What's new

ABF | Would you defer your contract raises until December. ABF Only

Would you defer raises until December?

  • YES I WOULD!

    Votes: 18 58.1%

  • NO I WOULD NOT!

    Votes: 13 41.9%
  • Total voters
    31
ABFer said:
The highlight there would be on almost everything he posts and I am not going to go back on his garbage and highlight anything. Certainly not on your command.

I don't waste my time going back and forth with Plunger and Docker does a fine job of it.
Click to expand...

The only garbage is coming from your mouth. You're having a problem with the truth..with reality so you act like a fool:9529:
 
ABFer said:
The highlight there would be on almost everything he posts and I am not going to go back on his garbage and highlight anything. Certainly not on your command.

I don't waste my time going back and forth with Plunger and Docker does a fine job of it.
Click to expand...
It seems Joe was being very specific. Can you address areas of stregnth for the ABF Teamsters as we get ever closer to the start of contract negotiations. Secondly, what position of stregnth or weakness does ABF approach us from.

I am not here has an apologist of Joe. I get neither one of us is very popular in these threads. However, this forum allows us the opportunity to explore different perspectives and back them up with reason and logic. The shouting down (and making everything personal) of brother teamsters because you don't agree with them is a short sided error on those who participate in it.
 
Brother Nothumbleenough, in my opinion....and my opinion only, ...I think we have a position of strength on the basis of demographics. Transport Topics reported about 2 weeks ago that the average age of a truck driver was 45, and the average age of the general labor pool in this country is 40. Doesn't seem like much, does it? But when you factor in the average age of a CDL-A with HAZ-MAT, Doubles-Triples, Tanker, the age goes to 55...which is very close to retirement . In other words, this industry is not creating replacements for CDL-A with all the LTL requirements. As the insurance underwriters that insure trucking companies have lobbied to make many regulatory hoops for drivers to jump through, mainly to place the responsibility for safety squarely on the driver and alleviate liability for the LTL carriers, quite a few drivers are questioning the neccesity of having a Homeland Security check, or Doubles-Triples on their license when there's plenty of work for non-hazardous dry van/flat....in fact, far more work opportunities than most other occupations. Here in the Marcellus Shale fields, if you have a CDL-A...Tanker, no HAZ-MAT, you can work immediatly, urine test taken just before they hand you the keys. No Tanker, no problem...qualify you as quickly as they can. You can quit today and start tomorrow, if you like. So, now...why would any truck driver....not currently having all the required endorsements.......go through all the legal mumbo-jumbo to become an LTL driver on call? Even before the advent of the shale fields, LTL carriers had a problem hiring qualified people, mainly due to the way LTL carriers treat drivers and their reputations....some of them...as being real sonofaguns to work for. Talk to the non-Union LTL drivers, they're having just as hard of a time. Nowadays, that's all I see is 2 people in the cab of a Fed-Ex, or Ward , or Vitran truck....And they don't last. The LTL industry has had an attitude that they were the premier employers......and that was true 20 years ago. It is not true now, but management has not changed their culture of hiring. There is no one coming up through the ranks of trucking to replace us through attrition...there are now other options in trucking rather than LTL that are more palatable to CDL holders. We've all grown up with the increasing stranglehold on our lives with qualifications added to our licenses....imagine a young truck-driving school graduate looking at a Homeland Security/ FBI check every couple of years...and if he didn't test for Doubles-Triples, Tanker in truck driving school,....and most of them don't..... why would he bother to do it now just to break in to LTL? Once again,...in my opinion, the carriers are finally waking up to the fact that us grouchy old, semi-crippled drivers ARE IT! There is no large pool of replacements for us, they can only hope for the occasional disgruntled non-Union experienced LTL man to cover their (increasing) retirements. The LTL industry , for 25 years, relied on bankrupt LTL carriers to supply their manpower. That's gone, now. Any carriers out there have a training program to bring young drivers into LTL? Or are they still waiting for another carrier to go out of business to raid their employee stock? That's the choice ABF has. If they want to remain a viable carrier, they've got to vastly increase their wage/benefit package to make this job...and all the regulatory crap you must go through....attractive to young drivers. .............or shut their doors. Us drivers will be working almost immediatly. Management will find out what "long-term" unemployment means.
 
:6788:

But if he didn't already know that he still won't get it in spite of the fine job you have done of explaining it.

:moon2:
 
Thank you, Sir, for the compliment. Now let's get the 6,999 other ABF Teamsters on the same page and throw down the metaphysical gauntlet....so to speak.
 
All of them I have spoken with (including the brown nosers) are on the same page. Going backwards is not an option.
 
ABFer: What we also have going for us is that the ABF work force is the best in the LTL industry and the company knows this. If we stick together and stay informed we can get a good contract for both sides.
 
I would not consider giving it away without a suitable replacement or trade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
truxforever said:
ABFer: I know some type of help is needed, but it has to be something we can all live with. We can't just give away the house.
Click to expand...
The key word here is "all." Meaning every party. The shareholders of the corporation of ABFS, the current employees of ABF both union and non-union, the retired employees of ABF and last but not least retired Teamsters drawing a pension who never worked a day at ABF.

According to ABF management, they will pay 130 Million into the pension in 2012. Roughly 35%* of that 130 Million goes to cover employees who never worked at ABF. That equates to roughly 45 Million paid to pension of employees who never worked at ABF in 2012. This is illogical and the marketplace where other business who do not have to pay the pensions of employees who never worked for them are getting a substantial advantage in the LTL marketplace. ABF and its corporate board understand this inequity and are working hard behind closed doors to relieve this unfair burden. There are many different factors to play out including the lawsuit, contract negotiation and relief from the PBGC, but ultimately, if relief doesn't come ABF will do just as Thomas Nyhan (Head of CSPF) says and seek insolvency.

note: that 35%* quote from ABF is a very difficult percentage to confirm and I haven't seen anything from the Teamsters to either confirm or deny it. In fact I have seen that number as low as 30% and as high as 40% in other places so I used the midpoint to use in my example.
 
nothumbleenough said:
The key word here is "all." Meaning every party. The shareholders of the corporation of ABFS, the current employees of ABF both union and non-union, the retired employees of ABF and last but not least retired Teamsters drawing a pension who never worked a day at ABF.

ABF and its corporate board understand this inequity and are working hard behind closed doors to relieve this unfair burden. There are many different factors to play out including the lawsuit, contract negotiation and relief from the PBGC, but ultimately, if relief doesn't come ABF will do just as Thomas Nyhan (Head of CSPF) says and seek insolvency.

note: that 35%* quote from ABF is a very difficult percentage to confirm and I haven't seen anything from the Teamsters to either confirm or deny it. In fact I have seen that number as low as 30% and as high as 40% in other places so I used the midpoint to use in my example.
Click to expand...

A couple observations nothumbleenough: What shareholders are you referring to? They have taken a terrible wallop already in the scheme of things. Relief from the PBGC is very unlikely given they are already burdened with huge deficits. I don't see help coming from Washington. Washington does not like the teamsters. CSPF has federal mandated controls in place to preserve the Fund. These federal mandated controls may be the only help CSPF gets. Zollars often complained about the orphans pension. He estimated it to be around 50% and unsustainable. Unsustainable doesn't necessarily mean insolvency since the trustees will be doing what is necessary to preserve the fund. This could be painful for all of us but I'm afraid the terrible chain of events happened on your watch so if any cuts in the pension do happen which I kind of doubt because all the funds have been given 8-10 years to recoup losses so insolvency is unlikely also..future retirees will get slapped around before it reaches retirees
 
Don't forget, Brothers, that 35% orphan figure for retirees who never worked at ABF cuts both ways. I worked for 9 other carriers who were in the multi-employer fund who are no longer here. The money that was paid in for me back then is still.....supposedly...in the pension fund. In other words, about 10 of the (hopefully) 30 years I get out of retirement from ABF were put in by other employers. I don't think the "orphan" argument accurately addresses this angle. Yes, I know the multiplier and amount was lower, but we're still talking a long-term investment that I haven't "cashed in" on yet. So, the way I figure, ABF gets a ten year free ride...or discount...on my thirty year pension. Somehow,....when companies argue "orphan" costs, something just seems a little disingenuous there.
 
nothumbleenough said:
The key word here is "all." Meaning every party. The shareholders of the corporation of ABFS, the current employees of ABF both union and non-union, the retired employees of ABF and last but not least retired Teamsters drawing a pension who never worked a day at ABF.

According to ABF management, they will pay 130 Million into the pension in 2012. Roughly 35%* of that 130 Million goes to cover employees who never worked at ABF. That equates to roughly 45 Million paid to pension of employees who never worked at ABF in 2012. This is illogical and the marketplace where other business who do not have to pay the pensions of employees who never worked for them are getting a substantial advantage in the LTL marketplace. ABF and its corporate board understand this inequity and are working hard behind closed doors to relieve this unfair burden. There are many different factors to play out including the lawsuit, contract negotiation and relief from the PBGC, but ultimately, if relief doesn't come ABF will do just as Thomas Nyhan (Head of CSPF) says and seek insolvency.

note: that 35%* quote from ABF is a very difficult percentage to confirm and I haven't seen anything from the Teamsters to either confirm or deny it. In fact I have seen that number as low as 30% and as high as 40% in other places so I used the midpoint to use in my example.
Click to expand...

Brother Nothumbleenough, contract negotiations can be....and usually are, ..pretty brutal . ABF isn't running a charity, so they won't negotiate anything they can't afford. Conversly, us Teamsters have something they need....in fact, they absolutely need it...our CDLs.. to operate at all. We didn't get hired for our looks and charming personalities. Negotiations start when both sides use the complete leverage of their position. The shareholders, non-Union people, middle management, and retirees really don't have a say-so in the outcome of the negotiations. All they can do is react after the contract is signed. In the case of the shareholders, that might be pretty drastic....a major sell-off maybe. But, in that case....everyone, ...shareholders included....gets hurt. Never let shareholders at the negotiating table. They only negotiate on the immediate value of what it is worth to them at that moment. They never worry about the long-term viability of a company if they can make a quick buck at a negotiation table. That's why you keep them out of negotiations and let them react after the fact. If it's valuable, it's viable. You and I are a commodity. What are you worth to yourself? To ABF? To your families' future? We can't sell ourselves short merely because the company is pleading poverty, you would be doing a disservice to yourself and your family. If we are worth something to ABF....then ABF must be worth something to us. Or......we all move on.
 
Joe the plumber said:
A couple observations nothumbleenough: What shareholders are you referring to? They have taken a terrible wallop already in the scheme of things. Relief from the PBGC is very unlikely given they are already burdened with huge deficits. I don't see help coming from Washington. Washington does not like the teamsters. CSPF has federal mandated controls in place to preserve the Fund. These federal mandated controls may be the only help CSPF gets. Zollars often complained about the orphans pension. He estimated it to be around 50% and unsustainable. Unsustainable doesn't necessarily mean insolvency since the trustees will be doing what is necessary to preserve the fund. This could be painful for all of us but I'm afraid the terrible chain of events happened on your watch so if any cuts in the pension do happen which I kind of doubt because all the funds have been given 8-10 years to recoup losses so insolvency is unlikely also..future retirees will get slapped around before it reaches retirees
Click to expand...

The shareholders refer only to those who own ABF stock. However, the original post was a reference to everyone involved.
The current market capitalization (dollar value of outstanding stock)of ABF's stock is around 210 Million. It was more than double that a year ago. So yes, it has taken a hard tumble, and will most likely fall further the longer this contract negotiation goes on. Certainly the lawsuit is the variable. Doesn't do any good to predict its outcome, but the fairest assessment is that ABF is going to pay lawyers a lot more money to litigate.
I do not agree on the insolvency issue. The trustees cannot manage losing either ABF or YRC as a contributor without substantially cutting current benefits.
 
i wish i was one of ABFs lawyers. They are the ones making a buck off of this lawsuit. You can almost hear some attorney saying "yes Mrs Mcreynolds, I think its an excellent idea to keep refiling this suit. We will appeal, appeal, appeal until your company is made whole!"
Then, back at the law office, he says "I cant believe they bought it AGAIN! Ill be a partner at this rate!"
 
nothumbleenough said:
I do not agree on the insolvency issue. The trustees cannot manage losing either ABF or YRC as a contributor without substantially cutting current benefits.
Click to expand...

The pension may never be what it once was but I doubt there will be an insolvency issue. The union and the members won't allow it. I couldn't say off hand what needs to be done..if in fact the orphan's are the big issue. The funds rely on good stock market returns to make good on promises. If not..the promises may have to be curtailed

until we get a new president​
 
Joe the plumber said:
The pension may never be what it once was but I doubt there will be an insolvency issue. The union and the members won't allow it. I couldn't say off hand what needs to be done..if in fact the orphan's are the big issue. The funds rely on good stock market returns to make good on promises. If not..the promises may have to be curtailed

until we get a new president​
Click to expand...
Joe this a a ABF ONLY thread. If you want to reply go to another thread. This one is for us ABF Teamsters to discuss our up coming contract.
 
nothumbleenough said:
The key word here is "all." Meaning every party. The shareholders of the corporation of ABFS, the current employees of ABF both union and non-union, the retired employees of ABF and last but not least retired Teamsters drawing a pension who never worked a day at ABF.

According to ABF management, they will pay 130 Million into the pension in 2012. Roughly 35%* of that 130 Million goes to cover employees who never worked at ABF. That equates to roughly 45 Million paid to pension of employees who never worked at ABF in 2012. This is illogical and the marketplace where other business who do not have to pay the pensions of employees who never worked for them are getting a substantial advantage in the LTL marketplace. ABF and its corporate board understand this inequity and are working hard behind closed doors to relieve this unfair burden. There are many different factors to play out including the lawsuit, contract negotiation and relief from the PBGC, but ultimately, if relief doesn't come ABF will do just as Thomas Nyhan (Head of CSPF) says and seek insolvency.

note: that 35%* quote from ABF is a very difficult percentage to confirm and I haven't seen anything from the Teamsters to either confirm or deny it. In fact I have seen that number as low as 30% and as high as 40% in other places so I used the midpoint to use in my example.
Click to expand...
I have been gone for a week and you are still spreading your fear post. I have shown where his comment was said prior to the DRASTIC yrc cuts.
Those cuts alone gave ABF and the hundreds of other companies that contribute a break. You still have not said what breaks you think ABF needs. So please tell all of us what you see as what we should give away. As for the so called orphans they paid into the fund for all the years they have been given credit for.
I can't wait to hear your plan. You cry wolf but you never have an answer. Should we just leave CSPF and let them have all our money? Should we take our money and run? Should we just tell our wives that they no longer will have a pension check in the future?
I know, why don't we just give it all back to ABF so they can get BIGGER BONUSES and our families can do without. NO THANKS I EARNED MY PENSION!
If you want to give ABF your money GO AHEAD I won't say a word.
You go by what ABF say's and you will be a broke fool someday. Remember when they came to us for a give back? Well brother while we were voting on a give back they (The Board of Directors) Were voting on a NEW COMPENSATION package for themselves just read the the SEC filing from that meeting. They gave the executives the biggest raise in bonuses in the HISTORY of the company(Up to 100% of their salary). And the biggest factor is CASH FLOW! That's right while we were voting on whether or not to lower our families life style they were upping theirs. You may think I am angry but you would be wrong. They made a business decision and by the GRACE OF GOD we made the right choice.
Here is what Judy made at ABC last year.

Arkansas Best Corporation
Compensation for 2011
Salary $525,000
Restricted stock awards $329,960
All other compensation $16,496
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $383,093
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $92,858
Total Compensation $1,347,407

Now don't get me wrong Judy can have her money but I want what I have earned also. Let's look at it from a Teamsters view not your view.

Judy made $1,347,407 last year at our company. A top paid city driver makes roughly $80,000.00 a year. Judy makes in a year what it would take that city driver 16.8 years. That's right Judy makes in two years what it would take the highest paid city driver 33.6 years to earn. Now I don't know about you but that doesn't seem fair that WE have too work our whole careers to earn what our executives do in TWO YEARS! So I for one say no to any pension reductions or penalties. YOUR DOING THE REAL MATH BROTHER ALWAYS! HURRICANE SANDY BATTERED US BUT SHE DIDN'T KILL US! PS Look at just the change in Judy,s pension.

Judy McReynolds - Forbes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top