What part of my answer didn't you understand? I answered that all Teamsters will be affected. If the vote causes the company to shut down, all the currently employed Teamsters will lose their jobs and benefits. Some will be able to find another Teamster job, but most will either hope to get hired at a non-union job or will take lower paying jobs outside the industry and many won't be able to find any decent work in this weak economy. As far as retired Teamsters, they face the possibility of greatly reduced pension payments due to the situations in many of the Teamster pension funds compounded by the absence of any future payments from YRC and the expected rush of new retirees who were at YRC. Potential Teamsters (those employees at the current non-union companies) will see how some Teamsters shoot themselves in the foot and they will be even harder to convince to go union in the future. And the public in general will be even more anti-union when they perceive how selfish Teamsters cause a decent job (in spite of the giv
ebacks) to shut down (a la Hostess). In a sluggish economy where the news has stories about companies cutting back almost every week it seems foolish to cause a shutdown.
In any event, what difference does it make what position a person is in when they make statements about the YRC situation. It seems to me that when someone's position is indefensible or weak they resort to ancillary issues instead of discussing/debating the specifics or worse yet, attack the poster.
Now let me hear you refute the specific comments/reasons I've given you here.