I filed a grievance demanding that the company pay “all affected workers” who had been denied holiday pay. My business agent told me the grievance would only cover the members who personally signed it. I say he’s full of it. Who’s right?

–Teamster Steward

March 2006: New York City Teamsters rallied on the steps of City Hall on March 5 to protest comments by the head of the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) calling Teamster warehouse workers “the lowest rung workers” whose jobs should be scrapped. Local 805 members have been fighting the city’s EDC, which is trying to shut down the last working port in Brooklyn. Teamster Local 807 jobs are also on the chopping block. Carrying signs that said, “Save my job,” and “We are NOT low-rung workers,” Teamsters rallied on the steps of City Hall along with supporters from other locals and pro-labor politicians. Local 805 President Sandy Pope told the rally, “This city is not run by Wall Street or the city bureaucrats. It is run by the people who move the goods.” Pope called on the mayor to save the port jobs and make a “public commitment to respect the workers of this city.”

Politics of Division

The day before the rally, Local 805 members received a pre-recorded message from the Teamster General President. But Hoffa wasn’t calling members to turn them out for the rally. Instead, Hoffa called to attack Sandy Pope. Hoffa has poured thousands of dollars into the Local 805 delegate election to try to defeat Pope, a candidate for International Vice President. But you would think the General President could put politics aside for one day while members are fighting for their jobs. “The day before we’re uniting at City Hall to save Teamster jobs, including mine, President Hoffa was phoning us to try to divide our local. And he’s the head of the ‘Unity Slate?’ said shop steward Michael Ambrose. “To me, unity is about bringing workers together to win a better future for ourselves. That’s what Sandy Pope has done for us at American Warehousing.” In January, a mobilization by Teamster members forced the Port Authority to allow a blockaded ship to dock at the port so it could be unloaded by Teamsters. That victory has saved their jobs for now. The fight to preserve Teamster port jobs continues. It would be nice if Hoffa would join it.

Commercial movers in Boston Local 82 are used to battling the nonunion competition. But now there’s a new group trying to take their work: union Carpenters. The Carpenters have been threatening customers with slowdowns if they don’t get the moving work which has always been in the Teamsters’ jurisdiction. And the tactic’s been working. Now Local 82 members are fed up and fighting back. When movers from Walsh Moving Company showed up at a recent job at 100 Federal St. in Boston, they found Carpenters already unloading the trailers. They alerted their fellow Teamsters at another moving company, Casey and Hayes, and members came down and confronted the carpenters, snapping their pictures. A business agent for the Carpenters showed up and so did Local 82 Secretary Treasurer John Perry. When the dust had settled, the Teamsters got the work. “We don’t do the carpenters work, and we expect them not to do ours,” said Ralph Gaskell, a Local 82 shop steward at Casey and Hayes. Members have started to distribute a letter from the local to building managers asking them to respect each union’s jurisdiction. “We’re ready to defend our jobs. It’s time for some backup from the International,” said Joe Wright, one of the movers who confronted the carpenters on the Federal Street job. Members point out that the Carpenters, like the Teamsters, are in the new Change to Win Federation. A key Change to Win principle is that unions should organize in their jurisdiction. “It’s time for Hoffa to make a call to the Carpenters and put an end to this nonsense,” said Eddie Adams, an assistant steward at Casey and Hayes who also confronted the Carpenters at Federal St. “Then we need to get to work organizing the nonunion companies.”

Gold! Rumors of gold! It was said to be everywhere! According to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, “Fortune lies upon the surface of the earth as plentiful as the mud in our streets.”

So began the historic California Gold Rush of the late 1840s and 1850s. Most came away with nothing more than fool’s gold.

History repeats itself.

This time the promise of gold has hit UPS facilities in the form of a rogue group called APWA (The Association of Parcel Workers of America). This group intends to be a “UPS Only” union that promises equal or better pensions and better health coverage than what we currently have.

If this doesn’t sound like gold, I don’t know what does!

I caution you not to be fooled by their glam and glitz. The APWA has retained attorney Tom Coleman, the former Chairman of the CUE Labor Lawyers Advisory Committee. CUE stands for “Council on Union-Free Environment.”

The group is comprised primarily of business and industry executives. It is quite clear that a growing number of Teamsters are not content with the current direction of our union. The answer, however, is not to take your ball and go home.

The answer is as simple as this: get involved in the union you currently have. Would you consider exchanging our Teamsters Union for an upstart antiunion association? If you even consider this exchange, realize that you will end up with nothing but empty promises and a much bigger set of problems.

The APWA is “prospecting for gold” and I encourage you to see this for what it is: a slick and alluring effort at union-busting.

March 16, 2006: This is a pivotal time for all of us. Perhaps the most crucial decision we will make as Teamsters is the choice we make in the upcoming election for General President of the IBT. That person will be responsible for, among other things, negotiating the next UPS contract and National Master Freight Agreement.

Both have trickle-down effects on every other Teamster contract that is negotiated. It is imperative that James Hoffa not be that person. A look at what happened to nearly 2000 Red Star Teamsters tells you why. Bear in mind that Yellow Roadway Corp. (YRC) and Bill Zollars will be negotiating for four of the five freight companies left in the National Master Freight Agreement.

Consider how USF transformed USF Red Star into USF Holland, and how that will impact your contracts and working conditions in the future. USF Red Star closed and reemerged shortly after as USF Holland. Unfortunately, what didn’t reemerge was close to 2,000 Teamster jobs. Despite promises to the contrary, when the dust settled the IBT recouped only around 20 percent of those Red Star jobs. In addition to that, our contract was replaced by Holland’s oppressive work rules. What do those work rules mean to you?

Well, if you work on the road for Yellow, Roadway or New Penn you just might have to get accustomed to sleeping out five to seven consecutive days. If you are a straight dock man, then you may be out of a job. If you are a city driver, get used to working the dock for three to four hours before you hit the street.

YRC owns USF Holland; to think that they wouldn’t want those same advantages is foolish. And, although Hoffa and Tyson Johnson vowed to “fight” for us, it seemed like they were more interested in accommodating the company. If they “fight” for you the same way, get used to working conditions that are substandard to even nonunion companies.

Red Star Teamsters were left to fight for ourselves. We filed a WARN Act lawsuit and unfair labor practice charges against USF when it was clear to us that Hoffa had abandoned us. We recently won a $7 million settlement for the members from USF and YRC from that lawsuit. Then, Hoffa shamefully took credit for the efforts of the rank and file.

To read more about what could be your future, go to: www.redstarteamsters.com We need strong leadership that will stand up to YRC, UPS and other companies, not a president who will placate these corporate giants, and in doing so sell out the membership. We need a president with integrity and compassion for the members, as well as passion for the job. What we need is a president who will lead, instead of being led.

These characteristics and attributes describe Tom Leedham. He will inspire and rejuvenate the membership and replace the apathy that has gripped every local with a renewed sense of pride. Leedham will also reestablish and demand respect for Teamsters at the workplace, where—under Hoffa—management abuse of members has apparently become commonplace. Also, the stagnation of the growth of our union is rivaled only by the almost nonexistent increase in our rates of pay. Things must change now, before it is to late!

March 16, 2006: The winds of change are blowing in the Windy City, says Mark Day, a UPS driver in Chicago Local 705. “The members of my local are getting behind Tom Leedham.

We’re going to win big-time come November,” Day said. “When members hear Tom, they know he’s for real. They’re tired of the empty Hoffa talk. Tom’s the guy they want leading our union when we take on UPS, Overnite or fighting for our benefits.” Day organized a Chicago campaign meeting with Leedham in early March as part of the Strong Contracts, Good Pensions tour.

As Leedham Slate candidates hit the road, it’s clear the campaign is gaining ground. At a full house in Boston, Leedham asked the crowd, “How many of you voted for Hoffa last time?” More than 100 hands in the room went up. Not this time around. “I went to Hoffa rallies and I cheered with everybody else when he promised 25 & Out and No Dues Increase,” Local 82 member Billy MacDonald said. “I believed Hoffa’s tough talk about unity and power. But that’s all it was, talk.” Now MacDonald is running for convention delegate and building the Leedham Campaign.

For information on where candidates will be next, or to set up a visit by a candidate, contact the Leedham Campaign at (718) 287-6156 or on the web at www.leedham2006.org

Last October, when Local 25 Teamster Dave Vallone returned from 18 months of active duty with the Army Reserves, he looked forward to returning to work as a shop steward—and to running for delegate to the Teamster Convention.

Then Vallone, a 26-year Teamster, learned that he was ineligible to run for delegate because his military leave caused a break in his dues payments. “I couldn’t believe that I lost my right to serve my union because I’d been serving my country,” Vallone said. The Teamster Constitution and the Election Rules both require members to pay their dues for 24 consecutive months before nominations in order to be eligible to run for convention delegate or union office.

This rule is strictly interpreted and bars members from running based on technicalities that have nothing to do with loyalty to our union or members’ commitment to paying their dues. For example, Vallone’s breaks in his dues occurred because he was on military leave training national guard and army reserve units that were being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan—not once, but twice during the 24-month period. Vallone is not alone in being disqualified because of military service. Local 97 Secretary-Treasurer Patricia Ward-Jenkins was barred from running for convention delegate because she paid her dues late when she was activated to serve in Iraq.

In upholding Ward-Jenkins’ ineligibility, Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy said, “I share the dismay of the Election Supervisor that an IBT member, on active military service of the United States in time of war, whose continuous dues payment was inadvertently interrupted, is thereby precluded from seeking election to Union office.” But the 24-month rule provides no exceptions for military leave or other involuntary leaves of absence.

Does that really make sense? “The last thing on your mind when you’re called up for military service is paying your union dues on time,” Vallone said. “We call on employers to do the right thing for members on military leave. Our union should lead by example.”

Time to End the 24-Month Rule

The controversy brings to light an extreme example of the many Teamsters who are unfairly disqualified by the 24-month rule—including Teamsters who make late dues payments or go on temporary withdrawal because of pregnancy, on-the-job injury or other factors. UPS Teamster Nichele Fulmore was barred from running for delegate in North Carolina Local 391 last fall because she went on pregnancy leave in July, 2003. Countless Teamsters have been prevented from running for union office because they missed dues payments after on-the-job injuries.

The 24-month rule hurts Teamsters of all political views. Ward-Jenkins is a Hoffa supporter. Vallone and Fulmore back Leedham. All deserve a voice in our union. It obviously makes sense that members must pay their dues to be eligible to run for union office. But with all of these problems—and with the Election Supervisor and Appeals Master both stating their dismay at the inflexibility of the 24-month rule—it’s clear that it’s time to draw up a new eligibility rule that doesn’t disqualify dedicated Teamster members based on technicalities. That rule can and should beapproved at the upcoming Teamster Convention.

A high-level official of the Teamster Rail Conference’s Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) announced that he will challenge President Don Hahs for leadership of the BLET. Tom Brennan served as the staff counsel for the national division for eight years, before suddenly resigning his position in early February.

“In my opinion, [Hahs’] views and decisions are adversely impacting the survival of our craft and organization,” Brennan wrote in his resignation letter. Since then, he has exercised his seniority on the Norfolk Southern. In his declaration of candidacy, he claims that the “business as usual” attitude of Hahs and past presidents has made the BLET weaker with respect to the carriers and to rival union UTU, even as the rail industry is reaping “record profits.”

He also implies that Hahs has not only failed to appreciate the work of the rank and file, but also failed to develop an effective working relationship with the Teamster administration. He declined to comment for this article, but says position statements will be forthcoming about his vision for the BLET.

One Member, One Vote?

The BLET officer election is scheduled to take place at its national convention in Las Vegas this June—one week ahead of the IBT Convention. But officers may be forced to abandon election by delegate and submit to direct election by the membership instead.

A number of BLET divisions have endorsed an initiative to adopt direct elections of the national officers. The initiative, which is gaining momentum, is close to the threshold of support that would require Hahs to hold a membership referendum on the issue.

Time is running short, but it is still possible that the initiative could be passed before the convention—in which case delegates could only nominate candidates for national office. The mail ballot election would take place within 60 days of the convention.

So far, neither Hahs nor Brennan has issued a statement regarding their views on direct elections in the BLET.

Imagine trains carrying toxic chemicals or nuclear waste through your town and across the wilderness. Now imagine that the train is operated by a lone employee working long hours. The first part is already reality. The part about a lone employee is the goal of the railroad employer group, the National Carriers’ Conference Committee (NCCC). All-Out Attack on Rail WorkersThe carriers first put out their plan to go to single-employee operations about 15 months ago, when they issued their bargaining demands to the Teamsters Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU). Their proposal not only included the drastic attack on jobs, but proposed that the BLET and the UTU negotiate directly against each other to decide whether the engineers or the conductors would take the biggest hit. The UTU represents primarily conductors. Any attacks on a contract should be met with a fight, but the demand to eliminate the crafts of engineer and conductor calls for extraordinary resistance. From the start, the employers gambled on a longstanding war between the BLET and the UTU to assist them in their strategy of divide and conquer. Public and Workers at RiskWith only one set of eyes and ears aboard, the safety of the workforce and the general public is vastly compromised. Crew fatigue is already a major issue on the rails. This danger is doubled with a reduction to one lone employee. Also, when a lone worker becomes injured, ill or otherwise in need of assistance, there would be no one who could come to his or her aid. And without a second crew member to help read signals and monitor the train, potentially fatal mishaps like train-motorist collisions could rapidly increase. Rank and File ResistanceIn spite of the overwhelming danger to the members and the public, the leaderships of the UTU and BLET showed no particular interest in fighting the carriers. Instead, they played into the hands of the NCCC by ratcheting up their raids and propaganda warfare against each other. The rank and file members of the two unions were not impressed. Most would rather see their dues money go towards fighting off employer demands than spent on destroying the union of their co-workers. Engineers and conductors formed a group whose aim is to stop the inter-union warfare once and for all by bringing about a merger of the two unions. Railroad Operating Crafts United (ROCU) began creating pressure on the unions to put aside their differences and put the members first. “When our employers lit the house on fire with their demands, all our unions could do was argue about who forgot to put batteries in the fire alarm,” says Illinois engineer Ed Michael. “ROCU wants to stop the bickering and focus on the real problems engineers and conductors face on the job.” Hundreds have contacted ROCU, asking how to help stop the destructive behavior of their unions. In January, the group initiated a petition drive that has circulated the continent and garnered thousands of signatures, demanding that the unions stop fighting each other and start fighting single-employee operations. Then, in February, the UTU and BLET announced that they would do just that. Change of HeartThe announcement that the two unions would call off their raiding was followed by vow of utmost unity. Naturally, members hope their leaders are sincere about their newfound unity, but there are also signs that the funds to protract the fight may have been dwindling. The UTU failed to persuade its delegates to pass a five dollar dues increase and have since announced that they will be eliminating eight vice presidents—quite a cut! Department of Labor LM-2 forms show that in 2004, half of all UTU dues income was funneled into a pension fund for officials, so it is unlikely that those eight vice presidents will suffer much. Meanwhile, BLET President Don Hahs has political worries, and may be looking to shore up support by appearing to at last engage the carriers in a fight. He is up for election this year and faces at least one serious challenger. Beyond RhetoricThe UTU and BLET have issued some very nice statements about uniting to fight single-employee operations, but members are still waiting to see results. ROCU activists have their own idea for action. They say the unions should take the fight into trackside communities that would be affected by derailments resulting from fatigue. They say coalitions should be made with other labor unions and community groups. And even though labor law makes work stoppages difficult, they want to see preparations for a strike, should it be necessary. The Track AheadPreviously, the UTU officialdom has sworn it would never merge into the Teamster Rail Conference, claiming that truck drivers compete with rail workers. “By that logic,” says Milwaukee engineer Ron Kaminkow, “Union Pacific conductors shouldn’t belong to the same union as those that work for their biggest competitor, BNSF. That, of course, is absurd. All transportation workers need to stick together to prevent us being whipsawed against one another by the companies.” The UTU may be listening. Although no engagemen has been annouced, some are hearing wedding bells. “It’s hard to say what their plans are,” says Little Rock conductor Jim Eubanks, “but one thing is for sure: we want a different kind of union. We don’t just want our unions to merge so that officers can have bigger perks; we want a truly democratic union for the operating crafts.”

From coast to coast, DHL Teamsters feel the same way: Hoffa did the company’s bidding and didn’t even bother to consult the affected Teamsters. Much anger is focused on the union allowing DHL to leave the freight grievance panels for more pro-company panels, but a second issue also demands an answer: why did the union fail to exercise the option to reopen the contract?

The contract reopener was put in the contract for good reason. It would have given us leverage, right now, on critical issues like organizing all the DHL contractors. And it would have given members the right to vote on changes, including changes in the grievance procedure. Is that why the Hoffa administration allowed the reopener deadline to pass without taking action?

Some officials, including Chuck Mack in California, have tried to convince members that DHL management wanted the contract open. If that were true, why didn’t they reopen it? Either party had the right to reopen. Why would the company want to allow any possibility at all of a work stoppage at this time? The leverage belonged to the union, and the leadership instead collapsed.

Meanwhile, Local 249 continues to struggle to collect the grievance procedure award of over $200,000 for members who lost work due to subcontracting at the Pittsburgh airport. They have the right to strike over the issue, even though the International Union has refused to sanction one. (Joint Council 40 did grant sanction.) Reportedly they are considering legal action as well as a possible work stoppage.

The International Union, in the person of International rep Brad Slawson, tried to undercut the local union and cut a backroom deal with DHL, but DHL lost the issue a second time at the joint area committee and is legally bound to pay the affected Teamsters. Why does the Hoffa administration continue to do the company’s dirty work on this issue?