all know that non-union companies can change their direction at will and are able to adjust more quickly because there is no contract language to abide by. They can also reduce wages and benefits if needed and simply let employees go instead of layoff’s with return rights (seniority).
But, if Hawkins had handled this properly, he would have made his request to re-open the contract before the Teamsters were knee deep in negotiations with T-Force and ABF.
Click to expand...
ABF381 said:
In a dire situation you should put your best offer out there....not we will give you a dime....maybe.....if the banks allow it...maybe the funds will forgoe a 40 cent raise....maybe.....that is the reason for no negotiations.....Yellows offer of $11 was probably BS, but if it wasn't Hawkins should have led with that rather than a dime...
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Hawkins and Yellow didn't handle things badly, I feel there's plenty of blame to go around. My primary goal, if I can call it that, is to not lose jobs for 30,000 good people who didn't deserve this. That's my primary focus regardless of company or Union. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

PS - Thanks SOR, all good. :1036316054:
 
Triplex said:
I'm not saying Hawkins and Yellow didn't handle things badly, I feel there's plenty of blame to go around. My primary goal, if I can call it that, is to not lose jobs for 30,000 good people who didn't deserve this. That's my primary focus regardless of company or Union. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.
Click to expand...
Hey I get it brother, and I didn't want to see it either...both sides could have handled it better, but I still lay it more on Yellow...
 
Triplex said:
I'm not saying Hawkins and Yellow didn't handle things badly, I feel there's plenty of blame to go around. My primary goal, if I can call it that, is to not lose jobs for 30,000 good people who didn't deserve this. That's my primary focus regardless of company or Union. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

PS - Thanks SOR, all good. :1036316054:
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, and I absolutely hate that the Yellow employees are losing their jobs at no fault of their own.
But, at some point, the cuts and give-backs have got to stop.
And Hawkins stunt about crying poor and not paying the H&W requirements and pretty much in the same breath offering $11.00 an hour, and then trying to negotiate for less was just too much in my book.
But, then again, I am not a Yellow employee. So my thoughts are pretty much meaningless in this situation!!!
 
Triplex said:
You think? OK, here's a hypothetical question for you. Let's pretend for a moment that Yellow was non-union and they were allowed to make the changes they wanted without Union interference. Would they still be operating and possibly doing so even more efficiently? Something to think about?
Click to expand...
Regardless of the outcome, the employees should have had a say in their fate. JMO
 
SuperCourse said:
March

14829.jpeg
Click to expand...
Do you, or Triplex, or anybody else know if Yellow (Hawkins) ever served a request to the Teamsters per Article 39, Section 2. to re-open and renegotiate the contract language needed for the change of work rules Yellow was wanting?
Not the COO’s itself, but the change in contract language needed to allow Road Drivers to “work the dock”. Without the Article 39 request, the COO’s itself would not contractually allow this change in work rules and would therefore be in violation of the contract.
At least that is my understanding!!!
 
Steward of the Rock said:
Do you, or Triplex, or anybody else know if Yellow (Hawkins) ever served a request to the Teamsters per Article 39, Section 2. to re-open and renegotiate the contract language needed for the change of work rules Yellow was wanting?
Not the COO’s itself, but the change in contract language needed to allow Road Drivers to “work the dock”. Without the Article 39 request, the COO’s itself would not contractually allow this change in work rules and would therefore be in violation of the contract.
At least that is my understanding!!!
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know SOR. :idunno:
 
Triplex said:
I honestly don't know SOR. :idunno:
Click to expand...
That in itself may well be one of the reasons that the Teamsters denied the proposed Change of Operations. To my knowledge, a COO addresses the issue of seniority, moving expenses, training programs (Dock to City), and Layoff (Seniority Roster). Article 8, Section 6. mentions nothing about changing work rules within a classification that I know of. That is why I was asking if the Article 39 request had been submitted to the Teamsters by Yellow.
 
Steward of the Rock said:
Do you, or Triplex, or anybody else know if Yellow (Hawkins) ever served a request to the Teamsters per Article 39, Section 2. to re-open and renegotiate the contract language needed for the change of work rules Yellow was wanting?
Not the COO’s itself, but the change in contract language needed to allow Road Drivers to “work the dock”. Without the Article 39 request, the COO’s itself would not contractually allow this change in work rules and would therefore be in violation of the contract.
At least that is my understanding!!!
Click to expand...

No. How could we. The union communicated nothing to the membership in July. The only reason we found out about the $11 offer was because the company made it public 2 weeks later.
 
SuperCourse said:
No. How could we. The union communicated nothing to the membership in July. The only reason we found out about the $11 offer was because the company made it public 2 weeks later.
Click to expand...
The Union did three zoom calls with membership in July to update us on what was going on. The company had every manager read a statement that included the $11 an hr offer to employees and then rejected THEIR OWN offer at the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top