elvis;

How disingenuous! Have you ever asked yourself just WHY (according to you) "CF funneled their profits into Conway precisely when deregulation kicked off"? Did you ever consider that it was because of the detrimental affects of the Teamsters in a (finally) competitive world that *might* have caused them to do so? Or that perhaps there might be a REASON - a very LOGICAL reason! - that companies and their employees don't want to bear the burden and job insecurity of being "Teamster"?

Then let's take your statement of....

"The Teamsters had nothing to do with the demise of several union trucking companies back in the eighties and nineties. Deregulation sent these companies packing."

What poppycock! "Deregulation" didn't send ANY "companies packing"; rather, what it did was create a level playing field in which ALL companies could compete. Unfortunately, those under Teamster influence COULDN'T compete....a fact which the Teamsters knew well before hand, and why they fought deregulation so strongly.

In that vein, let's consider "regulation" for what it was; i.e. - a form of subsidy to the Teamsters and selected companies paid for by the sweat off the brow of the American consumer...and NOT the backs of the subsidized Teamsters. The fact is, the companies that were strong under "regulation" had a leg up when it came to deregulation; i.e. -they had their networks in place, their capital lined-up, and supposedly a trained, competitive organized Teamster workforce. Unfortunately, that Teamster organized workforce was like an anchor when it came to organized companies companies competing in an UN-subsidized market on a level playing field....and, one by one, they dropped by the way side. Meanwhile, the industry as a whole flourished.

Don't believe that? Then you tell me; what with the VAST increase in trucker jobs over the last few decades, why have the Teamsters lost 90% of those they once had covered under their crown jewel NMFA?

Sorry, "elvis", but you're right....I'm far too informed to be "ignorant" of ANY facts. Unfortunately, what with your rambling about "corporate greed" running "rampid" [sic] I'm afraid the same can't be said of you.

As for the rest of your assertions, I first suggest you look at another post regarding my thought sabout the OVNT (actually UPSF, right...since most OVNT terminals actually DECERTIFIED the union, didn't they? Or is that a fact you thought I equally was "ignorant" of?...smile!). The UPSF "card check" went as it did because of an agreement between UPS and the Teamsters - a desperate agreement on the part of the Teamsters - regarding CSPF. Now, if you want to talk some more about Consolidated a "the backs" of working people, I suggest you take a look at the news today about how the Teamsters/CSPF is suing Con-Way for $660 million in claimed "liability"....liability supposedly taken on years AFTER CF became a separate entity. Note also that the $660 million (which all the analysts I've read talking about today think is sheer nonsense) is well more than 1/3 the TOTAL asset value of Con-Way. So you tell me...just who's trying to ride who's backs.

Lastly, as for your claim that...

"Teamsters will not twist arms or stalk anyone. They will not coerce or intimidate anyone."

...again, sheer poppycock! I just ran into a news article today on M_lIve (I'm not allowed to post links yet, but you can Google it in "News" using the terms "Teamsters" quite quickly...sort by date) in which a CURRENT Teamster local president (local 164 in Jackson, Michigan) ADMITTED that, he was responsible for "several trucks [being] destroyed when road flares were thrown inside them" during a period of labor strife. It's also noteworthy that he admitted that he was "CONVICTED of using an explosive to maliciously damage and conspiracy to violate federal explosive laws". Yet, after being convicted of that felony - about as hideous a one that can be in terms of the labor environment - the man is "serving" as a Teamster local president today. With that in mind, tell me again how "Teamsters will not twist arms or stalk anyone." No....they'll just blow their *** up!

I can't help but get a kick out of your contention that...

"When given the chance to become union without the threat of retaliation, they will come"

...when the fact is that organizations like the Teamsters aren't worried about "retaliation", but rather about potential members being informed at all! Tell me, do you think those who have expressed a desire NOT to be union "will come"? Or do you think they'll be even be APPROACHED by the union to go on record as to what their alleged "free choice" is? And do you REALLY believe that a secret ballot election - in which the way an individual voted is actually kept SECRET is more subject to "intimidation" than having a bunch of thugs running around behind both management and those who are pre-disposed NOT to be union's back "joyfully" requesting they sign cards knowing only one side of the story?

All that is more than enough reason to question the motives of unions. But the biggest question is just how do you think the COMPANIES will react? You are aware (being "non-ignorant" of the facts, of course...grin!) that Illinois experimented with a form of the "free choice" act a few years ago...and had it blow up in their faces. Companies simply will cease to try to turn a profit under such circumstances; they do what workers who know their worth do under similar circumstances. They "vote with their feet"; i.e. - the pick up and find more amiable climes...IF they don't go out of business altogether. How many jobs have to be lost overseas before those who are not "ignorant" of the facts come to realize that? Do you think there are entities just waiting in the wings to take up the slack if companies like Con-Way lose their resolve? Do you think the Teamsters are going to back their members and find new jobs for them after they piss away the ones they had? Really? Is that what the Teamsters have done for the million-or-so of their members "core industry" jobs they've already cast on the trash heap?

Lastly, "a few companies"? "A *FEW* companies"????? Just what planet have you been living on?!!? With your "non-ignorance" in mind, I suggest you take a look-see at the Lynch House Ways and Means Testimony regarding union penetration in the trucking industry (unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post a link yet), looking at the list at the bottom, and tell me again how it was just a FEW companies....and how it was NOT the Teamsters that put virtually EVERY large organized trucking company out there out of business. (What's out there in terms of LTL/NMFA now? YRCW and ABF....both of which are just EXTREMELY healthy, right?...yes, there's a hint of sarcasm there).

Anyway, glad that somehow you found the means to "justify" a somewhat lengthier response...even if if was nothing more than the usual regurgitated Teamster dog-and-pony show.