Originally Posted by Metal Head

I know I am not the brother you addressed, however let me take a stab at pointing out what I believe the major problems are with the contract.

1) although I agree that the UE will help gain some competetive edge, there was no need to give the company a blank check on it's utilization... it should have been capped at least long enough to experience the ramifications it was going to have on the membership.

2) at my local the Sec/Treas and Pres. told us all kind of things that weren't true about this contract and I have heard that same thing from an overwhelming number of Teamsters from different locals... whatever the position you are in let you be misled by your local officials, in the future I would suggest reading the language for yourself and get involved with some people in your local who do just that and decipher exactly what is trying to be sold to us.

3) while this is a little off topic I think it goes to your concerns over the protection of our pensions... why is UPS freight not in the NMFA and/or the pension?... why was UPS parcel allowed to withdraw?

4) for the first time ever the NMFA allows part-timers... they will be used to diminish overtime and to slow the hiring of full timers to jobs that pay living wages and benefits.

5) and the grand-daddy of all... this NMFA allows Teamster work to be snatched away and giving to non-union subcontractors... seek out and ask some of the line-haul brothers and sisters at Yellow in K.C. about the loss of scheduled team runs to USF Glen Moore... and look out in Chicago and Dallas, Glen Moore is putting on a massive recruitment campaign in those cities.

finally, while I am not a TDU guy, don't fall into the trap that many Local Officials have set: " if a member questions anything we do, just call them TDU " Question authority, Question intentions and most of all Question the provisons of labor agreements that dictate our future

Originally Posted by mikey

The UE change of operations spells out(at least at ABF) the anticipated increases in membership. There will be an increase, immediately, and more later. Whether or not this comes to fruition, remains to be seen. I do know there are several road domiciles throughout our system that have been told to keep hiring road drivers until they are told to hold off.

I will call your Sec-Treas tomorrow, Tom M at 200 to affirm your allegations as to the invalidity discussion of the NMFA. I have his home number. My local union Sec-Treas and my business agent are on the NMFA negotiating committees. Both for the National Agreement and the Supplements. I have no reason not to trust them or take their word. They have not lied to me yet.

UPSF is a whole different topic. I do not know the reasons for them not being put into the NMFA or the pension plans. So if I comment on that would be speculation on my part.

Part time dock only, right? Four hour maximum shift?

Look, if those guys are losing team bid runs to the approved purchased transportation companies, file a grievance immediately. This service is simply a small percentage of freight that would have gone to the rails. Any deviation, or loss of Union jobs need to be addressed by that committee that oversees that portion of the contract.

While the debate on these issues was argued before the contract was voted on, our leadership at 710 welcomed questions and answered them intelligently and precisely. Everything they promised has been the truth. No one was cut off at the microphone, and everyone that had an issue was heard. I cannot understand why the BS continues to this day.

If you or your people are being violated, report the problem now, not next week and have nads enough to file a grievance. When you file any grievance have the proper evidence to back up your claims. Who what where why, trailer numbers, pro numbers, photographs, et cetera. Let the grievance take the normal course, and allow it to get to the venue designed to address the complaint.

I think we are fortunate to have an Executive Board at 710 that recognizes that it is better to have the truthful facts available for our membership. I question everything that I don't understand, and get an honest answer, without being labeled, nor being belittled. This labor market, in all segments, has an ever changing agenda for quality and profit. If the companies we work for are unable to compete successfully in the marketplace, guess where we will be working in the near future. Let these changes take their course, and certainly do not allow your employer to violate the agreement without opposition. Hopefully this more competitive plan will help our companies prosper. I would rather give a little than lose everything. Especially when the little I give will eventually pay dividends for the Brothership in the long run. We cannot move forward if we look to the past for solid guidance.

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

Do me a favor and read ALL of the language in the NMFA, just not the words that you want to make your case.

Originally Posted by Metal Head

I've already conceded that the UE will help gain some competitive edge and will further agree that if it is successful in taking market share from the nons it may very well increase the number of Teamster jobs. However, there are little or no restrictions or prohibitions on their use, in my opinion that's dangerous. The creation of the UE and the unlimited use of such tears down the separation of job classifications. When one class of employee can perform any and all tasks another class of employee will lose work. (i.e. when a UE is performing his own drop and hooks a hosteler loses work, when a UE is performing the loading and unloading of freight a dockman loses work, when a UE is running a meet and turn that used to be a L/H run a road driver loses work) for this loss of work to be to be countered the competitive edge gained had better produce more market share.