What's new

Thrown Under The Bus Again

Razorblade said:
There you go again, "employer over employee". Us against them. A stable, profitable company IS good for employees. Stable, profitable companies are those with management and labor working together to reach the same goals of growth and prosperity for everyone. Newsflash! management personnel are also employees.
Click to expand...
And as usual, you assume a lot without knowing. I never said it was “us against them”. I was simply pointing out the fact that in your eye’s, you think the company has the right to take away from the employee for more profits. You feel that union employees should just accept whatever is offered by their employer without even negotiating for better wages, benefits, and work rules. So let me ask you this Blade. What is the point of having a labor contract if you are not going to try to improve on it and just accept whatever the company does? Being a former Union Rep and Union Recruiter, what was your sales pitch to entice potential workers to join the Union? Just roll over and play dead while the company walks all over you without putting up a fight? With that mind set, I’ll bet you knocked it out of the park recruiting potential new members (heavy on the sarcasm).
 
Razorblade said:
Newsflash! management personnel are also employees.
Click to expand...
Hold it just a second there.....when I said they are employees with no skin in the game just like me, you came up with a cockamamie excuse about them not having a grievance procedure so it wasn't the same in your eyes....I said it doesn't matter because most of them have sweet buyouts (see Zollars, Bill 12 million dollar buyout) to soften the blow....of course crickets (no reply) from you. So what is it this week Blade, are they employees or not?
 
ABF381 said:
Hold it just a second there.....when I said they are employees with no skin in the game just like me, you came up with a cockamamie excuse about them not having a grievance procedure so it wasn't the same in your eyes....I said it doesn't matter because most of them have sweet buyouts (see Zollars, Bill 12 million dollar buyout) to soften the blow....of course crickets (no reply) from you. So what is it this week Blade, are they employees or not?
Click to expand...
Not true.
I said, unlike Teamsters who have no production standards, management employees must prove their value every day and are subject to termination as employees at will. The Teamster worker cannot be held responsible for poor performance as long as he is upright and mobile. Management employees can be rewarded for work ethic and performance while union employees cannot due to the archaic system that declares all workers equal and only seniority matters. Management employees can be placed in positions for which they are most suited and most efficient, Teamsters cannot. It's a system that creates mediocrity at best. In today's competitive industry, mediocrity is not good enough.
Zollars got his 12 million because he was contractually entitled to it. I would think you, of all people, would defend his right to be paid as agreed.
 
Razorblade said:
The Teamster worker cannot be held responsible for poor performance as long as he is upright and mobile. Management employees can be rewarded for work ethic and performance while union employees cannot due to the archaic system that declares all workers equal and only seniority matters. Management employees can be placed in positions for which they are most suited and most efficient, Teamsters cannot. It's a system that creates mediocrity at best.
Click to expand...
That is not true and you should well know that. Article 46 in the Southern Region Supplement clearly states the penalty (termination) for those that do not do their job, upright and mobile or not. You try to make it sound like once your a Teamster, that you are untouchable. You used to be one (apparently by title only), so you of all people know the penalty for theft of company time or property. And, in case you did not know it, dock employees do not choose whether or not they unload (break freight) or load (stack from the dock). The supervisors decide this by placing you where they feel you do the best work. So please do your homework before posting things that are just not true.
 
Razorblade said:
Not true.
I said, unlike Teamsters who have no production standards, management employees must prove their value every day and are subject to termination as employees at will. The Teamster worker cannot be held responsible for poor performance as long as he is upright and mobile. Management employees can be rewarded for work ethic and performance while union employees cannot due to the archaic system that declares all workers equal and only seniority matters. Management employees can be placed in positions for which they are most suited and most efficient, Teamsters cannot. It's a system that creates mediocrity at best. In today's competitive industry, mediocrity is not good enough.
Zollars got his 12 million because he was contractually entitled to it. I would think you, of all people, would defend his right to be paid as agreed.
Click to expand...
Find a part in my quote ( or any quote of mine for that matter) where I say he shouldn't be paid....we went over that before and you can't help yourself I guess.....most workers are not held responsible for poor performance as you can read on any of the non union boards on TB....management doesn't like doing their jobs is the conclusion I come to.....every profession has mediocrity in it, you name it doctor, lawyer, accountant, former labor union organizers....all these professionals have in there ranks slackers and people in over their heads...in every class whether it is elementary school through college you have the head of the class down to the person who passed by the skin of their teeth....all got the same piece of paper saying they passed....the archaic system you speak of is also alive and well in management...
 
Razorblade said:
Not true.
I said, unlike Teamsters who have no production standards, management employees must prove their value every day and are subject to termination as employees at will. The Teamster worker cannot be held responsible for poor performance as long as he is upright and mobile. Management employees can be rewarded for work ethic and performance while union employees cannot due to the archaic system that declares all workers equal and only seniority matters. Management employees can be placed in positions for which they are most suited and most efficient, Teamsters cannot. It's a system that creates mediocrity at best. In today's competitive industry, mediocrity is not good enough.
Zollars got his 12 million because he was contractually entitled to it. I would think you, of all people, would defend his right to be paid as agreed.
Click to expand...
Your quote said "....they (management) have no grievance procedure...". in another post you say " Labor is all the same.". So I take it even you realize that some employees are better than others at performing the same task....of course you only think that when it comes to union employees....management you put on a pedestal and think they are all wonderful, because you live in this fantasy world where management is held to a high standard and are shown the door for poor performance.... that is laughable at best and I'm surprised someone at your age believes that...I know for a fact that a reason a manager I have had wasn't replaced when he did something he could be terminated for was because his boss would have had to come do his job till he found someone and replace him....that would take a lot of effort and not surprisingly my boss kept his job.....management most of the time takes the path of least resistance... less effort to do that, and far less work....
 
Lincoln Highway said:
Glaring shortfalls in the Butch Lewis act. It appears doubtful due to the crooked numbers being used that affected Multi Employer Pension Plans will be able to pay full benefits into 2051. Butch Lewis most certainly does not provide enough funding to fully fund Multi Employer Pension Funds either in 2021 or 2051. How does it benefit Teamsters if their pension funds are all insolvent in 2051. The most glaring failure of Butch Lewis is it's failure to adopt Single Employer Pension Fund guarantees, no fully insured pensions for future pension fund bankruptcy. I'm amazed the Teamster Retirees who lobbied and helped craft this bill do not feel deep shame in it's passage.
Click to expand...
What about the last contract rati
Lincoln Highway said:
Glaring shortfalls in the Butch Lewis act. It appears doubtful due to the crooked numbers being used that affected Multi Employer Pension Plans will be able to pay full benefits into 2051. Butch Lewis most certainly does not provide enough funding to fully fund Multi Employer Pension Funds either in 2021 or 2051. How does it benefit Teamsters if their pension funds are all insolvent in 2051. The most glaring failure of Butch Lewis is it's failure to adopt Single Employer Pension Fund guarantees, no fully insured pensions for future pension fund bankruptcy. I'm amazed the Teamster Retirees who lobbied and helped craft this bill do not feel deep shame in it's passage.
Click to expand...
What about the fact that the last contract ratified by Yellow and Holland did not include payments beyond 25% contributions to Central States pension fund? No one can give me an answer as to why. Other than it's a hopeless cause. So instead we are depending upon the Federal Government to bail out our pension. As you can see we probably aren't going to be able to rely on Government. Of course we apparently are not going to be able to depend on the Teamsters. The only Teamsters getting their full pensions are in the ivory tower in Washington, D.C.
 
Razorblade said:
The point remains. The typical rank and file Teamster refuses to look past next weeks paycheck. YRC should, for the benefit of all their employees, present a take it or leave it offer in order to remain viable, allow them to pay down debt, return to profitability, provide job security for all employees from CEO on down, expand their customer base and create the ability to hire and retain employees in every classification. Will the YRC employees vote to stay employed or vote to shut it down?
Post # 25 was a series of questions starting with "do you think". Read it again. NEVER did I say $100.00 a week would fund pensions. So I will ask those questions again.
Given a finite amount of money,
What would you cut to restore full pensions?
Will the rank and file accept cuts to healthcare to restore pensions?
Will the members agree to healthcare co-pays and deductibles?
Will the members ratify a contract with a $100.00 a week deduction for insurance premiums?
The answer to those questions are nothing and no.
I will add a question. What are the members willing to accept to secure their future?
Your non union competition doesn't require one size fits all healthcare. Employees have choices. Different co-pays, deductibles and premiums based on their family needs. They offer tax free HSA plans to their employees. Your competition offers matching 401K plans so the employee never has to worry about a third party fund going broke or changing the rules for their retirement.
The real difference is that your competition trusts the employee to make decisions and take personal responsibility for their future. Teamsters reject that common sense approach.
Click to expand...
Late in responding, amen brother you said it all.
 
Razorblade said:
There is a limited amount of money.
Fully funding pensions means taking away something else. Wages cannot be cut any further. Will the membership vote for a deal that cuts healthcare? Are the rank and file ready for co-pays and deductibles? Will they ratify a contract that takes $100.00 a week from their pay for insurance premiums?
What would you cut to get 100% funding of pensions?
Click to expand...
The first thing I would cut is OVERPAID upper management at Yellow. There is no one worth MILLIONS of dollars in compensation per year. Plus Holland or Yellow or whatever name is popular this week wastes enough money to fund our pension. In other words it ALL goes back to Yellow's historical **** poor management and greed as the reason our pension is underfunded.
 
rtm457 said:
What about the last contract rati

What about the fact that the last contract ratified by Yellow and Holland did not include payments beyond 25% contributions to Central States pension fund? No one can give me an answer as to why. Other than it's a hopeless cause. So instead we are depending upon the Federal Government to bail out our pension. As you can see we probably aren't going to be able to rely on Government. Of course we apparently are not going to be able to depend on the Teamsters. The only Teamsters getting their full pensions are in the ivory tower in Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...
AND...THAT is why the last 2 contracts MANY have tried to get members to vote it down if it did NOT include Pension increases in the contract! But they waved the damn 1-week vacation back and a dollar in front of greedy MEsters and the yes votes passed it. "Be glad we have a job" was the scare tactic used and now this country cannot get enough drivers and freight workers! You vote NO, to go back to the table! 2024 is a long way off! Maybe some will read the damned thing before voting this time?
 
Steward of the Rock said:
And as usual, you assume a lot without knowing. I never said it was “us against them”. I was simply pointing out the fact that in your eye’s, you think the company has the right to take away from the employee for more profits. You feel that union employees should just accept whatever is offered by their employer without even negotiating for better wages, benefits, and work rules. So let me ask you this Blade. What is the point of having a labor contract if you are not going to try to improve on it and just accept whatever the company does? Being a former Union Rep and Union Recruiter, what was your sales pitch to entice potential workers to join the Union? Just roll over and play dead while the company walks all over you without putting up a fight? With that mind set, I’ll bet you knocked it out of the park recruiting potential new members (heavy on the sarcasm).
Click to expand...
Let's be clear. It is impossible to "take away" from the employees. A reduction in wages and benefits only occurs through negotiation and ratification.
Does an employer have the "right" to pay less? Absolutely, it's their company. The job does not belong to you. You are also not their indentured servant, employees have the right to sell their services to another employer at a higher rate.
What's the point of having a labor contract if you're not going to improve on it? Improve how? Look at the industry. The best paying companies, the companies with the greatest job security are also the companies with the best bottom line. Yeah, I know ABF at 92 OR and tiny 8% gross profit. You have said they can pay more. What happens at 97 OR? Will you suddenly say, ABF can't afford these wages and benefits? Nope. It will always be the same scenario, more is better and more is never enough. Keep improving until ABF is the new Yellow and YRC joins the other 600+ union companies
that only exist in old guys memories.
Triplex likes to talk about greedy million dollar CEO salaries. You once said H&W and pension cost $800.00 a week per driver. Is $180,000.00 a year in wages, benefits, social security match, paid time off, unemployment and workers comp insurance for a single linehaul driver greedy?
 
Razorblade said:
Triplex likes to talk about greedy million dollar CEO salaries. You once said H&W and pension cost $800.00 a week per driver. Is $180,000.00 a year in wages, benefits, social security match, paid time off, unemployment and workers comp insurance for a single linehaul driver greedy?
Click to expand...
I don't think Triplex said any such thing....I could be wrong but show me a link....and most people wouldn't balk at million dollar salaries but 10 million on up to in excess of 50 million are obscene and before you say anything tell me how that is good for shareholders......lets see about the other things here...social security, unemployment, and workmans comp are required by law so I have no idea why you are mentioning that.....H&W are also paid by non union companies for their employees....which according to one poster on here is comparable to what ABF pays the teamsters (don't know if that's true)......so I guess the biggest difference is pension versus 401k match...I will admit that a pension (you do like your pension, don't you?) is probably more, but all of the other things are comparable, but I know you have been out of the game for awhile but wages at a decent non union company are higher....I would call it close to a wash...
 
Razorblade, this post is in response to your post above (#112).
(1) Under a labor contract, the company does not have the right to pay less than what the contract calls for.
(2) The companies with the best job security are the ones with a labor contract that protects them from unjust firings and work rules clearly defined contractually.
(3) If the OR for the calendar year at ABF is a 97%, the employees do not get the OR bonus. 96% or better is a 1% OR bonus. 95% or better is a 2% OR bonus. 93% or better is a 3% OR bonus. This is all contractual.
(4) You will have to speak to Triplex about the things you allege that he said.
(5) Our H&W and Pension contributions are just under $800 per week in the Southern Region per the contract which ABF agreed to.
(6) If the road driver is able to earn $180,000.00 per year contractually, how does that make him greedy? After all, the company agreed to these terms per the contract.
Is there anything else you need to know about our contract as you are obviously completely out of touch with how a labor contract works in today’s times. And I am still waiting on that killer sales pitch that you used as a union recruiter/organizer back in the day to encourage people to join the union. And, yes we will be going after improvements to our current contract in the 2023 contract negotiations. And, yes you are still a pathetic example of what a former, disgruntled Teamster looks and sounds like. You should get in touch with Puff Driver as you two clearly have so much in common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top