February 17, 2005: According to Teamsters representatives, the union is in the early stages of examining the use of security screening devices that use radiation to scan the contents of trucks and trailers at ports and border crossings. The use of gamma rays, which emit low doses of radiation, may pose a health risk to drivers. Recently a Teamsters spokesman reported the union had requested information from the equipment manufacturers and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

February 17, 2005: Boston Local 25 President Ritchie Reardon told Joint Council 10 that the IBT Parcel Division approved a mid-contract giveback to UPS that violates language in the New England supplement. Reardon’s statement was part of his testimony in a hearing on internal union charges over the concession. The testimony marks the first time that anyone has put on the record that the IBT approved the contract concession. Reardon said the approval was not issued in writing.

Sunday to Thursday Without Premium Pay
Local 25 negotiated a side agreement with UPS management, after the company threatened to move some jobs, that allowed the company to establish a Sunday to Thursday workweek with no premium pay for Sundays. The New England supplement recognizes only a Monday to Friday or a Tuesday to Saturday workweek.  The UPS contract requires that all mid-contract agreements be approved by the Joint National Negotiating Committee.

The giveback quickly spread to locals 42, 191, 340 and 671.

Other local unions voted the giveback down or refused to hold a vote—even though UPS threatened some locals that they would lose work if they did so.
Members have argued that the change to the regional supplement should have been put to a regional vote—rather than allowing UPS to pit local against local for the best deal.

The impact of this giveback continues to be felt. Recently UPS management at the Worcester hub posted a notice stating that the a.m. sort would be shut down and that the volume would be “moved to other hubs.” Worcester Local 170 was one of the locals that resisted the side agreement.

If the IBT and all New England locals had stayed united it would be impossible for management to pit members against each other in this manner.

Lawsuit Dismissed
A lawsuit filed by members to reverse the concession was dismissed on a technicality Jan. 13. The judge hearing the case ruled that the suit needed to be filed within six months of the change at Local 25, rather than within six months of the date that Local 25 refused to process members’ grievance against the change.

According to Local 25 member David Whitney, the New England Supplement Protection Committee will continue pursuing the issue through charges that are under investigation at the National Labor Relations Board. Also, internal union charges have been filed against officials of all the local unions that made the change without a proper vote of the members.

February 17, 2007: When Hoffa’s handpicked candidate in Georgia Local 528 lost an election in December, he tried to get around the will of the membership by extending the local’s trusteeship. Fast legal action has stopped this trick and struck a blow for membership rights.

Federal law states that unions must have compelling reasons to keep locals in trusteeship past a period of 18 months. Local 528 members first threatened legal action when the IBT let the 18 months pass without notice of an election.

In response the IBT held an election in December. Hoffa waived eligibility requirements for the trustee, International Rep Doug Norris, but Norris and his slate narrowly lost the election.

The notice of election stated that the new officers would be installed on Jan. 1, but that date came and went. Hoffa’s trustee filed election protests (after he ran the election), and intended to stay in office meanwhile.

This little trick, if allowed to stand, could extend 18-month trusteeships to periods of years. Election protest decisions can be appealed to the General Executive Board. With no time limits set for GEB decisions, a final ruling could take months or years. Meanwhile, the trusteeship would drag on.

Under the threat of imminent legal action, the election protests were dropped and an agreement reached to install the new officers in February.

Congratulations to Local 528 members for helping to protect the rights of all Teamster members.

February 17, 2007: Teamster drivers are often called upon to honor picket lines.  The law regarding where and when workers can picket— or legally respect another picket line—can get complicated.

When union members are on strike, Teamster drivers need clear communication from our union—and we need it fast.  The national UPS, freight and carhaul agreements all include strong language protecting Teamster drivers’ right to respect primary picket lines. The National Labor Relations Act also protects this right.

A primary picket line is, in general, one set up by workers against their own employer. So if workers from Company A are on strike, workers from Company B can generally refuse to cross picket lines set up outside Company A, unless their union contract says otherwise.

This is a general rule. The law regarding where and when workers can picket—or legally respect another picket line—can get complicated depending on the strike. 

Pennsylvania Turnpike Strike—How Not to Build Solidarity
When picket lines go up, the IBT needs to be more efficient about getting information out to local unions and members. The recent strike on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is a case in point.

Last Thanksgiving, 1,800 Pennsylvania Turnpike Teamsters struck in a fight over job security and health benefits. UPS management told Teamsters to use the turnpike if they valued their jobs.

With management issuing threats, Teamster drivers were kept in the dark. The IBT didn’t issue a directive about the picket line until the final day of the strike. Up to that point, locals and members were left to sort out the confusion on their own.

Drivers from New Jersey locals stopped to call their local union halls before entering the Pennsylvania Turnpike. They report that business agents said they had no knowledge of a toll takers strike and could not get any information from the IBT. Other drivers from North Jersey locals say there were told by business agents to cross the line if the conditions were safe.

Some Teamster locals built strike solidarity.  They posted notices stating that the tollbooths were lawful primary picket lines within the meaning of Teamster contracts.

But their efforts were hampered by lack of clear information and direction from the International.

The turnpike strike could have built strength through Teamster solidarity. Instead, the confusion caused by lack of information from the IBT has pitted Teamster against Teamster.

‘Toll Workers Were Outraged’
“Obviously, the toll workers were outraged when they saw some UPS drivers using the turnpike. Since then, I’ve been called a scab, a Teamster traitor, and a lot of stuff you can’t print,” one Local 384 feeder driver told Convoy Dispatch. “But when I called my local about my rights, they gave me no information. Our Teamster leaders really let us down.”

During the strike, UPS fired several Local 30 Teamster drivers for honoring the line. The IBT has stood up for these members; they won their jobs back and are grieving for back pay.

When Teamsters or other union members are on strike, the IBT needs to come out early with clear information for local unions so they can inform Teamster members on their right to honor the picket line.
United we win.

February 17, 2005: Like many others, the railroad industry has undergone dramatic restructuring over the past few decades. For train and engine crews, perhaps the biggest threat of the new century is the recent advent of remote control operation of trains in the rail yard and more recently, employers’ calls for single-person operation of over-the-road trains.

Remote control operation was implemented on a broad scale on most of the nation’s major railroads in 2002. The employees on the ground, who couple and uncouple the rail cars and perform a host of other tasks, now operate the locomotive as well, by manipulating the buttons and switches on a belt-pack device. But at what cost to safety?

Little Training or Experience
After just 80 hours of training, a novice switchman is operating a locomotive that once took an engineer months to learn to operate properly. In addition that engineer was required to have a federal certification and a complete understanding of the locomotive’s operation. Without the experience of being “in the seat,” there is no way an employee working from the ground can handle a train as efficiently or as safely as a properly trained employee in the locomotive cab. And because these remote-control-operation jobs are often the least coveted by senior workers on the railroad, they often fall to inexperienced switchmen, who are only just learning the ropes. Obviously, employee safety has been greatly compromised by the advent of remote control operation.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), now part of the Teamsters and known as the BLET (for engineers and trainmen), historically has represented the vast majority of the nation’s engineers. Meanwhile the United Transportation Union has represented the conductors and other trainmen.

But rather than unite and fight on remote control operation, the two unions are at each other’s throats. Why? Because the looming threat of this new technology means that jobs could be lost in droves. Would these job losses be engineer jobs or conductor jobs?

Engineer Positions Abolished
Rather than take a principled stand and collectively resist, neither union trusts the other. In 2002 the UTU signed an agreement with the railroads that would allow the UTU-represented conductors to be the sole operators of the remotely controlled locomotives. As a result, thousands of engineer positions represented by the BLE were abolished.

Now it appears that the major rail carriers plan to launch an assault designed to eliminate one of the two over-the-road positions from the engine cab. The implementation of new technology over the past 25 years has paved the way for this latest attack.

The need for the utmost solidarity is apparent. If the unions lose another round on this issue, thousands more jobs stand to be eliminated.

The national freight carriers advocate trains run with a single “transportation employee,” who would both run the engine and assume the duties of the conductor.

Presumably, rather than have the conductor handle the ground work, this lone employee would dismount from the locomotive to do so, or would have an all-purpose “utility employee” tend to switches, air hoses, couplers, etc. of multiple road trains.

The lone employee left in the cab would be expected to handle all of the paperwork for the train, keeping track of waybills, orders, hazardous material information, etc—currently duties of the conductor. Alone in the cab, operating in remote conditions, out of contact with other co-workers, the safety of such an employee would be greatly compromised.

No Fightback Strategy on Either Front
The unions, divided as they are, have no strategy to combat remote control. The BLET has attempted a series of largely unsuccessful lawsuits. The union has had some success in its attempt to lobby local governments in some regions to outlaw remote control operation.

There is speculation that some rank-and-file trainmen are working-to-rule with remote control operation, which may have contributed to congestion and delay in some areas.

But no union has called for such action, or for that matter, any other workplace activity. The BLE merger with the IBT appears to have achieved little on the remote-control-operation front.

As for the question of single-employee operation of road trains, the unions are simply taking a wait-and-see approach. No alarm bell has been sounded, no strategy articulated, no member asked to take part in any campaign. Without cross-craft solidarity and united action by the UTU and BLET, the carriers will stand to win another round.

February 17, 2005: In Seattle, rank and file engineers and trainmen are joining together with their Teamster brothers and sisters in the fight against the railroad carriers.

The National Carriers Conference Committee, the negotiating body for most of the nation’s railroads, issued their “wish list” for the new national agreement last November. Among the most alarming demands was a plan to combine the duties of engineer and conductor into one “transportation employee” position (see article this page).

In Seattle, workers in BLET Division 518 overwhelmingly adopted a resolution directing their officers to present legislation banning one-person crews in their state. Similar to a bill already passed in Wisconsin, this proposal gives railroaders an opportunity to inform fellow workers and the public of this potential danger. If adopted in other states across the nation, public pressure may derail implementation of one-person crews even if the carriers get their way in contract negotiations.

The reform officers of Teamsters Local 174 in Seattle, which represents rail yard truck drivers in the city, immediately pledged their support to the 200+ workers of the BLET Division 518 in this fight for their livelihoods. They have joined us in urging our state legislators to act now to protect our jobs and public safety.

We of the BLET urge all rank and file Teamsters to seek out their brothers and sisters in the rail industry so we can learn from each other. We welcome your knowledge and enthusiasm, and look forward to learning how to better organize in our workplaces and forge bonds with others to take back labor power.

Jeanette Wallis
BLET Division 518, BNSF
Seattle, Wash.

February 17, 2005: In January Labor Notes released A Troublemaker’s Handbook 2, edited by Jane Slaughter, the second edition of the popular manual on how to fight back at your workplace and win. Like the first edition, Troublemaker’s 2 is a strategy guide to organizing lessons, tactics, and strategies from the viewpoint of unionists on the front lines.

Labor Notes is a Detroit-based newsletter publisher and education center for reformers in all unions. Many Teamster activists have relied on the first edition of the book, published in 1991, for ideas on how to change things at their own workplaces and locals.

Tom Leedham, Local 206 secretary-treasurer, says, “In our local, the Troublemaker’s first edition is the most dog-eared, coffee-stained volume on our bookshelves. Troublemaker’s 2 is full of ideas and tools activists can use to build a stronger, democratic union and win more rights on the job.”

The book includes chapters on shop floor tactics, fighting discrimination, fighting lean production and outsourcing, running contract campaigns, developing new leaders, bringing immigrants into the movement, building reform caucuses, running for office and running your local right.

Hundreds of Stories
The oversize manual is a collaboration of over 70 authors and includes hundreds of first-person accounts. The stories run from how to ridicule a pompous boss to a years-long campaign against a multinational corporation. The workplaces represented include factory and white collar, public and private, U.S. and Canadian.

Several Teamster and TDU struggles are highlighted. The book includes the 1997 UPS strike and stories from meatpackers at Tyson Foods, members of Local 556, who built a member-to-member network, won the right to elect stewards, and took on aggressive supervisors.

A TDU member in Baltimore Local 355 tells his story of starting a shop newsletter, the “355 Informer.” Local 572’s work in stopping scab hiring in a southern California food warehouse is described, as are other lessons from the Teamsters and well beyond.

The book’s editor, Jane Slaughter, is a former auto worker and a veteran writer and educator for Labor Notes. She is also author of Working Smart: A Union Guide to Participaton Programs and Reengineering.

A Troublemaker’s Handbook 2 is available from Labor Notes for $24. For more information, phone (313) 842-6262 or visit www.labornotes.org.

Allied Automotive Group has once again demanded concessions from Teamster carhaulers in the form of relief from the June 1 2005 wage increase and relief from “restrictive, non-competitive work rules.” IBT Carhaul Director Doc Conder turned Allied down on February 18.

Allied’s CEO Hugh Sawyer dropped a hint (or a threat) into his February 1 letter, now distributed widely to Allied Teamsters, by mentioning the possibility of bankruptcy. If Sawyer attempts to use bankruptcy court as a weapon to attack our contract, we need to be prepared for an all-out fight. Not just Allied Teamsters, but all Teamsters.

Sawyer claims in his “Dear Jimmy” letter that a silent majority of Allied Teamsters support his drive for concessions. Sawyer, a master of salesmanship and paternalism, often claims to speak for his Teamster employees.

Allied — along with the whole industry — was given a two-year wage freeze in the current contract, and the June 1 raise will be the first one three years. In his February 18 response, Conder states that other union carriers are making money and declines Sawyer’s request for a commission to discuss concessions in wages and working conditions.

Allied continues to be its own worst enemy. For example, in February Allied has lost some Ontario Chrysler work to a non-union operator, Oakwood Transport, for no apparent reason. Allied can’t seem to handle all the Chrysler traffic, and yet has drivers on lay-off in Windsor, Ontario.

February 5, 2005: The contracts that cover about 8,000 Teamster drivers, warehouse workers and office clerks in the Southern California grocery industry are set to expire Sept. 15, 2005.

Coming on the heels of last year’s grueling four-and-a-half month strike and lockout of the UFCW store clerks, these negotiations are sure to be some of the toughest and most demanding in recent history.

Are the employers in a position to take us on like they did the clerks? Is the Teamster leadership prepared to battle the company if necessary? These, and many others, are the questions that rank and filers are asking.

 “We will never know exactly what the companies are going to do, and sometimes it is difficult for us to be certain what our Teamster leadership will do. But one thing is for sure: the rank and file grocery industry Teamsters had better be prepared for whatever possibilities we may face,” says Chuck Robinson, a driver for Albertsons.

A New Era
These negotiations mark the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The long-time union negotiating chair, Jerry Vercruse, passed away last year and the new chair is IBT Vice President Jim Santangelo, who is also the head of Joint Council 42.

Santangelo did an abysmal job during the UFCW strike, so rank and file Teamsters had better be prepared if we want these negotiations to be a success.

I recently contacted the California State Attorney General’s office and obtained a copy of the “Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement” that Ralphs (Kroger), Albertsons, and Vons (Safeway) entered into prior to those negotiations.
Mutual strike assistance? I thought these employers were supposed to be competitors! When it comes to taking on organized labor, these employers are allies and they are united.

Teamster Unity Needed
As Teamsters we need to send the employers a signal that we are just as prepared and united. Management needs to get that message from our leaders—but that’s not enough. The employers need to see the same determination from the ranks. They need to see us getting informed, involved and prepared to take action if necessary to defend our contract and our benefits.

Our union needs a coordinated campaign—with regular contract campaign updates, stickers, petitions, t-shirts, rallies and action days. We need to build a member-to-member communication and mobilization structure to maximize Teamster participation in these activities.

The best way for us to avoid a strike is for the companies to see that we are prepared for one. They need see that members are capable of quickly spreading information and taking rapid action. We can demonstrate that ability by building a strong, effective contract campaign starting now—not waiting until negotiations hit a crisis point.

We also need to make a break with the traditional dinosaur methods of contract negotiations. Rank and filers need to be a part of the negotiating committee, not just officials and business agents.

Rank and file members are the ones most affected by the contract and we deserve a seat at the bargaining table. We should be part of formulating the proposals that are presented to management.

When an offer is ready to be voted on we need to demand that we have an informed vote.

We need ample time to thoroughly review the proposals, and we need everything available in writing. No reading from the podium or side agreements popping up after the vote.

Power of the Rank and File
Teamsters in the grocery industry need to realize the power we possess and the positive gains that we can achieve if we exercise that power effectively. The power of the rank and file is the key to obtaining a quality contract.
It’s our future. Let’s fight for it! 

Frank Halstead, Shop Steward
Local 572, Ralphs Grocery Co.
Compton, Cal.

February 17, 2005: Boston Local 25 President Ritchie Reardon told Joint Council 10 that the IBT Parcel Division approved a mid-contract giveback to UPS that violates language in the New England supplement. Reardon’s statement was part of his testimony in a hearing on internal union charges over the concession. The testimony marks the first time that anyone has put on the record that the IBT approved the contract concession. Reardon said the approval was not issued in writing.

Sunday to Thursday Without Premium Pay
Local 25 negotiated a side agreement with UPS management, after the company threatened to move some jobs, that allowed the company to establish a Sunday to Thursday workweek with no premium pay for Sundays. The New England supplement recognizes only a Monday to Friday or a Tuesday to Saturday workweek. The UPS contract requires that all mid-contract agreements be approved by the Joint National Negotiating Committee.

The giveback quickly spread to locals 42, 191, 340 and 671.

Other local unions voted the giveback down or refused to hold a vote—even though UPS threatened some locals that they would lose work if they did so.

Members have argued that the change to the regional supplement should have been put to a regional vote—rather than allowing UPS to pit local against local for the best deal.

The impact of this giveback continues to be felt. Recently UPS management at the Worcester hub posted a notice stating that the a.m. sort would be shut down and that the volume would be “moved to other hubs.” Worcester Local 170 was one of the locals that resisted the side agreement.

If the IBT and all New England locals had stayed united it would be impossible for management to pit members against each other in this manner.

Lawsuit Dismissed

A lawsuit filed by members to reverse the concession was dismissed on a technicality Jan. 13. The judge hearing the case ruled that the suit needed to be filed within six months of the change at Local 25, rather than within six months of the date that Local 25 refused to process members’ grievance against the change.

According to Local 25 member David Whitney, the New England Supplement Protection Committee will continue pursuing the issue through charges that are under investigation at the National Labor Relations Board. Also, internal union charges have been filed against officials of all the local unions that made the change without a proper vote of the members