April 22, 2006: Hoffa’s administration recently announced that our union will seek early negotiations with UPS. The Teamster officers and members I’ve talked to have all responded with the same questions. Why now? And what’s the plan to win?

These are good questions. And as usual, you won’t find the answers in Hoffa’s PR materials.

The press release says the IBT will push for early negotiations with UPS because “A recent statistical poll of UPS Teamsters shows that they have major concerns about health care and retirement security.”

Apparently, Hoffa is so out of touch that he needed a poll to tell him that members are worried about their benefits!

The truth is Hoffa was aware of the threat to Teamster benefits when he negotiated the last UPS contract. Months before he settled with UPS, Hoffa was warned that the Central States Pension would have to consider cuts unless the union negotiated sufficient increases in employer contributions. The report was buried and members were promised in writing that their benefits would be secure for the life of his six-year “Best Contract Ever.” Since then Teamsters across North America have faced the worst benefit cuts in our union’s history.

Other critical problems were also left unresolved. Like strong limits on excessive forced overtime and the right to organize UPS’s nonunion operations, which now include Overnite.

It’s not surprising that Hoffa’s “Best Contract Ever” failed to deliver what he promised. He gave up critical leverage by settling two weeks before the contract expired. As someone with 20 years of experience negotiating industry-leading contracts, I can tell you that’s not how you get the employer to put its best offer on the table.

Now Hoffa says he’ll get the job done through “early negotiations.” There’s been no indication whether the contract will be opened with the right to economic action by our union.

UPS management may be interested in early talks for its own reasons. UPS’s main rival FedEx plans a major expansion for 2008.

UPS may want an early deal to avoid negotiations and a potential work stoppage when FedEx is completing its expansion—especially a deal at the right price.

How short would Hoffa be willing to settle this time? The Hoffa administration’s statements on early negotiations don’t say a word about organizing UPS Freight—and winning card check recognition and management neutrality. Nor is there any mention of relief from excessive overtime, stronger protections against subcontracting and supervisors working, or other critical work rule issues.

Coming off the 1997 UPS strike, Hoffa had the strongest bargaining leverage we’ve ever had with the company. Why would anyone expect better results from Hoffa now when the pension cuts and the Overnite acquisition strengthen management’s hand?

The strange timing of Hoffa’s announcement has many members saying that Hoffa’s “campaign” to “force” UPS management into early negotiations is just an election year tactic. I’ll leave it to Teamsters to decide for themselves if Hoffa is playing politics with the UPS contract.

The bottom line is, whenever we begin negotiations with UPS, we need to do so from a position of strength. This contract belongs to Teamster members—not to any General President. We’ve all got to fight for it together. 

Tom Leedham
Local 276
Portland, OR

You’ve got to give in order to get, at least that’s what some labor leaders say. Local 89 has given UPS a green light to create hundreds more low-paid part-time jobs at the Louisville air facility. The new jobs are part of UPS’ relocation of Menlo/UPS Cartage air operations to Louisville from Dayton.

While the new jobs will be union, as they should be, the agreement does not contain any guarantee that many of the 1,500 positions will be full-time.

The UPS Cartage operation is much more akin to typical freight work with the majority of volume on pallets and handled by fork lift. Through the years the IBT has repeatedly rejected efforts by freight companies to create part-time jobs. Freight members struck in 1994 to stop the “part-timerization” of freight jobs. UPS members struck in 1997 and won the creation of 10,000 full-time jobs at UPS. Local 89 and the IBT appear now to be reversing the trend.

The question becomes what, if anything, did Local 89 and the IBT choose to give up in order to make the 1,500 new jobs union?

It appears that Local 89 has given up some other protections. Formerly, members have had the right to bid on positions twice yearly. That will be restricted by new language that says that if you choose not to stay in a new position , you will not be considered for other positions. The tryout period for new positions is also reduced. Before, members had ten days to make a decision about whether to stay with a new position or return to their old job. Now they will have only five days.

This was supposedly in exchange for the creation of a handful of day-time combo positions (that will come about when the 2006 complement of full-time positions is created in Louisville).

Also given up was a provision that limited the number of six-hour jobs at the Louisville Air Hub to a total of 681. While many people prefer the six hour positions to three hour jobs, they are another way for UPS to avoid creating good, full-time positions at higher rates of pay. For every two new six-hour jobs created the company is supposed to create one full-time position. Time will tell how many full-time jobs actually come about. The number of three-hour positions UPS can use is unlimited.

Give and give and give and UPS gets 1,500 low-paid, part-time jobs at a new operation that it is eager to get up and running (and in the lucrative air operation). And by the way, every time that UPS expands its part-time job numbers it undermines the goal inherent in the full-time job creation of increasing the percentage of good, full-time jobs at UPS.

When exactly will the IBT and Hoffa stop giving and start using our union’s power to win real gains and protections?

The closing of a Maryland distribution center by C&S Wholesalers will result in the loss of 370 Teamster jobs in the coming months. And in February, Stop and Shop in New Haven, Conn. announced the closing of its distribution center, putting over 500 Teamsters out of work. Where did most of these jobs go? You guessed right: to a non-union facility run by C&S Wholesalers in Massachusetts.

These two recent events are part of a larger and more disturbing trend in a part of the country that was once a union stronghold for grocery warehouse workers.

Shutdowns have hit other area Teamsters, including Local 445 members at Wakefern, N.Y. (400 jobs lost, shifted to a non-union facility in Pennsylvania) and Local 730 and Local 639 members at Giant in the Washington, D.C. area.

Closings are not the only threat. Teamster employers shift part of their work to nonunion facilities or lose accounts to nonunion operators. Local 118 Teamsters at Wegmans in Rochester, N.Y. learned this first hand. Their local cut a deal with the company to let them shift work to a new nonunion facility in Pennsylvania. While they lost some work, the blow was eased somewhat by attrition and work gained elsewhere.

Teamsters at Topps in Buffalo, N.Y. lost fifty jobs when Ahold sold its Wilson Farms convenience store chain and the new owners switched to non-union McLane Foodservice Distribution. “Organizing these nonunion operators has got to be a priority,” Local 264 steward Darrin Ziemba said. “There was talk at the time about going after McLane, but nothing has come of it. We need a consistent, long-term commitment to bring non-union outfits under contract. “

You would think that the loss in recent years of nearly 2,000 good Teamster jobs in the northeast would get the attention of the Hoffa administration. Not so. The IBT has no plan of action, no organizing drives, no coordinated activity aimed at protecting these jobs or expanding the union’s presence in the jurisdiction. In terms of C&S, in the late 1990s Tom Leedham secured a neutrality agreement from C&S. Rather than build on that gain, Hoffa has let it expire and has failed to organize in this all-important jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, C&S is growing by leaps and bounds. It operates in 14 states now, including areas in the south and southeast, and has projected revenue of $18 billion for 2006.

April 22, 2006: Supporters of immigration reform have marched by the hundreds of thousands this month, holding rallies in cities across the U.S.

The Teamsters Union is putting its weight behind the growing movement for legislation to make it possible for undocumented immigrants to legalize their status and become U.S. citizens.

More than twelve million undocumented immigrants are part of the U.S. workforce. It’s an open secret that employers take advantage of undocumented workers’ fears to drive down wages and break union organizing drives.

That’s why the Teamsters Union, and organized labor in general, supports “earned legalization” legislation that would enable undocumented workers to become U.S. citizens.

Under proposed legislation, undocumented immigrants could receive citizenship only if they achieved a number of goals, including paying a fine, passing a background check, paying any back taxes owed from pay earned in the U.S., and then waiting to apply for citizenship behind any legal immigrants currently applying.

The IBT opposes another aspect of proposed immigration legislation—the creation of a “guest worker” program that would allow immigrants to legally enter the country to work on a temporary basis.

In a statement on the issue, Hoffa said that “Time and again, it has been proven that guest worker programs lead to the exploitation of workers. These workers are captive to their employer and often exploited. Guest workers are often times paid less than their U.S. counterparts, which brings wages down for everyone.”

The goal of union-backed immigration reform is to stop employers from exploiting immigrant workers and to make it easier for all workers to fight for better wages and benefits and for nonunion workers to organize.

April 22, 2006: Hoffa International Rep Rick Middleton, who also heads Los Angeles Local 572, has a little explaining to do. Middleton has invested $20,000 of members’ dues money in the notorious union-buster Wal-Mart.

Many members of Local 572 who work in the grocery warehousing and distribution industry have been hurt by Wal-Mart’s predatory practices and low wages. Why is Middleton putting their money into Wal-Mart?

Ironically, three years ago Middleton was named co-chair of a Teamster anti-Wal-Mart committee.

TDU uncovered this information on Local 572’s new LM-2 financial report, which includes a list of all investments over $5,000. Local 572 has put about $200,000 of members’ money roughly equally into the stocks of ten corporations, including J P Morgan, IBM, Hewlett Packard, and…Wal-Mart!

Hoffa and his campaign supporters like Middleton recently spread the ridiculous lie that Tom Leedham is funded by Wal-Mart. The Hoffa Campaign circulated smear materials, but did not even file an election protest let alone a complaint with the Department of Labor.

Why didn’t the Hoffa Campaign turn over its evidence? Because it doesn’t exist. The Hoffa smear about Leedham and Wal-Mart is just dirty politics—a big lie with no basis in fact.

The fact that a Hoffa International Rep is signing over members’ money to Wal-Mart is indisputable. Middletown’s own financial report with his signature on it proves it. You can review it yourself by doing a search on the DOL website for Local 572’s LM-2 (or contact TDU).

If someone tries to tell you that Middleton was just buying a share so he could get the stockholders’ report or participate in stockholders actions, let them know that one share would do the trick. Wal-Mart shares are trading at $46, not $20,000!

How about it, Hoffa. Could you ask your staff to pull Teamster members’ money out of Wal-Mart?

The data for this article come from forms filed with the Department of Labor. You can view them on the DOL website or call TDU for a copy.

Member Speaks Out

“Wal-Mart is hurting the Teamsters and all of organized labor.

“When our local officials invest thousands of dollars into Wal-Mart, it sends a mixed message to the membership. Our members should not shop there and our local unions should not invest there.

“The International should be coordinating with locals and the strategic campaigns department about appropriate and necessary investing and not allowing locals to invest thousands of dollars unnecessarily into Wal-Mart.”

Frank Halstead
Local 572, Ralphs
Los Angeles

Click here: The High Cost of Hoffa's PR Men
Click here: Membership Declines

April 22, 2006: In June 2006, Teamsters from every local will meet in Las Vegas for the International Union Convention. If the 2001 convention is any guide, members should be wary of Hoffa’s glitzy Vegas lounge act.

In 2001, Hoffa controlled the vast majority of the delegates and they rubber-stamped his proposals. Speakers crowed that Hoffa unity had restored our power and would deliver huge improvements for Teamsters.

Tyson Johnson guaranteed “the best contract in history for our freight members.” Ken Hall bragged that at UPS, “We're going to finish in 2002 what we started in 1997.” Another Hoffa delegate boasted that because of Hoffa unity, “We will not lose our pensions. We will not lose our health and welfare to UPS.”

Hoffa declared, “I promise you that if reelected I will end government control of the Teamsters Union. That I promise you, that will happen.”
Hoffa also said, “I am not a man who makes idle threats, but today I promise you that if I am elected, we will defeat Overnite. That will happen.”

It was all great election-year theater. But once the ballots were counted, the script changed. Hoffa pulled the plug on the Overnite strike and on his anti-corruption program. He raised our dues without a vote. His “Best Contracts Ever” cut the pensions and benefits of hundreds of thousands of Teamsters.

Why Didn't Hoffa Unity Deliver?

Why did Hoffa’s unity fail to deliver the power he promised? More than 90 percent of the delegates backed Hoffa—many because they sincerely believed that uniting behind Hoffa would strengthen the union. So what happened?

What we all learned from 2001 was that it takes more than tough talk and rubber-stamp unity to beat the employers. It takes strong leadership, mobilized members and a plan to win. Some delegates tried to make this point in 2001.

After the Convention passed a unanimous resolution saying the union would “unite for victory” at UPS, Local 559 Secretary-Treasurer Tom Gilmartin proposed that the Convention “send a message of strength by building a strike fund to get ready to take UPS on with more than resolutions.”

Hoffa ignored Gilmartin and said, “Now we're moving on.” Instead of building a credible strike fund, he went on to settle the UPS contract two weeks early and set a pattern of weak national contracts that gutted members’ benefits.

What’s On Tap in 2006?

With the majority of delegates once again in his pocket, Hoffa plans to replay his Vegas lounge act this June.

Hoffa knows that Overnite, pension cuts, and declining union power have sunk his approval rating to an all-time low with Teamster members. He will pump out PR, videos, speeches and tough-talking resolutions—all funded with our dues dollars—to convince members that he is poised to take action.

We’ll be told that our union is launching campaigns to organize our nonunion competitors and to win a strong contract at UPS through early negotiations. We’ll be promised that Hoffa will fight for our pensions and health benefits at the bargaining table and in the halls of Congress.

Teamster members want and need our union to organize the unorganized, win strong contracts and fight for our benefits.

We have a responsibility to do our part and get involved to make that happen. In return, we have the right to expect our union leadership to present a clear plan to win—not just slogans.


Click here: Teamsters Will Have Choice in 2006

Members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (a division of the Teamsters Rail Conference) will soon have the opportunity to vote for an important change to their bylaws. On April 19, a ballot was sent to every member to ask if the election of National Officers should be changed to be “one member, one vote.” Currently, national officers are elected by delegates at the BLET Convention, the same way Teamster International officers used to be elected before TDU won the Right to Vote.

One of the architects of this referendum is W. L. Morris, an officer in the small Division 316 with about 60 members who work for the Norfolk Southern in Georgia. Convoy Dispatch spoke with Morris to find out more about this watershed election.

Convoy Dispatch: How did you get the idea for this initiative?

W.L. Morris: At the 1996 and 2001 BLE Conventions, the idea was presented, but shot down by the Resolutions Committee. So this time, we decided we would go right to the members. Our bylaws give us the power of initiative, which means that any member can put an idea out there and if divisions representing 25 percent of the members approve, then the membership gets to vote on the idea. It took us one and a half years to research and figure out the best time to present it. We put it out in October and used the telephone and internet as the main communication. We think this initiative is going to break up the Good Ol’ Boy system—the one where you can’t get into the club unless you are allowed in.


CD: How many people were involved at first?

WLM: Two. Myself and our delegate, Hugh Sawyer. Hugh prepared the wording. We had the support of our division and as word got out, people around the country asked what they could do to help.

CD: How do you think direct elections would change the BLET?

WLM: The change would make officers directly accountable to the membership. Now, National Officers only have to get support from a handful of different General Chairs to get elected. They are elected by delegates, but the delegates rely on advice of General Chairs for who to vote for.

Under our initiative, delegates would come back from convention to their home divisions and let members know about the nominees, give the membership information, and then members would make up their own minds.


CD: What problems would it solve?

WLM: It would get the membership back involved through the opportunity to vote, and it would give elected officials more power in negotiating and speaking for the membership. Right now, the carriers know that the National Officers, in many cases, don’t really have the support of the rank and file, so it would give us much more strength. We need that strength to fight against single-employee operations, pension and wage cuts, and other attacks on our jobs. Railroad companies are enjoying record profits, but they aren’t feeling enough pressure from the unions to pass that on to us.


CD: Would it create any problems?

WLM: Well, according to the opposition, it would cause the sky to fall in. It is going to be a growing process, especially in informing members about initiative details, but other than that, no.


CD: What were some of the obstacles you have run into?

WLM: Some General Chairmen and the National Division came out with an opposition stance. When we got the right to put out ballots we requested that they be sent out immediately, but the National Division wanted to wait until the last minute. They told us they wanted the opposition to be able to send a letter with the ballots. They said we would have the same right, but when we sent in our letter, they edited out parts they didn’t like.

The financial resources the National Division can put into opposition far outweigh those Division 316 can summon. Therefore, the initiative has to rely on the time and effort of supporters.


CD: What kind of response have you gotten from the rank and file?

WLM: Once members heard that we had achieved the goal of getting a referendum, numerous members responded with congratulations and said that they were looking forward to being able to vote. Even some that were in opposition of the initiative sent congratulations.


CD: What kind of responses have you gotten from the General Chairs?

WLM: Most of them feel that it’s not for them to decide—that it’s up to the members what to do. Others have been flag-waving in opposition. Many are afraid this right to vote for National Officers will trickle down to the General Committees. One Vice-General Chairman said he was afraid he would be held accountable to the membership.


CD: Has the National Division made any comment?

WLM: No, not publicly. You would think they would support it because of the statements they make in newsletters and press releases about membership involvement. It is okay for the membership to pay for golf trips, pensions, car allowances, five-star hotels and the bloated salaries of officials, but when it comes to paying for a referendum on the right to vote for officers, many of those receiving these benefits say the initiative would cost too much money.

CD: What is needed to get the initiative passed now?

WLM: The membership needs to rally behind it, and I believe they will. But many members have not even been informed about it yet, so we need to expand our grassroots network to get the word out.


CD: How did you find the resources to push this initiative?

WLM: Division 316 is frugal. Instead of spending money on lost time, meal allowances, etc., we saved money and spent it on this initiative. We feel dues money should be spent totally in the interest of the membership.


CD: Do you have advice for other rank and file members who want to use the initiative process?

WLM: Our biggest resource is the support of the people. Get a good support base; it’s more important than money. Cross all T’s and dot all I’s.

We made mistakes in not requesting that the ballots for the initiative be counted by neutral entities, and not pushing for phone instead of mail ballots. Also, stay focused on what you are trying to accomplish and do not let the opposition distract you.


Click here: BMWED Also Working for the Right to Vote
Click here: Rail Teamsters to Decide on "Right to Vote"

On June 25 some 1,700 delegates and several hundred alternates will assemble at the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas for the 27th Convention of the Teamsters Union.

The majority of these delegates will be there to rubber stamp whatever Hoffa proposes. Many see the convention as a chance to party on members’ dues money. But hundreds of delegates will fight for changes to rebuild our union’s power and strengthen members’ rights—and history is on their side.

At every Teamster Convention, the majority of the delegates have been hostile to reform. At past conventions, delegates have voted against the right to vote for International officers, the right to elect delegates, majority rule on contracts, the right to vote on local union mergers, sovereignty for Teamsters Canada and many other reforms.

TDU members and other reform delegates have been booed, threatened, attacked, even beaten for proposing these changes. But today, Teamster members enjoy each and every one of these rights. Even Hoffa has to call himself “reform-minded” on his website!

How did that happen? And what does it mean for reform proposals that will be introduced this year like pension trustee accountability and the right to vote on dues increases?

How the Tide Turned

The tide began to turn toward reform in 1991. TDU came to the Orlando convention that year proud of big victories recently won. For the first time in decades, the delegates to the Convention had actually been elected. They would nominate candidates for Teamster president and International officers that the membership would elect, also for the first time in Teamster history.

The old guard was there, and had a clear majority of the delegates. Their leaders included Tom Keegel, Chuck Mack, Jim Santangelo, Ken Wood, John Coli, Fred Gegare, Jack Cipriani, John Murphy, Dan Kane and others who are now on the Hoffa Slate.

Right off the bat, they voted to strip members of the right to elect delegates. They wanted local officers to automatically be delegates. They denounced reformers as a “tiny minority.”

Reform delegates spoke out for the right of members to elect delegates. They won the debate but not the vote. The only reason Teamsters maintained the right to elect delegates was that the consent order guaranteed it. Teamsters should never have to rely on a court order to protect our Teamster democracy.

Born Again Reformers

But on other issues, top officials became “born again” reformers. They had conducted polls that showed TDU-backed reforms were supported by the majority of the rank and file. After years of rabid opposition, the Hoffa crowd suddenly supported

- The Right to Vote for Teamster president and top officers
- Majority rule on contracts
- Limits on salaries and multiple salaries for International officers and appointees
- Selling the two executive jets that officers used as expensive toys

TDU and reform delegates had fought for every one of these goals at the previous 1986 convention, and seen them ridiculed by the old guard majority. Chuck Mack denounced majority rule on contracts on the floor of that Convention. At the one prior to that, he nominated mobster and FBI-informant Jackie Presser to be Teamster president. But now he was seeing the light, along with the rest of the old guard leaders.

It got even better. Later in the convention, the TDU-prepared motion to give members covered by national contracts the right to vote on supplements and riders was introduced by Johnny Morris, a long-time TDU opponent. More officials broke ranks and this important reform passed over the opposition of Mack, Cipriani, Santangelo, Kane and the rest of what is now the Hoffa team. Another reform victory!

Other progressive reform issues were voted down, but they were passed later at the 1996 or 2001 conventions. The right to elect delegates was finally adopted into the IBT Constitution in 2001. The right of Canadian Teamsters to govern their own affairs, and stay united under the Teamster umbrella, was finally won in 2001.

Again the TDU and reform forces were a distinct minority, but the ones with the ideas for the future, the ones driving the real program.

The Engine of Progress

If you look over these big, important changes to the Teamster constitution adopted at the recent conventions, none of them have originated with the Hoffa leadership. They have originated with Teamsters with the foresight, guts and solidarity to come forward with plans to involve members and build the union.

The miracle in this progress is that reform forces have been a minority at each and every one of these conventions. Tom Leedham was nominated with eight percent of the delegate vote; Ron Carey was nominated with 15 percent. But their strength with the rank and file was many times greater, as was proven when members’ ballots were counted.

At the 2006 Convention there will be progressive proposals put forward, to bring accountability to the big Teamster benefit funds; to end top-down rule by the General President; to establish organizing programs that involve locals and members; to end financial waste and spend our dues money to build Teamster Power, not fund multiple salaries for the General President’s political friends.

Will these reforms be adopted? You can count on it. They may pass this year, or they may have to wait until next time. But history shows that the Hoffa crowd can only hold back positive changes for so long.

Eventually, they have to cave in to the will of Teamster members—the majority of whom support changes that strengthen the Teamsters Union by putting power in the hands of the members.

Calling All Teamsters!

Would you like to attend the 2006 Teamster Convention in Las Vegas, June 26-30?

Contact your local union or TDU for information about how to attend as a guest. tdu [at] tdu.org

April 22, 2006. Many Teamsters express concern when asked for their reaction to the International Union’s recent statements about early contract talks with UPS.

Broken promises, the benefit cuts, the lack of contract enforcement—these and other concerns are front and center for members.

And if UPS has agreed to the talks, as they most certainly have if the IBT
has floated the idea publicly,what is in it for them? Whatever
else they have up their sleeve, an early contract in 2006 or early 2007 would avoid any potential rancor during UPS’s 100th anniversary in 2007, and would be a major gift to UPS. Member concern may be justified but Teamsters know it won’t bring about change.

We need to be making demands on Hoffa and building pressure for major contract improvements—whether the contract comes around in 2008 or earlier.

Toward that end TDU has asked some veteran UPS Teamsters to speak out on the early contact idea and its ramifications.

Convoy invites you to weigh in on the discussion. Contact tdu [at] tdu.org or call (313) 842-2600 to share your thoughts on early bargaining.

Waste industry giants have declared a nationwide war on Teamster health benefits.

Waste Management, the world’s largest waste corporation, is trying to shift the cost of healthcare onto employees and force Teamsters into inferior company medical plans. Other waste companies are following suit.

Members of Seattle Local 174 are showing how Teamsters can fight back with solidarity and strategic contract campaigns. As Convoy goes to press, 600 sanitation Teamsters have reached tentative agreements with two companies that will lower their out-of-pocket healthcare expenses by 90 percent.

“The rising cost of healthcare has been killing us,” said Troy Armes, a Teamster at Waste Management. “Under the tentative agreement, we’ll go from paying $274 a month to just $30 a month for family coverage.”

The tentative agreements include new language that protects workers from excessive forced overtime and provides double-time pay for excessive overtime.

They provide enough money that members’ health care costs will be capped at $30 a month for the life of the agreement and also provide for significant wage and pension increases. Local 174 Teamsters currently make $24.45 an hour, before the contract raises.

“Sanitation Teamsters work hard under difficult conditions. They deserve good, affordable healthcare and the right to quality time with their families at the end of the workday,” said Secretary-Treasurer Dan Scott. “Those were our key issues and we mounted a campaign to win on them.”

Contract campaign

Members leveraged these improvements by mounting a strategic contract campaign that began six months before the contract expired and by building solidarity, both within the Teamster ranks and with the public.

Members from both Allied and Waste held joint meetings to build unity around their priority demands.

They reached out to fellow Teamsters who were fighting healthcare concessions at Waste Management. Striking sanitation Teamsters from Washington D.C. and New York City spoke at a rally in Seattle.

Local 174 members promised to respect the picket lines if they were extended from the East Coast. Members at Waste Management wore “Extend the Respect” stickers to work and held parking lot meetings to send management a message.

Local 174 also built community support. The local launched a website, www.talkingtrashonline, and aired TV commercials highlighting members’ right to affordable healthcare and time with their families.

As the contract expiration approached, political and religious leaders rallied with Local 174 Teamsters to support their demands.

Solidarity at the Strike Deadline

With a strike looming, management at Allied Waste offered members an agreement that would keep them in a top-of-the-line Teamster plan. Waste Management continued to drag its heels.

Local 174 held strike preparation meetings and made it clear to Waste Management that members would walk if the company didn’t match Allied’s offer.

The parties met one final time on Easter Sunday—the day before the strike deadline. Waste Management not only matched Allied Waste’s offer, they added more money to it.

Local 174 members had made a pact that the contracts at the two companies had to be equal. Members’ tough stand at Allied had helped the workers at Waste Management win a better deal. Now it was time for Allied Waste to up their offer to avert a strike.

Solidarity ruled the day. Minutes before a mass meeting, Allied added the extra money to their offer.

Members will vote on the tentative agreements in the coming weeks. But first, all members will have a week to review a complete copy of the proposed contracts.