What's new

XPO | XPO Union Thread #2

ScotchNeat said:
I have no problem with a union asking all employees, regardless of the employees personal feelings regarding unions, to pay dues if that employee agrees to work in a union shop. The right to work laws, IMO, are an attempt to provide a wa
Click to expand...
I can only speak about the Teamsters and yes they do have a PAC, but after that you are mistaken..... you can opt to voluntarily give to DRIVE (the Teamster PAC), but no dues money go to that....I offer no support to either political party as I feel they are both beholden to big money...I do agree that a union shouldn't get involved in politics, but neither should big corporations... until laws are changed they are both going to be in it.....this part is just opinion as I haven't looked for a story to link it (because I don't care about the cesspool of politics enough to waste my time) but I'm willing to bet that corporations far out spend unions to get their message out...here is a link talking about DRIVE....this is an excerpt from the link....
WHEREAS, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters maintains a political action committee named “DRIVE” for Democrat, Republican and Independent Voter Education, and as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers maintains a PAC called BLET PAC; and

WHEREAS, DRIVE is funded entirely through voluntary contributions from Teamster members; and

WHEREAS, General Treasury funds may not be used for contributions to candidates for federal office and most candidates for state and local office; and

WHEREAS, DRIVE is the only permissible source available to the Teamsters union for most campaign contributions; and

WHEREAS, big business, billionaires and anti-worker super PACs have virtually unlimited funds to spend on politics; and
teamster.org

DRIVE

WHEREAS, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters maintains a political action committee named “DRIVE” for Democrat, Republican and Independent Voter Educ
teamster.org teamster.org
 
ABF381 said:
I can only speak about the Teamsters and yes they do have a PAC, but after that you are mistaken..... you can opt to voluntarily give to DRIVE (the Teamster PAC), but no dues money go to that....I offer no support to either political party as I feel they are both beholden to big money...I do agree that a union shouldn't get involved in politics, but neither should big corporations... until laws are changed they are both going to be in it.....this part is just opinion as I haven't looked for a story to link it (because I don't care about the cesspool of politics enough to waste my time) but I'm willing to bet that corporations far out spend unions to get their message out...here is a link talking about DRIVE....this is an excerpt from the link....
WHEREAS, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters maintains a political action committee named “DRIVE” for Democrat, Republican and Independent Voter Education, and as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers maintains a PAC called BLET PAC; and

WHEREAS, DRIVE is funded entirely through voluntary contributions from Teamster members; and

WHEREAS, General Treasury funds may not be used for contributions to candidates for federal office and most candidates for state and local office; and

WHEREAS, DRIVE is the only permissible source available to the Teamsters union for most campaign contributions; and

WHEREAS, big business, billionaires and anti-worker super PACs have virtually unlimited funds to spend on politics; and
teamster.org

DRIVE

WHEREAS, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters maintains a political action committee named “DRIVE” for Democrat, Republican and Independent Voter Educ
teamster.org teamster.org
Click to expand...
Spot on and 100 % accurate
 
ABF381 said:
I can only speak about the Teamsters and yes they do have a PAC, but after that you are mistaken..... you can opt to voluntarily give to DRIVE (the Teamster PAC), but no dues money go to that...
WHEREAS, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters maintains a political action committee named “DRIVE” for Democrat, Republican and Independent Voter Education, and as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers maintains a PAC called BLET PAC; and

WHEREAS, DRIVE is funded entirely through voluntary contributions from Teamster members; and

WHEREAS, General Treasury funds may not be used for contributions to candidates for federal office and most candidates for state and local office; and

WHEREAS, DRIVE is the only permissible source available to the Teamsters union for most campaign contributions; and

WHEREAS, big business, billionaires and anti-worker super PACs have virtually unlimited funds to spend on politics; and
teamster.org

DRIVE

WHEREAS, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters maintains a political action committee named “DRIVE” for Democrat, Republican and Independent Voter Educ
teamster.org teamster.org
Click to expand...
To the extent I said the Teamsters donates to a PAC, I'll own up to that mistake, but that's on paper only and here's why.
//Although it is illegal for a labor union to take money without your authorization for a federal PAC or to contribute money from dues directly to a federal candidate, a labor union may use the dues money of members to engage in a host of other political activities ” such as non-partisan get-out-the-vote drives, political “education” campaigns directed only at members and their families, issue campaigns, lobbying, PAC administration costs, etc.//
The Teamsters can pay for D.R.I.V.E.'s administration costs, making more available money for D.R.I.V.E. to donate to campaigns. Money is fungible, meaning dues money is finding its way to political campaigns via an indirect paper trail, kinda like legalized money laundering.


Home - National Right to Work Foundation
 
Last edited:
ScotchNeat said:
To the extent I said the Teamsters donates to a PAC, I'll own up to that mistake, but that's on paper only and here's why.
//Although it is illegal for a labor union to take money without your authorization for a federal PAC or to contribute money from dues directly to a federal candidate, a labor union may use the dues money of members to engage in a host of other political activities ” such as non-partisan get-out-the-vote drives, political “education” campaigns directed only at members and their families, issue campaigns, lobbying, PAC administration costs, etc.//
The Teamsters for D.R.I.V.E.'s administration costs, making more available money for D.R.I.V.E. to donate to campaigns. Money is fungible, meaning dues money is finding its way to political campaigns via an indirect paper trail, kinda like legalized money laundering.


Home - National Right to Work Foundation
Click to expand...
Again, the same argument can be made to an extent that gives companies the distinct advantage. If union members expect or want unions to not engage in political changes and endorse candidates who are willing to work for their concerns than they would lose all their strength. Would you feel the same if unions backed conservative law makers that have workers issues at heart. It’s unfortunate at this point that this point for some people that the Democrats seem to be the only ones at this point who are being sympathetic to union causes. ( I do not want to get into a political debate that being said I only use this to make a point in this reply )
I heard the same type of argument made by union buster that the only reason unions wanted to organize Xpo was to use their dues to fund ailing pension plans. Which is totally false and not able to be done.
 
So we can have the maximum amount of transparency I’m posting a link to both the National Right to Work committee and the Teamsters union
If scroll through”Veiw all recipients “the list of who received contributions ( multiple pages for both ) and you can see where the money went.

Teamsters
www.opensecrets.org

Teamsters Union Profile: Summary

Teamsters Union organization profile. Contributions in the 2024 cycle: $126,144. Lobbying in 2024: $2,359,325. Outside Spending in the 2024 cycle: $9,470.
www.opensecrets.org www.opensecrets.org

National Right to Work Committee

www.opensecrets.org

National Right to Work Cmte Profile: Summary

National Right to Work Cmte organization profile. Contributions in the 2024 cycle: $532. Lobbying in 2024: $890,000. Outside Spending in the 2024 cycle: $0.
www.opensecrets.org www.opensecrets.org

Side note : The Natonal Right to Work Committee should not be confused with the National Right to Work Foundation or The National Right to Work Defense Fund which are both charitable 501(3)c organizations. They receive money from companies in exchange for services rendered in relation to aiding in such activities such as offering representation to employees with decertification of a union vote.
 
Last edited:
It looks like a sad day for pension funds
www.foxnews.com

Manchin blasts Biden's ESG veto, accuses him of putting 'radical policy agenda' ahead of economic security

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., has taken aim at President Biden over his ESG veto, accusing the president of prioritizing a “radical policy agenda" over the economic desires of Americans.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

The bill would have ended enforcement of a new Labor Department rule that urged private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG in their investment decisions.

Under the rule, fiduciaries that make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies’ approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.
 
OV-10 said:
Again, the same argument can be made to an extent that gives companies the distinct advantage. If union members expect or want unions to not engage in political changes and endorse candidates who are willing to work for their concerns than they would lose all their strength. Would you feel the same if unions backed conservative law makers that have workers issues at heart. It’s unfortunate at this point that this point for some people that the Democrats seem to be the only ones at this point who are being sympathetic to union causes. ( I do not want to get into a political debate that being said I only use this to make a point in this reply )
I heard the same type of argument made by union buster that the only reason unions wanted to organize Xpo was to use their dues to fund ailing pension plans. Which is totally false and not able to be done.
Click to expand...
I agree with you to keep the politics out of our discussion, so let me go back to the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision. My understanding is that prior to that, unions were allowed to do the things I mentioned in post 1143 and companies were not. What C.U. did was to level the playing field and honestly at the time, I thought it was the right decision. What I never anticipated was the creation of the superpac, a non-profit corporation designed specifically for the purpose of political advertising. Now, this is my recollection and if I'm wrong, I'm open to being corrected. I understand your point about unions losing strength without being able to be politically active. The main purpose of my post was to inform people that despite the law, union leadership finds a way through the PAC administrative cost loophole to donate dues money to political campaigns. As to your last sentence, all I can say is union busters gonna do what union busters do, just as hardcore union activists do....lie to get what they want.
 
ABF381 said:
It sounds to me like the members don't want to change the contract in the middle of it....Yellow is asking for more than a COO, they are asking to change the contract, that needs to be negotiated....
Click to expand...
I got to give the new Pres Sean O’Brien one thing he is stated his postion and is standing his ground. Hoffa would have folded like a house of cards.
 
Yellow loses money every day. Something has to change. Doing nothing is not an option and time is running out. The day will come when Yellow can't make payroll. They may not technically be in bankruptcy, but they will be unable to operate. The doors close and the jobs will be gone. Custer made a last stand. It did not go well.
 
Razorblade said:
Yellow loses money every day. Something has to change. Doing nothing is not an option and time is running out. The day will come when Yellow can't make payroll. They may not technically be in bankruptcy, but they will be unable to operate. The doors close and the jobs will be gone. Custer made a last stand. It did not go well.
Click to expand...
Why ?
 
ABF381 said:
It sounds to me like the members don't want to change the contract in the middle of it....Yellow is asking for more than a COO, they are asking to change the contract, that needs to be negotiated....
Click to expand...
You mean to tell me that in all the fancy legal language of the contract/s that there isn't a clause which would allow an interim vote to make key changes required for the survival of the company? I don't believe it. If that's the case, then why is this the second time the Teamsters rejected the COO? Meaning they did indeed have a chance to allow the company to make changes in the middle of a contract and they chose not to. Do they give a crap about their jobs? Isn't a job that's different from what is used to better than no job at all?
 
Fly-by-night said:
I got to give the new Pres Sean O’Brien one thing he is stated his postion and is standing his ground. Hoffa would have folded like a house of cards.
Click to expand...
He could be Yellow' undoing too. Imagine if he was in charge when at the time, YRC managed to scare the union into signing a crappy contract under threat of closing the doors. With O'Brien in charge, the doors may very well have closed back then.
 
ScotchNeat said:
You mean to tell me that in all the fancy legal language of the contract/s that there isn't a clause which would allow an interim vote to make key changes required for the survival of the company? I don't believe it. If that's the case, then why is this the second time the Teamsters rejected the COO? Meaning they did indeed have a chance to allow the company to make changes in the middle of a contract and they chose not to. Do they give a crap about their jobs? Isn't a job that's different from what is used to better than no job at all?
Click to expand...
It does have ways to open the contract and Yellow isn't doing it properly, just trying to ram it through....long time employees have a good memory.....they remember 15% cut, 75% cut to pensions, and upper management still giving out bonuses to themselves.....they are fed up...I don't want to see Yellow go out, but that is up to them if they want to accept it or not....
 
ScotchNeat said:
You mean to tell me that in all the fancy legal language of the contract/s that there isn't a clause which would allow an interim vote to make key changes required for the survival of the company? I don't believe it. If that's the case, then why is this the second time the Teamsters rejected the COO? Meaning they did indeed have a chance to allow the company to make changes in the middle of a contract and they chose not to. Do they give a crap about their jobs? Isn't a job that's different from what is used to better than no job at all?
Click to expand...
They gave back 5 times over the last 15 years. Think its time to sink or swim....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top