What's new

ABF | Deadlock: ABF Wants to Replace Road Drivers

Kennesaw Kid said:
ABF wanted the same as YRCW....The IBT put it to you in a vote....the only difference is ABF members voted no....YRCW members voted yes...They wanted to replace Road drivers with UE drivers....NMFA say NO....end of story......KK
Click to expand...
I think you missed the whole point. You came on here saying ABF was going to do something STUPID. I pointed out some of the things yrc and the IBT have done to the freight industry and the yrc Teamsters. But yet you never came on here accusing them of doing stupid things. Here is something for you to chew on. If your local and the IBT was so worried about Road Drivers why was this Article a part of the NMFA?

Section 6.
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Employer shall be permitted to utilize companies for over-the-road
purchased transportation substitute service. The parties shall designate
at least one (1) Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased
transportation substitute service under this Section. Until
December 31, 2009, the maximum amount of over-the-road purchased
transportation shall be limited to 4% of the Employer’s total
miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual
Report during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2010, the
maximum amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall
be increased from 4% to 6.5% of the Employer’s total miles as
reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report
during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2011, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be
increased from 6.5% to 7% of the Employer’s total miles as reported
on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during
any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2012, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be increased
from 7% to 9% of the Employer’s total miles as reported on line 301
of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any calendar
year. In the event the parties fail to designate at least one (1)
Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased transportation substitute
service, the maximum amount of rail miles provided for in
Section 3(b)(4) of the Article shall be returned to 26% for the
remainder of this Agreement. It is agreed that any Preferred
Company utilized under this Section shall be permitted to drop and
pick-up trailers at the Employer’s terminal locations, but shall be
And remember they were to be a non union trucking company.

Now I don't know about you but I don't think this was placed in there to benefit Teamster Road Drivers.
Where were you then? Just a question and I still did not see who your employer is.

And also ABF did not put the same proposal up for vote as yrc did.
It is a little late to being pointing a finger at a company. Have you sit down and explained the whole facts to your local's road drivers? I just find it unfair that someone would cry foul about another company making a proposal. After all they never said if we did not accept it they would close our terminal.
And no it is not the end of the story until we the ABF Teamsters say it is the end of the STORY! YOUR WATCHING BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NMFA? What a joke. It seems like it can be changed as long as the teamsters agree to it. If the company says the need our help then they ask for a change of ops. Then it has to be agreed on by a commity. If it is agreed to then that certin part of the NMFA is changed, weather its a 15% reduction in pay or a UE change. Im not saying anyting is right but atleast this is being done the right way for now. Im just wondering whats to stop ABF from saying that the freight in the lanes they wanted to change will now become HVXP or 2 day Utility freight and we are going to us UE drivers to move this freight, sorry road drivers we are going to have to lay some off. Maybe the change wasnt a bad idea. Dont get mad at me for saying that, but what if? We might also want to remember that to survive sometimes things need to change! Good luck to all!
 
I would have to agree that the change of ops looked like an attempt to replace road drivers with UE's. When I saw Mike Scalzo's name and signature on it I immediately said that the union needed to take a good look at it and keep their eyes on it...they did, one right for the Texas Turncoat. Mike Scalzo would be more at home with YRC and I'd scald ABF just for keeping him around, he helps with their bad reputation.

As for ABF trying "something stupid" like domiciling road drivers at the EOL terminals...The big "R" had them, then they didn't, then they did and now YRC seems to have them. If the Teamsters let the big "R" do it why and how would they prevent ABF from doing so? Not that I have any opinion on whether it's a stupid move or not, it seems to me a road driver is a road driver and I can't see where it would make any big difference to the company where he was domiciled. Though moving some to the EOL would disrupt some worker's lives at least a little.

What's next? Who knows but the only thing you can count on in this business is that things will change.
 
Muler said:
I think you missed the whole point. You came on here saying ABF was going to do something STUPID. I pointed out some of the things yrc and the IBT have done to the freight industry and the yrc Teamsters. But yet you never came on here accusing them of doing stupid things. Here is something for you to chew on. If your local and the IBT was so worried about Road Drivers why was this Article a part of the NMFA?

Section 6.
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Employer shall be permitted to utilize companies for over-the-road
purchased transportation substitute service. The parties shall designate
at least one (1) Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased
transportation substitute service under this Section. Until
December 31, 2009, the maximum amount of over-the-road purchased
transportation shall be limited to 4% of the Employer’s total
miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual
Report during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2010, the
maximum amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall
be increased from 4% to 6.5% of the Employer’s total miles as
reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report
during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2011, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be
increased from 6.5% to 7% of the Employer’s total miles as reported
on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during
any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2012, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be increased
from 7% to 9% of the Employer’s total miles as reported on line 301
of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any calendar
year. In the event the parties fail to designate at least one (1)
Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased transportation substitute
service, the maximum amount of rail miles provided for in
Section 3(b)(4) of the Article shall be returned to 26% for the
remainder of this Agreement. It is agreed that any Preferred
Company utilized under this Section shall be permitted to drop and
pick-up trailers at the Employer’s terminal locations, but shall be
And remember they were to be a non union trucking company.

Now I don't know about you but I don't think this was placed in there to benefit Teamster Road Drivers.
Where were you then? Just a question and I still did not see who your employer is.

And also ABF did not put the same proposal up for vote as yrc did.
It is a little late to being pointing a finger at a company. Have you sit down and explained the whole facts to your local's road drivers? I just find it unfair that someone would cry foul about another company making a proposal. After all they never said if we did not accept it they would close our terminal.
And no it is not the end of the story until we the ABF Teamsters say it is the end of the STORY! YOUR WATCHING BROTHER ALWAYS!
Click to expand...
Muler where are you reading that it is to be a non union trucking company. Thats not what I remember it saying.
 
rgdg5 said:
Muler where are you reading that it is to be a non union trucking company. That's not what I remember it saying.
Click to expand...
It was in the proposed contract. That is why they put it in there. Ask your BA they should be able to tell you. That is why they were willing to take a percentage from the rail. I will find it and post it for you. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
This is the Article.

(d) With regard to the use of a Preferred Company as provided in
Section 6, the Employer shall report in writing on a monthly basis
to each Local Union affected, the number of trailers tendered to any
Preferred Company. The Employer also shall report the origin, destination,
trailer/load number, trailer weight and the time the
trailer/load leaves the Employer’s yard.
- 105 -
Article 29, Section 2

This was explained at our meeting prior to the vote to mean that non union companies would be used with the understanding that it would make it easier for the Teamsters to try to organize them. They would be allowed tender up to

Section 6.
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Employer shall be permitted to utilize companies for over-the-road
purchased transportation substitute service. The parties shall designate
at least one (1) Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased
transportation substitute service under this Section. Until
December 31, 2009, the maximum amount of over-the-road purchased
transportation shall be limited to 4% of the Employer’s total
miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual
Report during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2010, the
maximum amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall
be increased from 4% to 6.5% of the Employer’s total miles as
reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report
during any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2011, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be
increased from 6.5% to 7% of the Employer’s total miles as reported
on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during
any calendar year. During Calendar Year 2012, the maximum
amount of over-the-road purchased transportation shall be increased
from 7% to 9% of the Employer’s total miles as reported on line 301
of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any calendar
year. In the event the parties fail to designate at least one (1)
Preferred Company for over-the-road purchased transportation substitute
service, the maximum amount of rail miles provided
 
Muler said:
This is the Article.

This was explained at our meeting prior to the vote to mean that non union companies would be used with the understanding that it would make it easier for the Teamsters to try to organize them. They would be allowed tender up to
Click to expand...

That would be another TJ pipedream. When I read that kind of language I have to wonder how in the world the IBT intends to enforce it. What could they do if the information was not provided, or was not accurate?

The best way to organize non union companies would be to show them that we don't give up what we have fought so hard for so long to obtain and that we set the standards for all. I know that's over his head though and it is left to us to refuse to go backwards without their support.
 
If you remember yrc had glen moore, when they pulled out of the K C yard they were put on a white paper contract.
 
pilot108 said:
If you remember yrc had glen moore, when they pulled out of the K C yard they were put on a white paper contract.
Click to expand...
I remember well what happened in KC but the point is they were union. The intent of this whole purchase transportation was to take that work off rail and use teamster drivers to move it. They were to use a teamster company or a company that was in the process of being organized. Thats what I remember
 
rgdg5 said:
I remember well what happened in KC but the point is they were union. The intent of this whole purchase transportation was to take that work off rail and use teamster drivers to move it. They were to use a teamster company or a company that was in the process of being organized. That's what I remember
Click to expand...
NO that is not how it was explained in Cleveland. It was said that non union companies would be used and that it would give the IBT a better chance to organize them. Ask any body who attended the meetings. Besides we have used other union carriers for years to pull freight in heavy lanes. This work was earmarked for non union companies. I was at the meetings and so was thousands of other Teamsters. That is why it is stated in the article I posted. It did not say it was going to union companies. Because there is already freight interlined between union carriers without any articles in the contract. What is your point?
 
They did'nt unionize all of glenmoore, just the ones that were pulling our freight. Now you hardly see them anymore.
 
I recall something about non-union carriers with a stipulation that the companies they used had to agree to card check for the union. I didn't see it as something that would work out in our favor.
 
Muler said:
NO that is not how it was explained in Cleveland. It was said that non union companies would be used and that it would give the IBT a better chance to organize them. Ask any body who attended the meetings. Besides we have used other union carriers for years to pull freight in heavy lanes. This work was earmarked for non union companies. I was at the meetings and so was thousands of other Teamsters. That is why it is stated in the article I posted. It did not say it was going to union companies. Because there is already freight interlined between union carriers without any articles in the contract. What is your point?
Click to expand...
Muler I don't know how it was explained to you in your meetings but I was at the two man meetings in washington and thats not what we were told. And as for overfolw freight I have worked for CF, Roadway< and Yellow and have never seen another union company pull our overflow freight in KC. With the railhead in KC our overflow went on the rail. I am just telling you what we were told. I am not saying that you were not told that. The proposal I saw said that the freight would come off the rail miles and go to a Teamster co. or a co. that was in the process of being organized. My point is that you must have been told something different than what I was told. And I still don't see where they are supposed to use non union companies in article 29 sect. 6
 
rgdg5 said:
Muler I don't know how it was explained to you in your meetings but I was at the two man meetings in washington and thats not what we were told. And as for overfolw freight I have worked for CF, Roadway< and Yellow and have never seen another union company pull our overflow freight in KC. With the railhead in KC our overflow went on the rail. I am just telling you what we were told. I am not saying that you were not told that. The proposal I saw said that the freight would come off the rail miles and go to a Teamster co. or a co. that was in the process of being organized. My point is that you must have been told something different than what I was told. And I still don't see where they are supposed to use non union companies in article 29 sect. 6
Click to expand...
I am just relaying what we were told in Cleveland. That freight would go to non union companies with the hope of organizing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top