TForce | The strike call, was the end for yellow freight
- Thread starter No port
- Start date
Steward of the Rock
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 728
That, and failure to pay their contractual Health&Welfare, and wanting to re-open the current contract while the Teamsters were in the middle of working on three other contracts, and a leader (Hawkins) trying to turn the membership against the Teamsters by claiming he offered the Teamsters $11.00 an hour over five years when they could not even pay their H&W obligations. Oh yeah, and then the Teamsters said OK to re-opening the contract if the $11.00 an hour offer was still there and Hawkins trying to lower it proving he was just throwing sh*t against the wall to see what would stick. And, let’s not forget about the $137-Million lawsuit filed by Hawkins.
Obviously, there was much, much more to this failure than a COO that was denied by the Teamsters!!!
Of course, there were many factors involved, there are many dirty hands in this whole fiasco. Doesn't change the fact that it could have been avoided. Too many things (raises, etc.) depended on other things (successful re-financing, etc.) which depended on still other things (restructuring operations, efficiency improvements, etc.). A whole ball of interconnected issues that fell apart.
The teamsters will never be a force in ltl trucking again. If it weren't for ups buying overnite and trading a pension buyout for card check neutrality, there would only be one company left from the NMFA. In 1980 there where 500,000 teamsters employed in the LTL business. 43 years later 16,000.
- Credits
- 249
Just as they want it.
For the life of me I can't figure out why that would be? That is almost half a billion in dues every year lost.
Steward of the Rock
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 728
Would the COO being approved have kept Yellow from being short of the funds needed to pay the $50-Million they were behind in H&W contributions? I know that there is no way to give a definite yes or no answer to this, but it seems to me the answer would most likely have been no. The cost of implementing that COO would most likely have made Yellow short of the funds needed to keep the H&W contributions current.
Then, Yellow would have been in the middle of a COO and trying to figure out where to get the funds to keep the H&W current to avoid a potential Strike. Unfortunately for 30,000 hard working employees, Zollars bit off more than he could chew back in the day and put Yellow, Roadway, Holland, New Penn, and Reddaway on very unstable ground!!!
slipperysleuth
Tornadicthermalcyclogenesis, sorta..
- Credits
- 105
When American carriers and Smith transfer merged they killed Two union truck lines with one lawyer and one judge! When Advance Transport and ANR merged same thing kill two union carriers with one lawyer and one judge but like I said.. these SOB’s getting smarter today they killed 6 (six) union carriers with one lawyer and one judge AND cleared out the system! Whad a Con treee!!!
Sorry just stating facts don’t care if anyone gets pissed just saying ya’ll wake the F up!
Over the years I worked at 16 different Teamster ltl trucking companies, a few with seniority and the others as a casual, both P&D and road. Only one of them, ABF, is still around. All the others that closed down (except for one) did so after I had left. Yellow is the first one that shut down while I was still actively there. Although it saddened me every time one closed, the Yellow closing stings the most because of that.
As I said too many issues were interconnected and dependent on each other. If Yellow could have shown some Union agreement to the efficiency changes they wanted they could have met the requirements put forth by the banks for refinancing the loans and getting a cash infusion which would have let them pay the outstanding H&W charges. It was like a domino effect, no efficiency improvements allowed, no getting refinancing, no more company. That was the immediate, urgent issue, not what Zollars did in the past. When you're drowning you need a life preserver not a lecture on who invented life preservers.
The short answer is......wrong question! Would Yellow have saved $50 million dollars a month without union interfere? Would Yellow plans to consolidate terminals have reduced their costs by $50 million dollars a month? And that $50 million dollars a month would only pay the benefits of their employees. It would not have reduced their debt. So how is Yellow not responsible for the situation they are in?
There is no such thing as a wrong question. There may be a question you don't feel comfortable answering but that doesn't make it a "wrong" question. Also, I never said they weren't responsible for the position they were in. Now go back and answer my original question.
Your saying the answer to Yellow situation was/is to borrow more money? To go further in debt? To have even more loan payments due? And the answer to your original question is NO. And you keep asking the wrong questions because you believe there are no wrong questions. Keep asking those wrong questions and you will never get the correct answer.As I said too many issues were interconnected and dependent on each other. If Yellow could have shown some Union agreement to the efficiency changes they wanted they could have met the requirements put forth by the banks for refinancing the loans and getting a cash infusion which would have let them pay the outstanding H&W charges. It was like a domino effect, no efficiency improvements allowed, no getting refinancing, no more company. That was the immediate, urgent issue, not what Zollars did in the past. When you're drowning you need a life preserver not a lecture on who invented life preservers.
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 !As I said too many issues were interconnected and dependent on each other. If Yellow could have shown some Union agreement to the efficiency changes they wanted they could have met the requirements put forth by the banks for refinancing the loans and getting a cash infusion which would have let them pay the outstanding H&W charges. It was like a domino effect, no efficiency improvements allowed, no getting refinancing, no more company. That was the immediate, urgent issue, not what Zollars did in the past. When you're drowning you need a life preserver not a lecture on who invented life preservers.
Yellow was a sinking ship. The 72 hour strike notification was the final torpedo that sunk them.
- Credits
- 249
We'll never know.
Steward of the Rock
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 728
Allow me to answer that one.
The answer is “Yes”.
Because, as a non-union employer, they would not be required by contract to maintain Pensions, Health&Welfare, Wages or Work Rules.
They would not have to pay out for contract violations via the grievance procedure.
They would not be required to give anyone Union Representation for discipline or investigative inquiries.
And the list goes on and on.
You know as well as anyone that when you work non-union, you are an “At-Will-Employee”!!!
So, as a 51-year Teamster, I hope you are not insinuating that the Yellow employees would have been better off working for a non-union employer!!!
I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a hypothetical question. Why do you say "I'm saying" when I'm asking?
As far as your last two sentences, do you even understand what you're saying there? You make absolutely no sense. There are no wrong questions, get over yourself. If you can't or choose not to answer that's on you.
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.