Rumor has it that our local officials are looking to merge our local. Do members get a say? Do they have to let us vote?

– Merger Mayhem in NYC

My local represents employees who work in the trade show industry in Boston. Our contract clearly states that management has to give preference to workers ‘with relevant trade show experience prior to April 1, 2003.’ Management has been ignoring this language and hiring whoever they please—and our union officials have taken no action. In the meantime, Teamsters with seniority are sitting at home. Is this contract language legit and what can we do to enforce it?

–Screwed on Seniority in Local 82

Teamster members have pressed hard but never gotten a satisfactory answer to one question: why has the Central States fund cut so deeply when other Teamster funds continue to provide superior benefits?

“Apples and oranges” fund and IBT representatives claim, yet they have refused to state exactly what differences exist. And they have refused to provide the information needed to conduct an independent actuarial study of the fund.

Working with a pension fund specialist, the Central States Pension Improvement Committee (CSPIC) has assembled a factual comparison showing that the Central States claims are false.

This study was compiled with help from Professor Teresa Ghilarducci of Notre Dame University. Dr. Ghilarducci is an economist who specializes in pension research. She testified earlier this year before Congress regarding pension legislation. 

An analytical grid was assembled comparing six large Teamster pension funds on a number of factors. It indicates that, contrary to the propaganda from the Central States Trustees, that fund falls pretty much in line with other major funds. Yet Central States has made drastic cuts and now locked them in place for years to come.

The pension funds compared are: the Chicago Local 705 Fund, the New England Fund, the Upstate New York Fund, Western Conference Fund, the Virginia Fund, and the Central States Fund.

Consider two important factors that Central States propaganda often refers to.  
First, the ratio of active workers to retirees. Research shows that the ratio of beneficiaries to actives for four of the funds is 1.6 or 1.7.  Central States does not have an unfavorable ratio compared to these funds; in fact, it has a better ratio than the Virginia Fund, which pays superior benefits.

This 1.6 ratio is not the same as the ratio of retirees to active Teamsters, because it includes anyone who could conceivably be entitled to any pay-out, even a former Teamster with just five years credit. The ratio of retirees to active Teamsters is actually 1.3.

The funding ratio is another factor referred to by Central States. Five of the funds are in the range of 51 percent to 75 percent funded, with Central States falling in the middle at 60 percent. A fund does not have to be fully 100 percent funded in order to be healthy. Funds that are at or below the Central States ratio have not cut benefits or not cut them so deeply.

Overall, the comparison grid shows that Central States is not so very different from other Teamster pension funds. They have the same employers, the same demographics, the same ratio of retirees, and a similar funding ratio.

The Central States Trustees (and IBT officials) have taken a differentposture, making the most terrible cuts in pension accruals and medical coverage, and eliminating 25- and 30-and-out for the future.

They need to be held accountable for their actions and for their lies. They should make available valuation and other information needed to do a full independent audit of the fund.

Note: If you would like a copy of the analytical comparison grid, contact TDU. We will attempt to update it as the latest 5500 reports become available.

December 5, 2006: On Nov. 15 some 150 Teamsters at Land-o-Sun Dairies in Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia won the right to stay in their preferred local union, stopping International Vice President Fred Gegare from a power grab against Local 549.

The IBT Election Supervisor and the Appeals Master ruled decisively that Gegare transferred these Teamsters, without even consulting them, to five other locals in retaliation against their local president for his participation in the Tom Leedham Strong Contracts, Good Pensions Slate.

Local 549 President T. C. Bundrant, who is running for International Vice President on the Leedham slate, stated “This is a win for these dairy workers, who deserve good Teamster representation. Politics should have no part in representing our members. This kind of attack on locals has to end, and it’s one reason I’m running for International office.”

Appeals Master Judge Kenneth Conboy noted the “bogus nature of the three purported non-retaliatory reasons given for the raid on Bundrant’s membership” in ruling that the members be promptly returned to their home local union, based in Kingsport, Tenn.

December 5, 2005: TDU members who filed a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods have won a landmark victory at the Supreme Court that will put millions in the hands of more than 800 meatpacking workers and help tens of thousands of poultry workers win litigation for unpaid wages.

In the first decision of the court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court cleared the way for 815 Tyson employees to receive $7.3 million in a class action suit originally filed by TDU members in Pasco, Washington in 1998.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that workers should be paid for the time it takes them to put on their protective clothing and walk from the locker room to the production line. Previously, Tyson management saved millions of dollars by forcing workers to do this work off the clock.

The case was closely watched by organized labor and big business alike. The victory means that tens of thousands of poultry workers will likely succeed in two nationwide class action cases that are now pending against Tyson.

The Supreme Court victory also paves the way for workers to collect an additional $11.4 million in unpaid wages that they were awarded in 2004 a second class action lawsuit against Tyson. More litigation is expected.

“It took a long time, but it was worth the wait just to show that workers can win when we get together,” said Maria Martinez, a Teamster and TDU leader who was the main organizer behind both lawsuits.

In 2006 we will be just one year away from the campaign needed to win a new UPS contract. It is not too early to start discussing plans for contract 2008.

In the past several years UPS has mounted an unprecedented attack on working conditions, job security and benefits.

Work hours, stop counts—and injuries—continue to rise. UPS ignores 9.5 contract language that was meant to protect package car drivers. Subcontracting chips away at feeder jobs and the epidemic of supervisors working must be dealt with forcefully.

At the same time, UPS is growing its nonunion divisions, creating a sphere of operations that threatens the security of good Teamster jobs.

Last but far from least, UPS has advanced its plans to attack good Teamster pension benefits. The 2008 contract will be a battleground over the future of retirement security.

We have to be ready for each and every one of these challenges. The fight for safe jobs and good benefits begins now.

When UPS bought Menlo Forwarding it gave our union the chance to bring hundreds of Teamsters under the protection of the UPS Master Agreement. Menlo was a stepchild of the freight contract. Though doing essentially the same work as freight Teamsters, Menlo workers made significantly less and were scattered under local agreements.

Local Agreements Leave Many With Low Wages & Poor Benefits
The good news is that all Menlo (now called CSI) contracts will expire at the same time as the 2002-2008 UPS contract, enhancing bargaining power.

The less than good news is although Menlo/CSI Teamsters now work for highly-profitable United Parcel Service, their wages and conditions will continue to be set by the inferior local contracts.

For example, wages for Menlo workers under one of the best contracts, in Chicago, are just under $21.00 per hour. Wages under other contracts are well below that figure and in some cases ten dollars behind UPS wage rates.

Under the new UPS-CSI Supplement, wages will continue to be set by dozens of local agreements. One result: the number of wage rates at UPS will now balloon even further. Menlo CSI workers will get three-percent annual wage increases. Likewise, benefits will continue to be tied to whatever was in the old local contracts.

There is no catch-up provision to bring lower-paid CSI Teamsters closer to the national contract scale, and no provision to bring all employees into our Teamster plans.

The real battle for parity for Menlo/CSI Teamsters has been postponed and will now take place during the 2008 bargaining.

The $1,000 signing bonus is a bad omen for the 2008 UPS contract. UPS has tried this trick in years past to win approval for substandard agreements.

Danger of Subcontracting
CSI joins the growing constellation of UPS divisions. What exactly is its relationship to the UPS that employs Teamsters? What protections are in place to protect CSI Teamsters from loss of work to nonunion operations? CSI is actually a vendor for UPS Supply Chain Solutions (SCS). One manager referred to CSI as only a “preferred vendor,” which means that SCS is free to switch to others.

This fear is real: the agreement exempts CSI units from protection under subcontracting protections in Articles 1and 32 of the master UPS agreement.

It appears that James Hoffa and Ken Hall have failed to use the power of our union to win strong contract protections for Teamster members and to extend the UPS national contract to new UPS divisions. That challenge lies ahead.

December 5, 2005: Tom Leedham will soon be the only officially accredited opposition candidate for Teamster General President—thanks to a member-to-member effort by Teamster members who collected more than 55,000 signatures in just four weeks.

“The response was incredible,” said John Youngermann, a Local 688 UPS Teamster who collected signatures in the St. Louis area. “Members were lining up to have the chance to vote against Hoffa and for International leaders who will fight for us. Even former Hoffa die-hards wanted to sign.”

Members collected 20,000 more signatures than were required by the Election Rules to accredit the Tom Leedham Strong Contracts, Good Pensions Slate. As a result, Teamster members will get to hear from the Leedham Slate in the campaign battle pages in the February issue of Teamster Magazine.

The fact that it took less than four weeks to collect the signatures shows two things. First, Teamster members are hungry for change. And second, the Leedham Campaign is building the grassroots network of Teamster volunteers that will be needed to win the 2006 Teamster election.

Now volunteers are turning their attention to the next steps in the campaign, including Convention Delegate races, fundraising and spreading the word about the Tom Leedham Strong Contracts, Good Pensions Slate.

Time to Step Up

“Hoffa’s team is splitting apart, just as the Tom Leedham Campaign’s grassroots network is coming together,” said Chris Roos, candidate for Eastern Vice President. “This election is ours to win. It’s time to step up. Every Teamster that wants positive change needs to know this is your chance to get involved and make it happen.”

Convention Delegate Elections: The elections for Teamster Convention Delegate are the next critical challenge. Delegates will officially nominate candidates at the IBT Convention in late June. The Leedham Campaign needs supporters to run in these races to put the Strong Contracts Good Pension Slate on the ballot and to support positive changes at the Teamster Convention.

Most locals will be holding their nomination meetings in January (some in February) so the time to act is now. Call TDU or the Leedham Campaign for information and assistance.

Spread the Word: Informing members about the election will be up to Teamsters like us. You can help by passing out flyers and information. Make sure you get on the Leedham Campaign mailing list and email list to receive regular updates and campaign materials.

Build Campaign Events: Slate members will be hitting the road to talk about their plans for the future of the Teamsters Union, in a series of upcoming campaign events. Get involved by attending or hosting a campaign meeting in your area. Contact the campaign for details.

Build the Campaign Warchest: The Leedham Campaign will also be launching a drive to raise $100,000 by the end of January as the start of a larger warchest. Funds are needed to finance travel for candidates and to reach the 1.4 million Teamsters. Donate online at www.leedham2006.org or send a check to Leedham Campaign, 1863 Pioneer Parkway East #217, Springfield OR 97477.


Click here: Tom Leedham Campaign for Teamster Presidency Moves Ahead!
Click here: Hoffa 'Dis-Unity' Slate Splits
Click here: After the Hoffa Split: Forging Alliances Based on Plans, Not Personalities
Click here: Teamster Candidates Will Debate

December 5, 2005: Teamsters will be able to judge the candidates for Teamster General President in a debate to be held in late August 2006, thanks to a proposal by Teamsters for a Democratic Union that is going to be made a part of the IBT Election Rules.

The debate will be overseen by the independent Election Supervisor, and will be recorded and distributed (presumably on DVDs) to Teamster members. We are hopeful that it will be mailed to all members, by far the most effective way to reach members and encourage more Teamsters to vote.

TDU attorney Barbara Harvey put forward the proposal to amend the rules, and argued for it at a hearing before Judge Loretta Preska, who then directed the U.S. Attorney and the IBT to negotiate the terms of a debate.

There is one weak point in the proposed final debate rule which TDU is working to change: a candidate for General President can send his Secretary Treasurer running mate as a stand-in. TDU made a submission to Judge Preska asking that this single part be changed, so that members can see the actual candidates, and not a stand-in. A final decision is expected soon.

Hoffa’s attorneys pushed for the stand-in clause. In 2001, Hoffa waited until the last minute to chicken out of his scheduled debate with Tom Leedham. This time, he’s got attorneys working on an escape route a year in advance!

Teamster members deserve to have a real debate between the candidates, to help make an informed decision on the future of our union. Fortunately, we have TDU to make it happen.


Click here: Tom Leedham Campaign for Teamster Presidency Moves Ahead!
Click here: Members Back Tom Leedham Candidacy
Click here: Hoffa 'Dis-Unity' Slate Splits
Click here: After the Hoffa Split: Forging Alliances Based on Plans, Not Personalities

December 5, 2005: For nearly a year, the Hoffa administration has been lobbying for legislation that would allow Teamster benefit plans to cut members’ previously guaranteed pension benefits—and even to cut the pensions of Teamsters who have already retired.

Teamsters for a Democratic Union has fought this legislative attack on our pension security. Now at the 11th hour, James Hoffa has reversed himself and adopted TDU’s position—coming out against the so-called Red Zone Amendment.

Since early 2005, the Hoffa administration has lobbied in favor of the Red Zone Amendment—a proposal that would allow Teamster plans to cut pension benefits that members have already earned.

But in a letter to Congressional Representatives on December 2, Hoffa said, “So-called ‘red zone’ benefit cuts, would result in a reduction of vested benefits and should not be included.” This is exactly what TDU has demanded for the past year, along with many concerned Teamsters and the Pension Rights Center.

TDU members visited Congressional leaders to lobby against the Red Zone Amendment and fight to preserve federal “anti-cutback protections” that make it illegal to cut pension benefits that members have already earned.

Before Hoffa’s flip-flop on December 2, his administration had lobbied in favor of eliminating those protections. In February 2005 the IBT Legislative Director complained that “Trustees are limited by ERISA and can only affect [cut] future accruals.” In May the International again called for members to support repeal of the 1984 anti-cutback law, to give “more tools” to pension trustees to cut benefits from retirees.

“It’s nice to finally have our International Union with us, instead of against us,” said Frank Bryant a TDU member who lobbied Congress against the cuts. “My question for Hoffa would be, ‘What took you so long?’”

The pension bill is heading for the final steps. It remains to be seen if the Red Zone Amendment will be included. Hoffa’s 11th hour conversion to retirement security comes too late to affect the outcome of this legislative fight.

Fortunately, concerned Teamsters and TDU were there all along, working to protect Teamsters’ pension rights.