What's new

the contract #8

wilbur sounds like the companies hired goon maybe he should study the law a little harder pedestrians always have the right of way no matter what how ever that might be unfornunate for him it is still the law last time i checked most teamster drivers follow this law as it would be not only terrible but embarrassing for a professional driver both union or non to hit a pedestrian as teamsters we hold ourselves to a higher standard than most
 
airhorn;

Perhaps you ought to take your reasoning a step further; i.e. - differentiate the "right of way" to the "right to obstruct"....especially on private property.

I've no problem with giving pedestrians the "right of way". However if you look, once again, at the Teamsters *OWN* press release, you see the picketers admission that he was *STANDING* (NOT "making way") and commanding the driver to "STOP". Meanwhile, other supposed Teamsters who claimed to have been present admitted that they were attempting to stop ingress (not "make way") for at least three minutes.

So, with that in mind, I suggest you follow your own advice....and "study the law a little harder" yourself. If you find that it's exactly as you state, I'll be more than willing to stand my *** rigidly in the the living room of your house to exercise my alleged "right of way" as a "pedestrian". Sound like plan? After all, I'm sure your family members would appreciate your rather unique (to say the least!) interpretation of the law.

Bottom line: silly is as silly does. If you want to compare blocking ingress/egress on private property (and there, again, read the Teamsters own press release) with a pedestrians exercise of right of WAY, then you deserve all the scorn that such a position will bring down on you.
 
Aren't they picketing on the sidewalk that passes in front of the property, which is not owned by OHFL, that crosses the driveway, thus making it public property. I'm sure if OHFL owned the sidewalk, they would have the picketer's evicted.
 
TheBigR;

Again, I point to the Teamsters own press release, which refers to them being allowed on "the property", rather than the public domain. And, in terms of what Oak Harbor might do, I suggest you read (on their own website) the letter (or service update...whatever) they released to their own customers discussing how and why picketers might be permitted (or, in truth, actually herded if need be) onto private property. Think that would explain a lot.

Lastly, getting back to "airhorns" proclamation (regardless of private property or not) that....

"pedestrians always have the right of way no matter what"

....I suggest he try to exercise that "right" (or what is a "right" in his mind at least) in the Big City at a marked, signaled cross-walk against the traffic light when a couple of buses and a bunch of taxis are bearing down at speed on the intersection. To wit: "pedestrians always have the right of way" may have a VERY valid place in terms of traffic safety....but it just doesn't hold under the law. Otherwise there'd be no need for pedestrian signals....every pedestrian could just exercise their "right" of "right of way" any place and any time of their choosing.

Just a suggestion...but it might be a good idea if Teamsters got together and got their stories straight; the apparent contradiction of each other doesn't inspire confidence in their credibility.
 
When I am turning into my driveway and the jr high kids are crossing in front and they stop in the middle to talk to a friend, knowing that someone is trying to pull in should I run them over. I get annoyed honk my horn they give me the finger then finally move on. By your law I have the right to run into them? Just trying to understand my rights and have more understanding of the law. And one more question I have been dying to ask you Wilbur how is Mr Ed? Sorry had to do it that was the first thing I thought of when you chimed in.
 
in-wash

You seem to want to mix what one SHOULD do with what the law specifies. Tell me; do you think those "jr high kids" you postulated have the RIGHT to block your ingress to your driveway? And *should* you run them over if they deliberately block your ingress? Nope...but at some point in time (and it would come quickly), you WOULD have the right to enter your drive way and they WOULD have the legal OBLIGATION to get out of your way...and failure to do so would be on THEIR heads; not yours.

I would hope that cooler heads would prevail before then; i.e. - the kids (even "jr high kids" usually have more sense!) wouldn't initiate and maintain such a precipitous action, and/or you, yourself would avail yourself of other remedies.....such as calling the police and having the delinquents (which is what they would be at that point in time) hauled off.

With that in mind, I can't help but note your apparent comparison of the picketer in question with "jr high kids"...and, unfortunately, it's all too apt. This picketer supposedly was a Teamster official of one sort or another, and the expectation would be that she SHOULD know the law....and not act so childishly as to flaunt it. Don't get me wrong; I'm not excusing running someone down...but let's put the onus where it belongs; i.e. - on the one who flaunted the law and created the situation to begin with.

Again, Teamsters can't demand that others behave legally and ethically while they, themselves ignore the same. It's EXTREMELY difficult for them to present themselves as taking the "high road" when it's obvious that they were the ones that took the "low" one first. Yet, time and time again, they tend to behave like the "jr high kids" you mentioned. Given that, is it any wonder they have the reputation that they do?
 
ok you are right I should not have used the comparison but none the less I let them do their thing even though it is annoying regardless of the law. Not once has it entered my mind to pull right up to them, push them out of my way or call the police on them for blocking my entrance. It is only a delay in exiting or entering not permanant blockage. Temporary, delayed. We all understand they are here to do what they feel they need to do and we are there to do what we feel we need to do. We can both be there doing what we feel needs to be done in a civilized manner to get our (both sides) point across. Would you agree on that?
 
teamster_in_wa

In a way, I understand where you're coming from. But you need to understand that, just because your feel that you're doing what you need to do, that doesn't absolve you of your obligation to observe the law; i.e. - being a striker doesn't make you any better (or worse, for that matter) than any other citizen.

But let's look at it from another perspective, shall we? I'm aware of management in a Midwest grocers strike who took the initiative and started (quite legally - it's a two-edged sword, you know) picketing some UFCW members homes during a job action. They paraded in front of their driveways, giving the members spouses all kinds of fits, and generally making asses of themselves just like apparently (the picketer did claim to be shouting "stop", didn't she?) the Teamsters at Oak Harbor were doing. Saying that was YOUR house...would you feel the same way that you claim to now? Would you call the opposing side in such a situation "civilized"?

Not trying to undermine your right to strike and picket (although in situations where the company has indicated that its planning on hiring permanent replacement workers, I'm inclined to think it's downright stupid; take note of the Teamster beer distributors in St. Louis, for example, or the Teamster nurses at Northern Michigan Hospital or, more recently, the striking Waste Management Teamsters up in Wisconsin); I *am* questioning your apparently perceived "right" to picket in such a fashion that it goes beyond informing and demonstrating what you want and disrupts daily business. To me, that's not "civilized" at all, but rather just a bunch of "jr high kids" reacting poutingly to their recognition that, on the basis of their fair market value, they're not worth what they thought they were.

Frankly, at this point in time, I wonder if Oak Harbor really cares about getting any point across; rather I *suspect* (PLEASE note that this is just a suspicion, and NOT a declaration of fact!) it currently has resigned itself to just shaking-off the burden the Teamsters currently represent, and moving ahead with its business, both for the benefit of the stakeholders, and for those actually *IN* the company's employ (and make no mistake about it; except in the most legalistic of senses, those on the picket line are no longer functioning as "employees"). I've been on both sides of such lines, and can't help but have some foreboding of how the handwriting on the wall will read. In that, I hope I'm wrong; fear I'm not.

P.S. - Unlike you , and while I probably wouldn't go so far as to "run them down", if a bunch of jr. high school snots persisted in *deliberately* (I'm not talking about mentally impaired children here, or any other such flaky supposition!) blocking access to my own driveway, I *WOULD* go so far as to call the police on them, and wouldn't have the slightest regret in seeing their butts hauled away. You see, even "jr high kids" are old enough to have at least SOME comprehension of responsibility and awareness that they're not absolved of the CONSEQUENCES of their actions. Kids that aren't made aware of such consequences grow-up to be just like the Teamsters local president I mentioned in another thread, who admitted throwing explosive devices in the backs of trucks and destroying them during a job action. Society doesn't need anymore of that type of conduct from anybody....even if it is repented later on in life.
 
What it really hinges on is the outcome of the ULP which can take some time for that. At this point I am just going to agree to disagree with you and hold my sign high, abide by the rules of the picket line and carry on with whatever outcome will come. Thanks for the debate it was enlightening in many ways.
 
teamster_in_wa

Can't say that, if I were in your shoes, I'd feel any differently. It's just that, from an outsider's perspective, these seem to be perilous economic times...and so many, many Teamsters have already lost their jobs via such actions since I got my card forty years or so ago.

In any case, I'll go along with your "agree to disagree", and tell you right out that I sincerely wish that my assessment of the situation (actually just a suspicion - I don't know enough about it to truly refer to it as an "assessment") is completely off-base. Contrary to what many may think, I'm not at all "anti-Teamster"; what I am is "pro Teamster member", in that I hate to see so many of them sacrifice their jobs trying to service outmoded so-called "pro-labor" practices that have proved to be absolutely dismal failures.

Anyway, good luck.....
 
teamster in wa said:
When I am turning into my driveway and the jr high kids are crossing in front and they stop in the middle to talk to a friend, knowing that someone is trying to pull in should I run them over. I get annoyed honk my horn they give me the finger then finally move on. By your law I have the right to run into them? Just trying to understand my rights and have more understanding of the law. And one more question I have been dying to ask you Wilbur how is Mr Ed? Sorry had to do it that was the first thing I thought of when you chimed in.
Click to expand...

If said kids(more than 12) were high schoolers and upset at you and prone to monkeying around with your vehicle which would cause you to break down.....What would you do?
 
about sick pay, one of their dvds said they want to ELIMINATE sick days because not enough employees used them simple as that. the fact is our current sick day system is superior to the companies.
 
Wilbur said:
airhorn;

Perhaps you ought to take your reasoning a step further; i.e. - differentiate the "right of way" to the "right to obstruct"....especially on private property.

I've no problem with giving pedestrians the "right of way". However if you look, once again, at the Teamsters *OWN* press release, you see the picketers admission that he was *STANDING* (NOT "making way") and commanding the driver to "STOP". Meanwhile, other supposed Teamsters who claimed to have been present admitted that they were attempting to stop ingress (not "make way") for at least three minutes.

So, with that in mind, I suggest you follow your own advice....and "study the law a little harder" yourself. If you find that it's exactly as you state, I'll be more than willing to stand my *** rigidly in the the living room of your house to exercise my alleged "right of way" as a "pedestrian". Sound like plan? After all, I'm sure your family members would appreciate your rather unique (to say the least!) interpretation of the law.

Bottom line: silly is as silly does. If you want to compare blocking ingress/egress on private property (and there, again, read the Teamsters own press release) with a pedestrians exercise of right of WAY, then you deserve all the scorn that such a position will bring down on you.
Click to expand...

standing in the middle of a living room would be ok with me i dont expect anyone or my self to have any motor vehicles coming through my home in the near future. now just hypotheticaly if i were walking or for that matter standing in place and it appeared to me that said vehicle wasnt stopping i would probably yell stop to espeailly if it caught me off gaurd thus restricting my reaction time. now to answer the other part pedestrains always have the right of way if they are blocking you foward moving abilities you can always call the police they will asses the situation and remove the obstructor that would be the lagal way to handle it not by ramming hitting or forcing you can how ever go around i find that works sometimes
 
Wilbur said:
TheBigR;

Again, I point to the Teamsters own press release, which refers to them being allowed on "the property", rather than the public domain. And, in terms of what Oak Harbor might do, I suggest you read (on their own website) the letter (or service update...whatever) they released to their own customers discussing how and why picketers might be permitted (or, in truth, actually herded if need be) onto private property. Think that would explain a lot.

Lastly, getting back to "airhorns" proclamation (regardless of private property or not) that....

"pedestrians always have the right of way no matter what"

....I suggest he try to exercise that "right" (or what is a "right" in his mind at least) in the Big City at a marked, signaled cross-walk against the traffic light when a couple of buses and a bunch of taxis are bearing down at speed on the intersection. To wit: "pedestrians always have the right of way" may have a VERY valid place in terms of traffic safety....but it just doesn't hold under the law. Otherwise there'd be no need for pedestrian signals....every pedestrian could just exercise their "right" of "right of way" any place and any time of their choosing.

Just a suggestion...but it might be a good idea if Teamsters got together and got their stories straight; the apparent contradiction of each other doesn't inspire confidence in their credibility.
Click to expand...

i drive in downtown situations all the time and wether or not i'm in my personal truck or my work truck i always stop when a pedestrian puts his/her foot into the street regardless of the traffic signal it is a lot easier than trying to explain why i have a person under my vehicle it also makes me sleep easier at nights knowing that nobody died because i could have kept going these are not just laws of the road but common sense just because these pedestrains in downtown scenarios dont pay attention doesnt mean you dont have to ( i am not comparing the teamster in question to people in downtown situations just clarifying that it is the vehicle operator to pay attention at all times ) :chairshot:
 
just asking said:
Has anyone actually laid eyes on this document and read it front to back??? I'm hearing that the pension was back in AND the retiree benefits were back in. If it was, why didn't the teamsters tell us that? Why didn't they give people a chance to read it and vote on it?
Click to expand...

The strike is not happening because of the contract proposal. The strike is because of Unfair Labor Practices. The result of the threats, polling, harrassing, changes in working conditions and so forth is a crappy proposal. What is in the proposal is irrelevant. I believe the Unions position is that if the company wouldn't have broken the law, the proposal would/could be better.
 
Has the union enumerated and described the alleged ULPs yet? Last I looked, they were being extremely vague about the charges they were [going?] to make.

I ask because I could see where not presenting the charges as to what alleged ULPs were committed to the company, and thus not allowing them the opportunity to correct them, if indeed they were unfair labor practices, might (repeat MIGHT - this is primarily speculation, so take it as that!) tend to hurt the union's position in the long run.

I mention it because, from the news sources I've read, the company has declared that it has already hired 40 or so "permanent" replacement workers....and companies usually don't take that step (or at least announce it as such) if they think ULP justification for a strike is likely to be upheld.

Anyway, does anybody know? I.e. - just "what", exactly, ULPs were committed, and "when", "where", and "how"? Knowledge of such considerations would seem to be extremely important in making a prediction on how this thing might turn out.
 
Wilbur said:
Has the union enumerated and described the alleged ULPs yet? Last I looked, they were being extremely vague about the charges they were [going?] to make.

I ask because I could see where not presenting the charges as to what alleged ULPs were committed to the company, and thus not allowing them the opportunity to correct them, if indeed they were unfair labor practices, might (repeat MIGHT - this is primarily speculation, so take it as that!) tend to hurt the union's position in the long run.

I mention it because, from the news sources I've read, the company has declared that it has already hired 40 or so "permanent" replacement workers....and companies usually don't take that step (or at least announce it as such) if they think ULP justification for a strike is likely to be upheld.

Anyway, does anybody know? I.e. - just "what", exactly, ULPs were committed, and "when", "where", and "how"? Knowledge of such considerations would seem to be extremely important in making a prediction on how this thing might turn out.
Click to expand...

Your profile doesn't show if you are a Oakie or not but at any rate FYI the company has sent out a "Repudiation of Unfair Labor Practices" dated October 9th. They advise us they have corrected the issues. They are suppose to be posted at each terminal so stop by and read them. If you are employed by Oak you should also have a copy in the mail. I would post them here but that is not allowed.

Hope this answers your questions.

Here is the NLRB Act:
NLRB | About Us | Overview | National Labor Relations Act
and search page that you can find them at:
Regional Office Cases

Here are the charges:

Unfair Labor Practice (Complaint) Case Information Display
Case Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Date Filed: 07/25/2008
Case Number: 19-CA-31468-001
NLRA Section: 8(a)(1)Rules: Other Employer Rules
8(a)(1)Changes in Conditions of Employment [not 8a3]
8(a)(5)Direct Dealing/Bypassing Union

Appeal Det: No Appeal Determination Data Available.
Charged Party: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Union Name: International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Employer Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Case Status: Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------

Unfair Labor Practice (Complaint) Case Information Display
Case Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Date Filed: 09/09/2008
Case Number: 19-CA-31526-001
NLRA Section: 8(a)(5)Unilateral Changes [not Sec. 8(d)]

Appeal Det: No Appeal Determination Data Available.
Charged Party: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Union Name: Teamsters Local 174
Employer Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Case Status: Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Unfair Labor Practice (Complaint) Case Information Display
Case Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Date Filed: 09/18/2008
Case Number: 19-CA-31536-001
NLRA Section: 8(a)(5)Unilateral Changes [not Sec. 8(d)]

Appeal Det: No Appeal Determination Data Available.
Charged Party: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Union Name: Teamsters Local 174
Employer Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Case Status: Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfair Labor Practice (Complaint) Case Information Display
Case Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Date Filed: 09/18/2008
Case Number: 19-CA-31538-001
NLRA Section: 8(a)(1)Interrogation
8(a)(1)Other Allegations
8(a)(1)Promise of Benefits
8(a)(1)Surveillance
8(a)(2)Creation of In-House Organization (Electromation)
8(a)(2)Interference
8(a)(2)Other Allegations

Appeal Det: No Appeal Determination Data Available.
Charged Party: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Union Name: Teamsters Local 174
Employer Name: Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc.
Case Status: Investigation
-----------------------------------------------


PS: Ed, the wooden shoes have dry rot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top