By George Kieffer, adapted from the www.denverbrown.com website.

October 18, 2006. UPS continues to get good press concerning its PAS system.

Everyone from technology journals to the main stream press have sung the praises of Package Flow Technology and the Preload Assist System.

Let’s look at a few of the stories about PAS to see how they compare to reality.

Optimize Magazine: “It helps managers ensure that drivers are not overdispatched and that last-minute load changes to a driver’s car are minimized.”

Well...UPS uses PAS to justify putting more work on each car. Drivers are consistently over-dispatched, but now it’s not your supervisor’s fault anymore. It’s “the computer.” Last minute changes are only minimized if your dispatcher keeps his fingers off the buttons. And last minute changes cause havoc to the load.

HighBeam Research: “The automated system...is designed to reduce the number of misloaded packages as well as headaches for drivers.”

Well...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but misloads and headaches are as abundant with PAS as they were with the old system. Misloads may be worse than ever. And certainly more spectacular.

USA Today: “It lets them do what they do best, and that is to service our customers, build relationships with them.”

Well...One of the goals of PAS is increased productivity. That means more stops per hour. That means less, not more, time to spend with the customer.

Optimize Magazine: “This approach provides the customer with a consistent, reliable service provider.”

Well...With PAS, area boundaries are a thing of the past and routes fluctuate every day. There is no consistency to the stops and many customers see two or three different drivers a week. Of course, what’s a morning stop on one driver’s area may be an afternoon stop in the next route, so customers actually have less consistency with PAS.

Information Week: “This cuts down on the need for loaders to memorize different delivery routes, a skill that normally requires three months of training. With the new labels, training takes just a few hours.”

Well...The company may only be training it’s loaders for a few hours and the loads show it. What’s more surprising is when your loader calls in sick and a supervisor loads your car, the load is almost unrecognizable. I guess the supes must not be trained at all.

USA Today: “The technology also will cut millions of miles in travel for UPS drivers, reducing fuel costs.”

Well...That’s a nice thought, but the system gets bogged down by poor looping and lack of area knowledge. The routes were looped from maps and the wealth of driver knowledge was ignored. Consequently, the shortest and most of efficient way to run each area and save miles is seldom the PAS-looped way.

Material Handling Management: “The end-result of the program has been that it’s taken a lot of stress out of the job for the pre-loader and driver, and put more accuracy into the delivery process.”

Well...My God, are they talking about UPS?

October 18, 2006. This summer in California, UPS tried to enlist Teamsters in their effort to undermine litigation over the company’s practice of forcing employees to work off the clock.

Faced with a major lawsuit involving violations of California wage and hours laws, UPS got the legislature to pass a bill giving unionized transportation companies an exemption from laws requiring lunch breaks during specified times in work shifts. A law designed for UPS!

In an effort to get the governor to sign the bill, management not only asked members to write support letters, they also instructed Teamsters to give them back to supervisors in unsealed envelopes! UPS could use copies of such letters in court to show that some drivers did not support the case, which involves millions of dollars in pay UPS owes for overtime worked through lunch periods.

The bill was opposed by other industry groups, including the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Other businesses probably would have welcomed the deal, but not a special deal for UPS. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill in September.

At the September 21 Multi-Region Change of Operations meeting in Chicago, Yellow Transportation’s VP of Labor Relations announced that the Yellow clerical Change of Operations was “withdrawn without prejudice” and that it would be “resubmitted before the end of the year.”

This was in response to a barrage of questions from Yellow’s Teamster clerical members at terminals across the country. They demanded more information from the company about the change, how it was calculated, and how their jobs would be protected from future layoffs. Teamsters from Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Kansas City led the way, and attended the hearing to make sure this was not a done deal. Earlier reports were that the IBT Freight Division supported the change, but rank and file members and stewards asked for clarifications. As a result, the company is reworking the change.

ABF Premium Service Change of Ops Approved

ABF got the green light in September to institute “premium service” bids throughout the Eastern, Southern and Central regions (NMFA Article 18). Their goal is to capture a bite of the lucrative one- and two-day express freight market. Some concerns were raised over details of how the new service will work. Local 728 in Atlanta won the right to have PSE freight staged in a designated area within the terminal. However, there was no agreement on how this freight would be marked so that members and stewards can monitor it to make sure the service is being used, and not abused. Presumably, there will be specific bar codes or labels that allow for daily or weekly reports. Hopefully the ABF change will actually create new work, as called for under the contract (Article 20, Section 4). That was how premium service was pitched at ratification meetings in 2003: to help grow the company and Teamster work.

Graveyard Shift for Road Drivers?

Men who alternate between daytime and nighttime shift work, rather than working a fixed schedule, have triple the normal rate of prostate cancer, according to a Japanese nationwide study, as reported in the Sept. 23 Science News. A variable shift schedule, such as some nurses work, had previously been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer and colon cancer in women. The new finding supports a longstanding expectation that disrupting the 24-hour biological rhythm can cause tumors in men, too.

Canadian Rail Teamsters Set for First Election

A rank and file activist has set his sights on one of the top spots of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. This summer, members won the right to vote for their top three national officers by voting for bylaws changes proposed by Gerry Ranson of Division 320 in Vancouver. Subsequently, Ranson was nominated at the TCRC Convention in September to run for the office of vice president. He is running with incumbent Gilles Halle for president and Benoit Brunet for secretary-treasurer.

When asked what platform he is promoting as a candidate, Ranson replied, “Lean, mean, and above all, clean. The members must be in control of their union.”

The date for the ballots to be mailed and counted has not yet been set, but the election will be completed by January.

BMWED Pac Fed Ballots Counted

Ballots were counted at the end of September in the first-ever direct election for officers of the Pacific Federation of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the Teamsters. Previous elections were conducted by delegates from the 18 local lodges in the federation.

The election was hotly contested, and incumbent Louis Below held onto his general chairman seat by only 16 votes. Rank and file challengers won the other two top spots, with John Villalobos taking the vice-chairman’s position and Jaime Marquez winning secretary-treasurer. Reformers also won at-large positions on the executive board.

The new officers attempted to block a dues increase that was pushed through the Pac Fed convention last week, but Below still retains control over many of the delegates.

Norfolk Southern Fears Slowdown

Management at Norfolk Southern fears that engineers and conductors may be using the power of collective action to squirrel up the system at the Buckeye Yard in Columbus, Ohio.

In late September, the company introduced remote-controlled locomotives, and since then things haven’t been going too smoothly at the yard. As a result, NS has filed suit against two unions, the BLET and the UTU. According to an article in the Columbus Dispatch, the suit seeks an injunction against future slowdowns and compensation for lost revenue due.

But union leaders aren’t so sure their members are the ones causing the problems. They say it’s more likely that the new technology is at fault.

October 18, 2006. Don Hahs, President of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Division of the Teamster Rail Conference, has spent more than $6,000 flying his wife to Alaska for a cruise, footing the bill for her airfare to various events, and paying for her meals on trips, according to documents obtained by TDU.

Other expenses for which Hahs has obtained reimbursement include use of a hotel mini-bar and in-room movies. Hahs, who receives a $35 daily “at home allowance” for time spent in Cleveland, also appears to have claimed the allowance for some days that he claimed reimbursement for hotel expenses in Washington, D.C.

Hoffa has an opportunity to prove to BLET members that he won’t let their dues money be used in this way—will he investigate and take appropriate action?

October 18, 2006. When the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers merged into the Teamsters two-and-a-half years ago, they added the words “and Trainmen” to the end of their name to signal that they welcomed conductors, brakemen, and switchmen (collectively know as trainmen). But now events in El Paso have led some to question how deep the commitment goes to these new Teamsters.

Two Unions Compete for Membership

Most trainmen are currently represented by the United Transportation Union (UTU), but across the country, there have been groups who felt dissatisfied with the UTU. In some cases, trainmen have been unhappy about the culture of corruption that landed prison sentences for top officers in 2004. Others simply felt that local leaders weren’t up to the job. El Paso is one place where nearly 100 Union Pacific trainmen, the majority Latino or Black, made the switch to join the BLET.

Rail Teamsters work under unique labor law and contract provisions that allow union members to switch back and forth between the UTU and the BLET. The BLET bargains the national agreement for the engineers, the UTU bargains for the trainmen, but members can belong to either union and be represented at early stages of the grievance procedure by whichever union they belong to.

When El Paso trainmen started flooding into the BLET to avoid what they say was poor representation by the UTU, they were warmly welcomed by the local BLET division. But at higher levels, they have been left to fend for themselves as the UTU has initiated a change to prevent them from receiving any representation from the BLET. UTU members are voting on whether to ratify the change.

No Response from BLET

Threatened with losing one of the largest trainmen units in the BLET, one would expect the national officers to swing into action. After all, the large numbers of BLET trainmen in El Paso used to be a feather in the union’s cap when it was at war with the UTU back in 2004. Now that the two unions have called a truce and have pledged to stop raiding each other, it ought to be even easier for President Don Hahs to get the UTU to call off hostilities in El Paso.

Chris Woods, Vice-Local Chairman for the trainmen in El Paso is demanding answers from Hahs. In a letter sent last week, he questions why Hahs is willing to ignore this obvious breach of good faith. He points out that many of the members he represents are minorities. He writes:

“Fully aware that the BLET, in its origins, had other than a favorable impression of ‘minority’ employees, when it came to the issue of the position of Locomotive Engineer, [is] a matter well documented in not only the language of original BLE Constitution, but also, actions that were overturned in precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As such, it could be questionable, in my mind and the minds of those I represent, as to why the BLET has allowed this current matter to progress to its current stage.”

Time is of the essence if Hahs is to act. Ballots are in Oct. 19.

October 18, 2006. UPS learned a major lesson in 1997: that working Teamsters can unify and use their power. Then, like now, UPS did everything possible to divide members and keep our union on the defensive. Despite management’s best efforts, members took a strong and clear stand that got the attention of the entire world.

We have that same potential—and more even—today to take on and win a contract fight at UPS. Here are five reasons why.

1. The legacy of 1997 continues to pay benefits today. The strike is still fresh in the memories of management, the media, shippers and investors. UPS management’s eagerness to bargain early is a sign of how anxious they are to avoid coming close to a strike deadline.

2. The pension cuts are a threat to our members and union, but also an opportunity. Membership anger and expectations are high. That frustration needs to be shaped into a positive force for Teamster unity and power.

3. The 100-year anniversary takes place in 2007. The possibility of actions, leafleting and media outreach during the anniversary period is leverage that can be used.

4. Change at the top. Right now we have the chance to elect new leadership to the top of our union and put aggressive bargainers at the table with UPS.

5. UPS is still at the top of the heap. FedEx and DHL have expanded in recent years, giving UPS some cause for concern. But UPS is still and will continue to be in the lead. Their investments in Overnite and Menlo and their central position in China and other emerging markets put them in a strong position. They will want to capitalize on their position and not jeopardize it with a fight with the Teamsters Union.

We have power—if we are determined and have a leadership that knows how to use it.

Legacy of the “Best Contract Ever”

October 18, 2006. Mention the “best ever” contract of 2002 to UPS Teamsters and you’ll probably get a roll of the eyes. But the issues behind the contract are serious.

With Hoffa agreeing to early negotiations, now is the time to look carefully where our union stands relative to UPS management.

First-Ever Benefits Cuts

The top UPS priority is to turn back the clock on pension benefits. For the first time ever, UPS Teamsters covered by our largest and best pension funds have been hit with cuts. Thirty-and-out and 25-and-out benefits for Central States members have been eliminated (except for years already accrued by 2003). Changes in medical providers in many areas have resulted in health coverage cuts.

Some Teamster funds have so far avoided making cuts. But the overall trend in benefits has shifted from improving pension and health coverage for all UPS Teamsters to a establishing a multi-tier benefit situation, where members doing exactly the same work in one region receive worse pensions than members in other regions.

Part-time workers in the Central Region, Southern Region, North and South Carolina and Colorado are still stuck in the company’s pension plan, with no money going to support our union Central States Pension or Health and Welfare Plan.

UPS funnels the youngest and healthiest participants into their own fund. The Central States Pension and Health funds are robbed of much-needed contributions. As a result the Central States Funds are burdened unnecessarily and member benefits are jeopardized in the long run.

De-Skilling Jobs More than Ever

Meanwhile, UPS has implemented one of the most revolutionary changes in their operations in decades. The new sort and delivery systems (PAS/EDD) are an attempt to shift delivery knowledge and expertise from individual drivers to management. While the start up of the new system has been rocky, UPS has been able to ratchet up production demands for pre-load and package car members. In the process, package and preload jobs are gradually becoming more like assembly line work.

More Work than Ever from Fewer Workers

Package car drivers are all too familiar with the problem of excessive overtime. Despite some improved language on this issue last contract, the problem has become worse. Rather than hire more drivers, management forces some drivers to work days of ten, 11 or more hours. Requests for relief are ignored. Grievance panels, at best, only partially deal with the problem.

The age-old problem of supervisors doing bargaining unit work is another means that UPS uses to reduce the number of good union jobs.

Less Progress than Ever on Full-time Jobs

UPS has tried to make some Article 22.3 combination jobs as undesirable as possible. At the get-go in 1997 they refused to abide by the language. In 2002 the Hoffa administration gave UPS two years during which no jobs were created. Some members and locals doubt that all the jobs won have been retained. Supposedly 15,000 full-time inside jobs have been created to date, by combining some 30,000 part-time jobs.

First-Ever Changes Without Votes

UPS implemented schedule changes on Teamsters in New England and in Jacksonville, Fla. In both cases the International went along with the deal and refused to allow members the right to vote.

First-Ever Nonunion Expansion

Work erosion via subcontracting is not only on the increase but has entered an entirely new dimension, thanks to UPS’s new divisions (Supply Chain Solutions, etc.). For the first time ever UPS has a large and rapidly growing nonunion domestic operation. Overnite is the largest, but not the only nonunion subsidiary. UPS employs tens of thousands of nonunion drivers, warehouse and clerical workers who handle shipping, packaging, assembly and other work for major corporations. This cancer could seriously undermine our bargaining power unless it is dealt with now.

What Will It Take to Win Real Improvements?

The current (2002) contract has been a period of serious threats to UPS Teamsters. We need leadership that can chart a new and bold road forward. We need to mobilize every last bit of our potential power. We need real leverage, and we can’t give away the leverage we have by playing management’s game of settling early and ignoring the growing problems.

Aggressive Contract Proposals Needed for UPS Contract

October 18, 2006. We all have high hopes for improvements in our UPS contract, but an over-arching goal has to be to strengthen our union and secure our future. With that in mind, concerned UPS members and leaders are looking at what it will take in our contract to undo problems in the current contract, and protect our future on the job and in retirement.

Secure our Pension & Health Benefits

• Provide sufficient funding to strengthen our funds and undo the pension cuts of the past two years.

• End the benefit cuts and restore 25- and 30-and-out to Central States Teamsters.

• Bring all Teamsters into the union health and pension funds. (End the practice in the Central States Fund of keeping part-timers, the youngest and healthiest participants, in separate employer funds.)

Health and Welfare

• Maintenance of benefits (as already in place in the West).

• Protect our future with unionization of UPS.

• Provide a fair “card-check” and neutrality agreement for UPS Freight and all nonunion subsidiaries, to bring tens of thousands of UPSers into our union and our pension plans.

Wages and Pay Progression

• Raise part-time starting rates to a minimum of $12.50 per hour.

• Reduce progressions and the number of pay tiers by bringing all employees up to union scale within six months.

End Excessive Overtime

• Double time for all hours worked over ten per day.

• Minimum of five eight-hour days per month, if requested.

• Automatic penalty of double time for all hours worked if eight-hour request denied.

• Eliminate “complete assignment” from overtime relief language.

• Management must provide adequate cover help to accommodate overtime release requests (other drivers will not be forced to pay the price for overtime accommodation).

• Mechanism in place to require hiring more drivers in centers with excessive overtime.

End Subcontracting our Jobs

• Automatic penalties of triple pay for subcontracting.

• Forbid non-bargaining unit employees from delivering packages to UPS facilities within the same shipping zone.

Improve and Increase 22.3 Jobs

• Upgrade pay of combo positions to reach package-car rate during the life of the new agreement.

• Part-timers not forced from their preferred job as a result of full-time job creation.

• Back pay and penalties if full-time jobs are not bid and filled by July 31 of each year.

• Create 3,000 new 22.3 jobs per year, with no years skipped as was done in the current contract.

Protect Against Unfair Production Standards

• Management must not post or publicly distribute production related information about individuals or groups.

Restrictions on Supervisors Working

• Limit supervisors doing bargaining work for training purposes to a maximum of one hour.

• Triple-time penalties paid to grievant or highest seniority employee if no grievant named, minimum of one hour pay for each incident of supervisor working.

Grievance Procedure

• Right to strike over deadlocked grievances. Bring the “hammer” in the freight contract to the UPS contract.

BNA Daily Labor Report
Rick Valliere

October 2, 2006. Drivers for FedEx Home Delivery are statutory employees of the company and not independent contractors, a National Labor Relations Board regional director ruled Sept. 20, ordering a union representation election sought by the Teamsters union at two Massachusetts locations (FedEx Home Delivery & Teamsters Local 24, NLRB Cases 1-RC-22034, 22035, 9/20/06).

The decision is the latest in a string of victories before various tribunals around the country by FedEx Home Delivery drivers contesting what they consider illegal misclassification as independent contractors.

It also is the fourth recent decision by an NLRB regional director concluding that FedEx Home Delivery drivers should be classified as employees.

"The facts adduced in this case are remarkably similar to those in the above cases, and, accordingly, do not warrant a departure from the results in those cases," wrote NLRB Region 1 Director Rosemary Pye.

The board has affirmed the findings by regional directors concerning drivers in New Jersey in 2004 and 2005 and in Northboro, Mass., in 2006.

FedEx Ground, the parent of FedEx Delivery, in a statement, said the decision "is not surprising or inconsistent" with Pye's earlier ruling, which the company is appealing. "Our contractors have shown us repeatedly that they do not want third-party representation as we currently have no unionized facilities," it added.

Galen Munroe, a spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said the election ordered in January in Northboro has been postponed indefinitely because of pending unfair labor practice charges. The Teamsters lost one of the New Jersey elections in a unit that included other workers in addition to drivers, while the other election involved an independent union, he said.

In addition to the NLRB rulings, advocates for FedEx drivers are pursuing a nationwide class action lawsuit, currently in the discovery stage, consolidating cases from around the country (In re FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., Employment Practices Litigation, N.D. Ind., No. 03:05-MD-527-RM, filed 8/10/05).

Other rulings upholding the employee status of drivers, according to attorneys for the drivers, include a recent court decision in California, Internal Revenue Service rulings in Wisconsin and Missouri, and unemployment agency rulings in various states, including a Massachusetts case in August (163 DLR A-4, 8/23/06 ).

FedEx Home Established in 1998

FedEx Home Delivery was established in 1998 when the parent company acquired Roadway Package Systems Inc. Almost all of the subsidiary's drivers are classified as independent contractors, while drivers for the parent company are classified as employees.

The units found appropriate by Pye are 24 drivers at a company terminal in Wilmington, Mass., and 16 drivers at a separate annex terminal, also in Wilmington.

In her decision, Pye noted that the company "exercises substantial control" over how drivers perform their jobs. Although drivers own their own trucks, the vehicles must display a company logo and drivers must wear a company uniform. The company "unilaterally establishes the rates of compensation," she found.

Factors cited by the company--drivers' responsibility for their vehicles, flexibility in scheduling, absence of fringe benefits, and lack of withholding by the company--are insufficient to demonstrate independent contractor status, she concluded.

By Rick Valliere