ABF | Anybody?

lurker321

TB Lurker
Credits
5
Can anybody name one union company (any union, not just Teamsters) that has ever taken wage concessions for a struggling company and returned to full scale and prosperity? Just one? I was asked that today and have no answer
 
Sorry,You won't find one. There just hasn't been any. When I hit the dock over twenty years ago,I was told by the old timers and the union, " Never give anything back". That saying was installed in us for a reason. If a company is having financial, hardships, a pay cut will not help. This is so true! If you can't pay the wage,lock the gates because it Will happen ,sooner or later. Me, I would prefer sooner.Less stress that way.
I wonder when that saying stopped being circulated. Is there anyone that knows this answer?
 
Please remember I am YRC.

The vote you ABF Brothers face may make that very determination. If you vote for the concessions, when the NMFA is renewed, I am sure we will ALL be starting at the reduced wage for negotiations. They will have the same economic poverty claims to support it. If you hold the line, the standard will be there for YRC Brothers to return too. Please remember I do not have a direct stake in the outcome of your vote when reading this. Also please remember ABF management members are free become TB members also. We have several YRC management personnel as members also.
 
I don't see the logic in the statement I guess. I assume none have returned to prosperity because they failed after receiving concessions. All this tells me is that they requested the concessions too late to right the sinking ship. By using this argument against giving concessions... you're basically saying "let's take everything we can from this sinking ship before it goes down." It's a very near-sighted outlook as opposed to worrying about 5 or 10 years down the road.

On the other hand, you could be saying either they failed or wages just never came back up. IF that's the case, disregard my post :) More than likely, if they needed concessions and got them and wages never came back up, probably the company failed. That's just the logic that makes sense in my head.

What ABF is doing is saying "Let's do what we have to do now to prevent us from becoming a sinking ship rather than wait till we're already going down and start bailing water." They claim basically to see the iceberg ahead and are steering around it before it's too late. (again, this is my interpretation of what ABF management is trying to do.)

That's just my take on it. I'm not telling you what to vote, etc. It sucks that the option given to you is giving back wages. If I had to give back SOMETHING, I'd much rather give up benefits or pension, as wages pay the bills now! You can't go calling the mortgage company and tell them you'll pay the mortgage upon snap-back of your teamster agreement!

I'm not a teamster but I have already given give-backs so I feel I've earned at least the right to voice my opinion.

No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
 
[quote author=ScifiFri link=topic=79476.msg823816#msg823816 date=1271956589]
I don't see the logic in the statement I guess. I assume none have returned to prosperity because they failed after receiving concessions. All this tells me is that they requested the concessions too late to right the sinking ship. By using this argument against giving concessions... you're basically saying "let's take everything we can from this sinking ship before it goes down." It's a very near-sighted outlook as opposed to worrying about 5 or 10 years down the road.

On the other hand, you could be saying either they failed or wages just never came back up. IF that's the case, disregard my post :) More than likely, if they needed concessions and got them and wages never came back up, probably the company failed. That's just the logic that makes sense in my head.

What ABF is doing is saying "Let's do what we have to do now to prevent us from becoming a sinking ship rather than wait till we're already going down and start bailing water." They claim basically to see the iceberg ahead and are steering around it before it's too late. (again, this is my interpretation of what ABF management is trying to do.)

That's just my take on it. I'm not telling you what to vote, etc. It sucks that the option given to you is giving back wages. If I had to give back SOMETHING, I'd much rather give up benefits or pension, as wages pay the bills now! You can't go calling the mortgage company and tell them you'll pay the mortgage upon snap-back of your teamster agreement!

I'm not a teamster but I have already given give-backs so I feel I've earned at least the right to voice my opinion.

No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.

[/quote]


I could tell that you not a teamster.If you were,you wouldn't even think of giving up the benefits.Teamsters of the past risked everything,even their lives to get where we are today.Today,even some teamsters forget or just don't care. They are so willing to give it up for the fear of the economy and losing their jobs. Some teamsters of the past died for standing up. The union scale sets the standard of pay for the industry. If you don't believe that then just sit back and wait for the union companies to falter and then watch the non unions management policies change within the month. They would have a free hand to pay you what they wanted too without fear of the union.If you don't like it,there's the door.In this economy,there would be someone to replace you tomorrow that would gladly work for $10.00 an hour. This is my opinion.

None have never made it because they didn't even try to. Most high management have 5 year salary agreements if the companies fold.One guess to where that wage concession ends up. That's the way it was explained to me by so many teamsters that had worked for companies that went under. That sounds very reasonable to me. I believe it.
 
I'm not a teamster but I have already given give-backs so I feel I've earned at least the right to voice my opinion.

No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.
No I'm not management.

You are NOT! a teamster either...what are you? mgmt has not taken a paycut. no raise last year and this year. and your copay went up.....did you lose 15% of what your making now? let me answer NO! but you want me and my teamster brothers to take one so bad you are arguing our managers position everyday!!. think about it guys!!! come on.. sorry :buttkisser: but we dont buy it!!! im even a bigger NO vote now!
 
[quote author=hoffa link=topic=79476.msg823829#msg823829 date=1271960581]
You are NOT! a teamster either...what are you? mgmt has not taken a paycut. no raise last year and this year. and your copay went up.....did you lose 15% of what your making now? let me answer NO! but you want me and my teamster brothers to take one so bad you are arguing our managers position everyday!!. think about it guys!!! come on.. sorry :buttkisser: but we dont buy it!!! im even a bigger NO vote now!
[/quote]

I'll give you that... I technically haven't taken a "pay cut" per se... but I have given back benefits...my deductible went up, I have to pay for health insurance, and copays went up as well. My 401k match has been taken away. No, my gross salary hasn't decreased, but my after-tax benefits most certainly has. The company match on 401k is a defined benefit that was part of my compensation package. Taking it away is EXACTLY the same thing as taking money out of my paycheck. So I've taken a pay cut. There's no argument to say they haven't. I know I'm an exception but I've been particularly impacted by the benefits changes as I've had a couple very serious medical issues in the last couple years... so increased copay and deductible has significantly affected me.

And yes, I do consider the freezing of promotions and cost of living raises to be a decrease in compensation. If you had to give up a yearly raise, you certainly would feel the same way. The cost of living in this country continuously rises, so if pay doesn't rise with it, then you are making less each year than the previous year. Not in gross dollars, but in real-world dollars. And if that doesn't make sense, then look at it this way... compared to everyone else in the world (who hasn't made concessions), I'm making 10 to 15% less than those people now than I would have been if none of this happened. Again, you refuse to see it, but if it were you, I would bet you a dollar you'd feel the same way.

Honestly, if EVERYONE in the company were subject to the same freezes than the non-contractual employees are... we would be in a better situation. No raises would be given when we're losing money and the changes that were made at the GO would have been more effective once spread out over more employees. I understand your contract makes it so you don't have to be subject to those sacrifices, and that's great for you, but for you to say I haven't given anything up is ridiculous and offensive. If we hadn't made these sacrifices, my paycheck would be about $700 or $800 more per month (gross) than it is right now. How can that not be a concession?

Just remember, the size of your vote doesn't make it count more than once.
 
For some reason the "Modify" option wasn't there... so I'll reply to my own post... to answer this questions:

"did you lose 15% of what your making now?"

I'll simply say this: No... but RIGHT NOW I am about 12% to 15% in total compensation LOWER than I would have been RIGHT NOW, because of the sacrifices I've made. What's the difference? The only difference I see is that I've had 2.5 years to get used to it... while they're asking you guys to do it overnight.

Once again, I'm not saying you should vote yes, and yes, I do recognize that this request is a terrible thing to have to deal with (if it get's voted in). I'm simply stating that you aren't the only ones being asked to make sacrifices. Others are being asked as well and others have been living with sacrifices for years already.

I think too many people try to mask their desire to keep their paycheck with "we'd be ok with it if management does the same thing" which you know isn't true. If that was true, I wouldn't be the only one making less than I should be right now.
 
wow no raises since 2008..that would put me at 22.25 per hr.
not the 2004 20.06 per hr. they want to drag us back to.

as far as benefits go i clearly remember my local in 08 at contract time telling me they wanted to give us another dollar but the company said it was for my healthcare and the rising costs...so take that dollar and you have me giving back 160 a month towards healthcare on top of the rest of my raises that went to health care and my pension already...

i have gotten about 5 dollars an hour in noticable pay raises in the last 17 years... the rest has went towards my benefits.. i am not bitching about it i am just wanting to clarify that i have been giving money every contract towards my benefits...

my copay has went from 300 dollars to 900 for the family ..we lost 2000 in dental ...


now they want to take 15% of my cash money

i hardly see where it would be equal sacrafice

ok go ahead and tell me you lost bonuses...wow you get bonuses...must be nice...i guess if i would have chosen a non union position i would have seen bonus compensation... but i chose to be in the union aspect of this because the bonus to me was a pension when i retire...
 
[quote author=dockit link=topic=79476.msg823884#msg823884 date=1271973630]


ok go ahead and tell me you lost bonuses...wow you get bonuses...must be nice...i guess if i would have chosen a non union position i would have seen bonus compensation... but i chose to be in the union aspect of this because the bonus to me was a pension when i retire...
[/quote]

it's statements like this that remind me to drink coffee and wake up before i even start reading this forum....pardon me :chairshot:


guess i just got pissed and kept it rolling...but to where who knows :drivin:
 
Top
AdBlock Detected