I’m lost here, maybe you can clarify...
Was the teamster official not addressing the union members?? In this case, he would be speaking on behalf of the company in relaying what transpired during negotiations. Surely a “company official” would not address the union, that’s the union official’s job.
Duh...because the “most significant leverage” has already ratified their contract, they’re no longer in play. The plan was for both to vote NO but the lack of participation from parcel left freight holding the bag...kinda like that big tsunami did to CLT during our campaign!!
Agreed, the union is only as strong as its members and their elected leaders...and this is also why I’m not a fan of unions. Most members want to control their respective companies but yet they can’t even exercise the simplest of duties which is casting a vote!!
Kind of ironic that you've become supportive on IBT leadership/tactics, while I've taken a more critical position. Meanwhile You are "not a fan of unions", while I appreciate the value of strong (
private sector) Unions.
On to your comments. Yes He was speaking to the membership, but rather than merely share what the Company said (their stated position), he spoke in absolutes, "declaring" they will not or cannot budge. Again:
Taylor declared that UPS would not accept any fundamental changes to the agreement because there is “no more money to be had.” Taylor has no way to be certain, or that the Company's stated position is true, or just posturing. Sharing the stated position is expected, but (in essence) campaigning for acceptance of the other side's position is not.
In negotiations I expect MY position to be pushed, NOT the other side's position. Imagine if your Real Estate agent came back with some nonsense like that.
Also, just because the package side has their contract (whether they like it or not), that does not mean they can't assist the "freight side".
Two things should NOT be done in negotiation.
Never show your all of your cards at he negotiation table, and
never back your opponent into a corner. The IBT seems to have done both, and even worse (in this case),
backing their own members into a corner.
"The statement by Taylor warns that this agreement is the “last, best and final offer,” and claims if workers vote “no” there “will be a strike at a time and location(s) determined by the negotiating committee."
Poor negotiation tactics, motivation that is suspect, or both? Worth noting, UPSF members participated at a 66% level, THIS TIME. Seems "the establishment" does not approve of what the members said. Sounds ironically familiar.