TDU Wins Positive Changes in Election Rules
September 25, 2005: The Election Rules, which govern our election for International officers and delegate elections in every local, have been improved, thanks to a strong set of proposals from Teamsters for a Democratic Union.
On August 31 U.S. Attorney David Kelley submitted revised Rules to federal judge Loretta Preska for approval, with four changes from the Proposed Rules issued in May. All four were proposed by TDU and submitted to the U.S.
Attorney by TDU counsel Barbara Harvey.
These improvements are:
• Candidates will now have the right to distribute campaign materials by email, under guidelines to be established by the Election Supervisor. This means that Accredited Candidates can send materials to Teamsters using email addresses held by the union.
• Campaign literature from candidates that appears in the Teamster magazine, in the “battle pages” that TDU originally proposed and won in 1991, will now also appear on the Teamster website.
• Members will not have to sign their full social security or social insurance number on petitions and other forms, but only the last four digits, to protect members’ privacy. This victory was announced earlier.
• Election protests can be filed by email, as well as by fax or regular mail.
TDU’s submission, made on June 2, 2005, contained other proposals as well. Most notably TDU called for a debate between the candidates for General President, to be recorded on a DVD and mailed to all Teamsters. Hoffa successfully defeated this positive proposal, which would certainly increase the percentage of members who vote.
On September 1, TDU counsel Barbara Harvey requested Judge Preska to allow time for TDU to consider whether to submit comments to the court about additional changes to the Rules that would help level the playing field and involve more members in the democratic process.
TDU is proud that we have won improvements which make our union more democratic for all members, especially the right of candidates to provide campaign information to members via email addresses held by the union. We have fought long and hard to win improvements in the Rules, and have successfully done so in each Teamster election.
We urge all Teamsters to get informed, get involved, and participate in the upcoming democratic process that will shape the future of our union.
On August 31 U.S. Attorney David Kelley submitted revised Rules to federal judge Loretta Preska for approval, with four changes from the Proposed Rules issued in May. All four were proposed by TDU and submitted to the U.S.
Attorney by TDU counsel Barbara Harvey.
These improvements are:
• Candidates will now have the right to distribute campaign materials by email, under guidelines to be established by the Election Supervisor. This means that Accredited Candidates can send materials to Teamsters using email addresses held by the union.
• Campaign literature from candidates that appears in the Teamster magazine, in the “battle pages” that TDU originally proposed and won in 1991, will now also appear on the Teamster website.
• Members will not have to sign their full social security or social insurance number on petitions and other forms, but only the last four digits, to protect members’ privacy. This victory was announced earlier.
• Election protests can be filed by email, as well as by fax or regular mail.
TDU’s submission, made on June 2, 2005, contained other proposals as well. Most notably TDU called for a debate between the candidates for General President, to be recorded on a DVD and mailed to all Teamsters. Hoffa successfully defeated this positive proposal, which would certainly increase the percentage of members who vote.
On September 1, TDU counsel Barbara Harvey requested Judge Preska to allow time for TDU to consider whether to submit comments to the court about additional changes to the Rules that would help level the playing field and involve more members in the democratic process.
TDU is proud that we have won improvements which make our union more democratic for all members, especially the right of candidates to provide campaign information to members via email addresses held by the union. We have fought long and hard to win improvements in the Rules, and have successfully done so in each Teamster election.
We urge all Teamsters to get informed, get involved, and participate in the upcoming democratic process that will shape the future of our union.
Cracks in Hoffa Unity
September 5, 2005: The famous Hoffa “Unity” is straining under the pressure of pension cuts and declining Teamster power. The first open split in the Hoffa slate came on August 28, when Tom O’Donnell, International Vice President at Large from New York, officially announced he would run against Hoffa for General President in 2006.
The divisions in the Hoffa camp don’t end there. O’Donnell circulated a letter charging that Hoffa “never knew the real purpose of the International. But then how could he. He was never a Teamster.” This from the IBT vice president who has raised hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars for Hoffa.
In early September, Hoffa got a cool reception from many officials at the Eastern Region meeting. A large minority of the officials present broke ranks and sat silently without clapping when Hoffa and Keegel spoke. The bulk of local officials in New Jersey Joint Council 73, where Hoffa won 69% of the vote in 2001, are ready to get off the Hoffa train, along with some others around the Eastern region.
The cracks in Hoffa’s official unity are not just in the east, but also in the central and southern areas. Discontent is widespread among officials in freight locals who feel that Hoffa has given up on the freight industry. Some are campaigning for IBT Vice Presidents from freight to break with Hoffa and run their own slate.
At the recent Teamster National Black Caucus (TNBC) annual conference, there was almost no open support for Hoffa. Instead of lining up support for Hoffa, TNBC delegates were talking about increasing African-American representation at the top of the union. Hoffa’s General Executive Board has only one voting African-American member.
Two international officers were recently pressured to resign their office: Ron McClain of Iowa and Joe McLean of Ontario, Canada. Several others will not be running on the Hoffa slate, either because they have been tossed off or are leaving on their own.
In fact, when Hoffa launched a candidate accreditation petition in August by pressuring international reps and local officers to gather signatures, his “slate” consisted of just two candidates: Hoffa and Tom Keegel. Hoffa-Keegel got the signatures required to become Accredited Candidates.
Click here: Prepare Now for Winter Delegate Races
Click here: TDU Wins Changes in Election Rules
Click here: Committee for New Leadership Lays Groundwork for Campaign
The divisions in the Hoffa camp don’t end there. O’Donnell circulated a letter charging that Hoffa “never knew the real purpose of the International. But then how could he. He was never a Teamster.” This from the IBT vice president who has raised hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars for Hoffa.
In early September, Hoffa got a cool reception from many officials at the Eastern Region meeting. A large minority of the officials present broke ranks and sat silently without clapping when Hoffa and Keegel spoke. The bulk of local officials in New Jersey Joint Council 73, where Hoffa won 69% of the vote in 2001, are ready to get off the Hoffa train, along with some others around the Eastern region.
The cracks in Hoffa’s official unity are not just in the east, but also in the central and southern areas. Discontent is widespread among officials in freight locals who feel that Hoffa has given up on the freight industry. Some are campaigning for IBT Vice Presidents from freight to break with Hoffa and run their own slate.
At the recent Teamster National Black Caucus (TNBC) annual conference, there was almost no open support for Hoffa. Instead of lining up support for Hoffa, TNBC delegates were talking about increasing African-American representation at the top of the union. Hoffa’s General Executive Board has only one voting African-American member.
Two international officers were recently pressured to resign their office: Ron McClain of Iowa and Joe McLean of Ontario, Canada. Several others will not be running on the Hoffa slate, either because they have been tossed off or are leaving on their own.
In fact, when Hoffa launched a candidate accreditation petition in August by pressuring international reps and local officers to gather signatures, his “slate” consisted of just two candidates: Hoffa and Tom Keegel. Hoffa-Keegel got the signatures required to become Accredited Candidates.
Click here: Prepare Now for Winter Delegate Races
Click here: TDU Wins Changes in Election Rules
Click here: Committee for New Leadership Lays Groundwork for Campaign
Changing to Win at Overnite?
September 25, 2005: In a recent interview with the Associated Press, James Hoffa said that leaving the AFL-CIO would make the Teamsters more successful at organizing the nonunion competition because “we’re more nimble and we don’t have the big bloated bureaucracy.”
Skeptics might wonder if it’s really John Sweeney and his AFL-CIO bureaucracy that has held back Hoffa’s organizing ambitions. Four months have passed since UPS announced it was buying Overnite and the nimble, bureaucracy-free Hoffa administration still hasn’t unveiled its “comprehensive plan to both organize and win a good contract at Overnite.”
It took Hoffa two months just to issue a press release promising a plan. Two more months have passed and local leaders as well as UPS and freight Teamsters have been unable to discover this plan. The IBT billed a special meeting in Chicago as the place where officers would hear the Hoffa administration’s strategy for Overnite—but officers came away empty-handed. In fact, Overnite got just ten minutes on the agenda.
A month later, Parcel Division Director Ken Hall came to a meeting of all the New York state joint councils to brief local officers on the IBT’s Overnite strategy—but the plan, if there is one, remained a secret.
“All Ken Hall told us was that the IBT was really going to need the support of the locals to be successful. No details. No specific requests. Just a general plea for support.” said Sandy Pope, President of Local 805 who attended the meeting. “There were 100 local officers in that room and every one of us understands that UPS-Overnite is a fight that will determine the fate of our union. But we can’t beat America’s number one union buster without direction or leadership from the IBT.”
Core Industries
At the Eastern Region meeting this month, General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Keegel boasted the IBT was “restructuring to become an organizing machine” that would focus on our core industries. Keegel mentioned parking garages and janitorial services—but never trucking.
Asked about organizing targets, Hoffa told the AP, “We want to identify jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.”
Overnite is hardly the only trucking company that won’t be moving its operations to China, but it may be the most important. The fate of Teamster members’ bargaining power in the 2008 UPS and freight negotiations—and the future health of our pension plans—depend in no small measure on the IBT’s ability to put a successful organizing plan into action at Overnite.
Thankfully, some locals are starting to take the lead. In Seattle, Local 174 is forming an Overnite Task Force of UPS and freight Teamsters. The local distributed leaflets to area Overnite workers to give them a union welcome to UPS. Chicago Local 705 is organizing UPS feeder drivers to do outreach to Overnite workers about the importance of having a union behind you when UPS is your employer.
Other locals are organizing similar activities. But it will take more than good local initiatives to organize UPS-Overnite. We need a national plan.
Prepare Now for Winter Delegate Races
September 25, 2005: Almost every Teamster local union will hold a supervised, mail-ballot election this winter to elect delegates to the IBT Convention next June. A schedule for your local union’s delegate race will be available by Sept. 30.
You need to get a copy and get involved. By running for Convention Delegate—or supporting reform candidates for delegate—you can strengthen our campaign to dump Hoffa in 2006.
Do you want to replace the Hoffa administration with strong, accountable leaders who will fight for working Teamsters? Reform delegates are needed to officially nominate opposition candidates and put a reform slate on the ballot.
Delegates will also vote on reforms to the IBT Constitution and proposals to hold pension trustees accountable to the members.
Get Your Local Union’s Plan
By September 30, your local must submit a Local Union Plan to the Election Supervisor, with the schedule for your election—including the date of nominations.
You can get a head start right now by requesting a complete copy of the Local Union Plan, which your local must provide to any member that requests it. This plan includes a full worksite list with the location of every employer in your local.
The place to be if you are running for delegate or want to be involved in the campaign is the TDU Convention in St. Louis, Nov. 4-6. Through workshops and member-to member interaction, you will learn how to run, win and participate effectively at the IBT Convention next June.
You need to get a copy and get involved. By running for Convention Delegate—or supporting reform candidates for delegate—you can strengthen our campaign to dump Hoffa in 2006.
Do you want to replace the Hoffa administration with strong, accountable leaders who will fight for working Teamsters? Reform delegates are needed to officially nominate opposition candidates and put a reform slate on the ballot.
Delegates will also vote on reforms to the IBT Constitution and proposals to hold pension trustees accountable to the members.
Get Your Local Union’s Plan
By September 30, your local must submit a Local Union Plan to the Election Supervisor, with the schedule for your election—including the date of nominations.
You can get a head start right now by requesting a complete copy of the Local Union Plan, which your local must provide to any member that requests it. This plan includes a full worksite list with the location of every employer in your local.
The place to be if you are running for delegate or want to be involved in the campaign is the TDU Convention in St. Louis, Nov. 4-6. Through workshops and member-to member interaction, you will learn how to run, win and participate effectively at the IBT Convention next June.
Member Action on Pension Pays Off
September 15, 2005: Fighting pension cuts can make a difference. That’s the lesson coming out of New England where angry Teamster members pressured the New England Pension Fund Trustees to backtrack on pension cuts they announced in July.
“I was featured in Convoy after I learned that the pension cuts were going to make it impossible for me to retire in November like I planned,” said Local 42 member Dan Faust, who is just a few months short of 30 years of pension credit “The next thing I know I got a call from my local officer and she told me the trustees had made changes because of all the fallout and I would be able to retire.
“I’m not saying it was all about that one article. The trustees heard from a lot of Teamsters who were furious and we won some positive changes as a result. I’m riding on cloud nine right now,” Faust said.
The news is not all good. For most Teamsters, the restrictions on 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57 remain in place. New England Teamsters who did not have 25 years of credit by July 31, 2005 will not be eligible for their full special-service pension until age 57. Even if you had 25 years of credit by July 31, you will not be eligible for a Plan D special-service pension (30-and-out at $3,500/month) until you are at least 57.
“A lot of good Teamsters are still being hurt by these cuts and they are furious—and rightfully so,” said Faust. “Members understand that action has to be taken to protect our pension funds over the long term. But it shouldn’t be on the backs of hard-working Teamsters who have sweated all their lives to put money into these plans.”
Improvements Won
Under the original changes, Teamsters with 25 years who continued working after July 31 would have their pension frozen until they reach age 57. Then, at 57, the pension would snap back to the full rate. A member who had to retire before 57 because of injury or the closure of their company would get no additional benefit for their extra time worked.
The trustees have now eliminated this “snap back” provision. If, and only if, you had 25 years on July 31 and were eligible for a special-service benefit, then you will continue to earn the additional $150 per year or get to the 30 year/$3,000 benefit and be able to retire at any age. However, UPS, freight and other Teamsters working under a Plan D contract cannot receive their maximum benefit unless they wait until 57 to retire.
In a second victory, the trustees reversed a rule change that would have cut the pension accrual rate of all members covered by already-negotiated contracts that did not include annual increases in their pension contributions after July 31, 2005. This would have meant pension cuts for many New England Teamsters covered under multi-year contracts that were negotiated before the pension rules were changed.
Now, the Pension Fund will honor all existing contracts by maintaining the negotiated and promised accrual rate. When these contracts expire, the new contracts must include increased pension contributions of five percent a year to maintain the accrual rate.
More Changes Ahead?
The quick reversal on the part of the trustees raises disturbing questions. If the fund could afford the new revisions restoring some cut benefits, then why were the cuts made in the first place? Exactly what information were the trustees looking at or not looking at prior to making the cuts in July?
As Convoy goes to press, the fund still has not put out anything in writing about the rule changes, fueling speculation that more changes may be coming. Many members say these rule changes don’t go far enough. It remains to be seen whether membership pressure can convince the trustees to introduce stronger grandfathering provisions.
Accountability Needed
Teamster members and officers have won some improvements already by putting pressure on the pension fund trustees.
This success is an example of how our union trustees on the pension fund are indirectly accountable if we apply enough heat. What is really needed is direct accountability.
The New England pension cuts show the need for us to elect delegates to the 2006 Teamster Convention who will support changes to the Teamster Constitution to hold benefit fund trustees directly accountable to Teamster members—and to support candidates for International office who will defend our pensions from attacks by the employers and corporate politicians.
“I was featured in Convoy after I learned that the pension cuts were going to make it impossible for me to retire in November like I planned,” said Local 42 member Dan Faust, who is just a few months short of 30 years of pension credit “The next thing I know I got a call from my local officer and she told me the trustees had made changes because of all the fallout and I would be able to retire.
“I’m not saying it was all about that one article. The trustees heard from a lot of Teamsters who were furious and we won some positive changes as a result. I’m riding on cloud nine right now,” Faust said.
The news is not all good. For most Teamsters, the restrictions on 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57 remain in place. New England Teamsters who did not have 25 years of credit by July 31, 2005 will not be eligible for their full special-service pension until age 57. Even if you had 25 years of credit by July 31, you will not be eligible for a Plan D special-service pension (30-and-out at $3,500/month) until you are at least 57.
“A lot of good Teamsters are still being hurt by these cuts and they are furious—and rightfully so,” said Faust. “Members understand that action has to be taken to protect our pension funds over the long term. But it shouldn’t be on the backs of hard-working Teamsters who have sweated all their lives to put money into these plans.”
Improvements Won
Under the original changes, Teamsters with 25 years who continued working after July 31 would have their pension frozen until they reach age 57. Then, at 57, the pension would snap back to the full rate. A member who had to retire before 57 because of injury or the closure of their company would get no additional benefit for their extra time worked.
The trustees have now eliminated this “snap back” provision. If, and only if, you had 25 years on July 31 and were eligible for a special-service benefit, then you will continue to earn the additional $150 per year or get to the 30 year/$3,000 benefit and be able to retire at any age. However, UPS, freight and other Teamsters working under a Plan D contract cannot receive their maximum benefit unless they wait until 57 to retire.
In a second victory, the trustees reversed a rule change that would have cut the pension accrual rate of all members covered by already-negotiated contracts that did not include annual increases in their pension contributions after July 31, 2005. This would have meant pension cuts for many New England Teamsters covered under multi-year contracts that were negotiated before the pension rules were changed.
Now, the Pension Fund will honor all existing contracts by maintaining the negotiated and promised accrual rate. When these contracts expire, the new contracts must include increased pension contributions of five percent a year to maintain the accrual rate.
More Changes Ahead?
The quick reversal on the part of the trustees raises disturbing questions. If the fund could afford the new revisions restoring some cut benefits, then why were the cuts made in the first place? Exactly what information were the trustees looking at or not looking at prior to making the cuts in July?
As Convoy goes to press, the fund still has not put out anything in writing about the rule changes, fueling speculation that more changes may be coming. Many members say these rule changes don’t go far enough. It remains to be seen whether membership pressure can convince the trustees to introduce stronger grandfathering provisions.
Accountability Needed
Teamster members and officers have won some improvements already by putting pressure on the pension fund trustees.
This success is an example of how our union trustees on the pension fund are indirectly accountable if we apply enough heat. What is really needed is direct accountability.
The New England pension cuts show the need for us to elect delegates to the 2006 Teamster Convention who will support changes to the Teamster Constitution to hold benefit fund trustees directly accountable to Teamster members—and to support candidates for International office who will defend our pensions from attacks by the employers and corporate politicians.
Pension Movement Fights on New Fronts
September 15, 2005: The fight for pension justice has focused on the U.S. Congress in recent weeks, as Teamsters have organized to support legislation that helps Teamster funds, and to oppose a dangerous amendment that endangers our benefits.
Teamster members are starting to get results. On Sept. 8, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed a pension bill which did not include the anti-worker “Red Zone Amendment” that would allow certain plans to make drastic cuts in promised early retirement benefits earned by long-time Teamsters.
Thanks to the heroic efforts of concerned members, key Senators understood the devastating effect this could have on workers who have earned 25- and 30-and-out benefits.
Teamsters have called, written and visited Representatives and Senators to make their views heard. We need to keep it up—the full Senate will likely vote on the pension bill in late September, and amendments will likely be made from the floor. Now is the time to be involved, to say Yes to pension reform, and No to an amendment that would repeal the anti-cutback language in federal pension law.
For more information on the bill and how you can help, go to the Pension Rights Center website at: http://pensionrights.org/pages/policy_multiemployer.html.
Pension Bills
The “Defined Benefit Security Act” was passed by the Senate HELP Committee on a vote of 18-2. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) opposed it, because of its provisions on cash balance plans. Essentially this part of the bill would allow companies to break early retirement promises in single-employer plans. This bad language would not directly affect workers covered by Teamster multiemployer plans.
The bill has positive provisions. It would allow multiemployer plans more breathing room to recover following stock downturns. It would also impose stricter standards on plans, so that they would have to make reasonable actuarial assumptions and interest projections, and speed up the funding of benefit improvements. At least theoretically, it would hold trustees and managers to a higher standard of fund management, and prevent our plans from being taken over by the federal pension insurance program, which provides only very low guarantees. The Senate bill would require disclosure to participants of full actuarial reports and other financial documents. TDU members have lobbied in favor of this transparency provision.
The House version of the bill is similar, but includes the dangerous amendment that would allow cutbacks in accrued benefits.
Hoffa and Pension Reform
The International Union supports the pension bill, but also says “If… this bill turns out to be harmful to multi-employer funds, the Teamsters Union is committed to doing everything possible to defeat it.” (August Teamster Leader.)
The Hoffa administration has launched a major campaign with petitions, PR, and bulletins but never names a single item in the pension bill that they support or oppose. This secrecy makes it impossible for members to write or talk to their legislators, unless they just want to say “whatever Hoffa says, that’s right.” It’s hard to motivate Teamsters and retirees with that leadership.
What’s most dangerous is the Red Zone Amendment. A critically important protection won in 1984, the anti-cutback provision, should not be given up without a fight. Insiders in Washington report that UPS management is pushing this dangerous amendment, and we can see why. But we can’t see why our union would go along!
Pension Movement on the Move
The fight for pension justice for Teamsters and retirees continues to spread. Teamsters in the Central States, Western, Central Pennsylvania, New England and other plans are organizing and fighting back.
This month the focus is on Congress, but the longer term emphasis has to be on winning accountability and honesty out of our union pension trustees.
That is the battle that can and will be won.
Teamster members are starting to get results. On Sept. 8, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed a pension bill which did not include the anti-worker “Red Zone Amendment” that would allow certain plans to make drastic cuts in promised early retirement benefits earned by long-time Teamsters.
Thanks to the heroic efforts of concerned members, key Senators understood the devastating effect this could have on workers who have earned 25- and 30-and-out benefits.
Teamsters have called, written and visited Representatives and Senators to make their views heard. We need to keep it up—the full Senate will likely vote on the pension bill in late September, and amendments will likely be made from the floor. Now is the time to be involved, to say Yes to pension reform, and No to an amendment that would repeal the anti-cutback language in federal pension law.
For more information on the bill and how you can help, go to the Pension Rights Center website at: http://pensionrights.org/pages/policy_multiemployer.html.
Pension Bills
The “Defined Benefit Security Act” was passed by the Senate HELP Committee on a vote of 18-2. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) opposed it, because of its provisions on cash balance plans. Essentially this part of the bill would allow companies to break early retirement promises in single-employer plans. This bad language would not directly affect workers covered by Teamster multiemployer plans.
The bill has positive provisions. It would allow multiemployer plans more breathing room to recover following stock downturns. It would also impose stricter standards on plans, so that they would have to make reasonable actuarial assumptions and interest projections, and speed up the funding of benefit improvements. At least theoretically, it would hold trustees and managers to a higher standard of fund management, and prevent our plans from being taken over by the federal pension insurance program, which provides only very low guarantees. The Senate bill would require disclosure to participants of full actuarial reports and other financial documents. TDU members have lobbied in favor of this transparency provision.
The House version of the bill is similar, but includes the dangerous amendment that would allow cutbacks in accrued benefits.
Hoffa and Pension Reform
The International Union supports the pension bill, but also says “If… this bill turns out to be harmful to multi-employer funds, the Teamsters Union is committed to doing everything possible to defeat it.” (August Teamster Leader.)
The Hoffa administration has launched a major campaign with petitions, PR, and bulletins but never names a single item in the pension bill that they support or oppose. This secrecy makes it impossible for members to write or talk to their legislators, unless they just want to say “whatever Hoffa says, that’s right.” It’s hard to motivate Teamsters and retirees with that leadership.
What’s most dangerous is the Red Zone Amendment. A critically important protection won in 1984, the anti-cutback provision, should not be given up without a fight. Insiders in Washington report that UPS management is pushing this dangerous amendment, and we can see why. But we can’t see why our union would go along!
Pension Movement on the Move
The fight for pension justice for Teamsters and retirees continues to spread. Teamsters in the Central States, Western, Central Pennsylvania, New England and other plans are organizing and fighting back.
This month the focus is on Congress, but the longer term emphasis has to be on winning accountability and honesty out of our union pension trustees.
That is the battle that can and will be won.
Committee for New Leadership Lays Groundwork for Campaign
September 15, 2005: “Teamsters who want new IBT leadership can’t wait until 2006 to get started,” said Atlanta Local 728 President Randy Brown. “We have work that’s got to get done this fall. We need to petition to get a reform slate officially accredited, and we need to prepare to win the delegate elections. Those have got to be priorities for Teamsters who want change in this union.”
Brown is part of the Committee for New Leadership, a network of Teamster officers and leaders working to pull together a strong and diverse reform slate for the International Union election in 2006.
September 5, 2005: The committee is preparing to announce an initial slate of candidates and to launch an accreditation petition drive so these candidates will have the right to publish their program in the campaign “battle pages” section of the Teamster magazine.
“A number of us are prepared to run for the General Executive Board as part of a reform team,” said Dan Scott, the Secretary-Treasurer of Seattle Local 174. “We need leadership at the IBT that can bring together Teamster members and officers to rebuild this union’s power and take on the big challenges including organizing Overnite, defending members’ pensions and benefits, building strong local unions, and gearing up for successful negotiations at UPS and freight in 2008.”
“We’re prepared to work with all Teamsters who want to dump Hoffa, to make sure every Teamster that wants change feels represented in a new IBT leadership,” said T.C. Bundrant, the president of Tenn. Local 549.
Teamster members are getting involved by building local campaign committees, making fundraising plans and preparing to run in upcoming elections for IBT Convention Delegate. Special campaign preparation meetings will be held at the TDU Convention in November.
If you’re interested in building the campaign in your area, contact TDU.
Click here: Cracks in Hoffa Unity
Click here: Prepare Now for Winter Delegate Races
Click here: TDU Wins Changes in Election Rules
Brown is part of the Committee for New Leadership, a network of Teamster officers and leaders working to pull together a strong and diverse reform slate for the International Union election in 2006.
September 5, 2005: The committee is preparing to announce an initial slate of candidates and to launch an accreditation petition drive so these candidates will have the right to publish their program in the campaign “battle pages” section of the Teamster magazine.
“A number of us are prepared to run for the General Executive Board as part of a reform team,” said Dan Scott, the Secretary-Treasurer of Seattle Local 174. “We need leadership at the IBT that can bring together Teamster members and officers to rebuild this union’s power and take on the big challenges including organizing Overnite, defending members’ pensions and benefits, building strong local unions, and gearing up for successful negotiations at UPS and freight in 2008.”
“We’re prepared to work with all Teamsters who want to dump Hoffa, to make sure every Teamster that wants change feels represented in a new IBT leadership,” said T.C. Bundrant, the president of Tenn. Local 549.
Teamster members are getting involved by building local campaign committees, making fundraising plans and preparing to run in upcoming elections for IBT Convention Delegate. Special campaign preparation meetings will be held at the TDU Convention in November.
If you’re interested in building the campaign in your area, contact TDU.
Click here: Cracks in Hoffa Unity
Click here: Prepare Now for Winter Delegate Races
Click here: TDU Wins Changes in Election Rules
AFL-CIO Split? No One Asked Rank And File Teamsters!
September 5, 2005: That’s what the banner on the Local 206 truck said at the Labor Day picnic in Portland, Ore. Because it’s true.
“Before the SEIU withdrew, they discussed the issue for two years, but Hoffa yanked 1.3 million Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO without any kind of consultation with members or local officers. That is not a responsible way to make a decision of this magnitude,” says Local 206 President Bill Zimmerman.
“I’ll be at the TDU Convention to talk with fellow Teamsters about what leaving the AFL-CIO means for our union—and what we can do to build labor solidarity on the local level and change the Teamsters to win.”
Do you have comments on the Change to Win Coalition? Send your thoughts to:
Teamster Viewpoint
Convoy Dispatch,
PO Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
Click here: Changing to Win at Overnite?
Click here: Coalition Launches Rival Federation
Click here: Teamster Viewpoint: Leaving AFL-CIO Threatens Union Solidarity
“Before the SEIU withdrew, they discussed the issue for two years, but Hoffa yanked 1.3 million Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO without any kind of consultation with members or local officers. That is not a responsible way to make a decision of this magnitude,” says Local 206 President Bill Zimmerman.
“I’ll be at the TDU Convention to talk with fellow Teamsters about what leaving the AFL-CIO means for our union—and what we can do to build labor solidarity on the local level and change the Teamsters to win.”
Do you have comments on the Change to Win Coalition? Send your thoughts to:
Teamster Viewpoint
Convoy Dispatch,
PO Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
Click here: Changing to Win at Overnite?
Click here: Coalition Launches Rival Federation
Click here: Teamster Viewpoint: Leaving AFL-CIO Threatens Union Solidarity
Committee for New Leadership Looks Ahead to 2006
September 1, 2005: In his two terms as Teamster general president, James Hoffa has delivered a dues hike, pension cuts, a shrinking membership, and the return of allegations of organized crime influence at the highest levels of the union—all while turning a financial surplus into a deficit.
Now Hoffa will have to answer for that record—and the decline of Teamster power on his watch.
A group of local Teamster leaders has formed an exploratory committee to discuss what it will take to defeat Hoffa in next year’s election for IBT office. Local officers have launched the Committee for New Leadership to put together the program and leadership team that can rebuild Teamster power.
Teamster members will have a choice in the 2006 balloting—and the opportunity to vote for a new leadership and new direction for our union.
“Right now, we’re at the stage of reaching out and building the alliances and campaign infrastructure we’ll need, not just to win this election but to successfully lead this union on a new course,” said Jack Reardon, vice president of Local 170 in Massachusetts. “Our job is to build a grassroots army for change.”
“Growing numbers of Teamsters are saying that our union is in crisis,” said Oregon Local 206 Secretary-Treasurer Tom Leedham. “If we want to save our union, we’ve got to work together.”
The Committee for New Leadership has not announced a candidate. Under the Teamster election rules, the official candidate accreditation process begins this summer with a petition drive.
“We want to hear from Teamsters about your ideas,” said Randy Brown, Atlanta Local 728 president. “No one’s going to fix it for us. We’ve got to do this together.”
TDU encourages concerned Teamsters to get involved in this campaign to save our union. Contact the Committee for New Leadership at:
newleadership2006 [at] gmail.com.
Now Hoffa will have to answer for that record—and the decline of Teamster power on his watch.
A group of local Teamster leaders has formed an exploratory committee to discuss what it will take to defeat Hoffa in next year’s election for IBT office. Local officers have launched the Committee for New Leadership to put together the program and leadership team that can rebuild Teamster power.
Teamster members will have a choice in the 2006 balloting—and the opportunity to vote for a new leadership and new direction for our union.
“Right now, we’re at the stage of reaching out and building the alliances and campaign infrastructure we’ll need, not just to win this election but to successfully lead this union on a new course,” said Jack Reardon, vice president of Local 170 in Massachusetts. “Our job is to build a grassroots army for change.”
“Growing numbers of Teamsters are saying that our union is in crisis,” said Oregon Local 206 Secretary-Treasurer Tom Leedham. “If we want to save our union, we’ve got to work together.”
The Committee for New Leadership has not announced a candidate. Under the Teamster election rules, the official candidate accreditation process begins this summer with a petition drive.
“We want to hear from Teamsters about your ideas,” said Randy Brown, Atlanta Local 728 president. “No one’s going to fix it for us. We’ve got to do this together.”
TDU encourages concerned Teamsters to get involved in this campaign to save our union. Contact the Committee for New Leadership at:
newleadership2006 [at] gmail.com.
Pension Reform Debate Leaves Out Families, Future of Pension System
August 28, 2005: The current debate in Congress over pension “reform” tends to leave out the most important issues: protection of pension benefits for families, and protection of our pension system into the future. Instead the debate is focused too narrowly on cutting benefits and allowing corporations to eliminate defined benefit plans—plans that have been crucial to eliminating old-age poverty in the U.S.
Two experts who testified earlier this year in Congress addressed these broader concerns. Teresa Ghilarducci is a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. Norman Stein is a professor of law at the University of Alabama who teaches and writes on labor and employee benefits.
Below are excerpts from their testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. These comments were addressed to the Bush Administration’s proposed legislation on single-employer plans (not Teamster plans), but show the kind of approach that is needed to deal with the pension issue.
The multi-employer (including Teamster plans) legislation now before Congress has the same pro-employer slant that these experts noted in the earlier bill.
Click on the links below for the for full testimony:
Teresa Ghilarducci (Associate Professor of Economics
University of Notre Dame)
Statement of Norman P. Stein On Behalf of the Pension Rights Center
On the roots of the “crisis”:
Norman Stein: “The worst of the problems of defined benefit plans are concentrated in a few industries that have undergone major structural change, partly in response to actions taken by the federal government. … If the airline industry had not been deregulated, United, Delta and U.S. Airways would have been better situated to fund their pension plans adequately.”
Norman Stein: “As a society, we need to accept some responsibility for the current financial problems in the defined benefit system. We should not lose sight of a simple fact: the current fiscal stresses on defined benefit plans and the PBGC are not the product of illegal fraud committed by mendacious corporate managers nor the selfish actions of the millions of Americans who have relied on defined benefit plans. Rather, the problems are, at least in retrospect, the results of the laws that Congress enacted and of actions taken by the Executive branch.”
On the proposed reform legislation:
Teresa Ghilarducci: “The whole idea of ERISA and pension protection was to ensure that promises made and indirectly paid for by workers weren’t reneged on. But this bill steps away from protecting accrued benefits. The bill unfairly places the losses of funding failures on workers.”
Norman Stein: “The administration proposal would require that certain underfunded plans freeze future benefit accruals and would bar benefit improvements. Such restrictions are wrong, so long as new benefits are funded and old benefit liabilities are being amortized under appropriately rigorous schedules.”
On access to information:
Teresa Ghilarducci: “Why not add a worker representative on the board of trustees? … [T]hrough their representatives they would have a genuine link and awareness of ongoing pension funding issues. A worker representative would further transparency goals.”
On what needs to be done:
Teresa Ghilarducci: “Implement funding rules that freeze benefit accruals for funds with below 60 percent funding, but don’t make 80 percent a blanket trigger. … [R]eform should help employers find ways to stay in the system and get through short-term difficulties.”
Norman Stein: “Existing employee benefit expectations should be respected. … [R]estrictions on employees’ access to certain types of benefits, or the immediate negation of certain benefit guarantees, or a mandatory freeze on new benefit accruals, should be avoided wherever possible.”
Two experts who testified earlier this year in Congress addressed these broader concerns. Teresa Ghilarducci is a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. Norman Stein is a professor of law at the University of Alabama who teaches and writes on labor and employee benefits.
Below are excerpts from their testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. These comments were addressed to the Bush Administration’s proposed legislation on single-employer plans (not Teamster plans), but show the kind of approach that is needed to deal with the pension issue.
The multi-employer (including Teamster plans) legislation now before Congress has the same pro-employer slant that these experts noted in the earlier bill.
Click on the links below for the for full testimony:
Teresa Ghilarducci (Associate Professor of Economics
University of Notre Dame)
Statement of Norman P. Stein On Behalf of the Pension Rights Center
On the roots of the “crisis”:
Norman Stein: “The worst of the problems of defined benefit plans are concentrated in a few industries that have undergone major structural change, partly in response to actions taken by the federal government. … If the airline industry had not been deregulated, United, Delta and U.S. Airways would have been better situated to fund their pension plans adequately.”
Norman Stein: “As a society, we need to accept some responsibility for the current financial problems in the defined benefit system. We should not lose sight of a simple fact: the current fiscal stresses on defined benefit plans and the PBGC are not the product of illegal fraud committed by mendacious corporate managers nor the selfish actions of the millions of Americans who have relied on defined benefit plans. Rather, the problems are, at least in retrospect, the results of the laws that Congress enacted and of actions taken by the Executive branch.”
On the proposed reform legislation:
Teresa Ghilarducci: “The whole idea of ERISA and pension protection was to ensure that promises made and indirectly paid for by workers weren’t reneged on. But this bill steps away from protecting accrued benefits. The bill unfairly places the losses of funding failures on workers.”
Norman Stein: “The administration proposal would require that certain underfunded plans freeze future benefit accruals and would bar benefit improvements. Such restrictions are wrong, so long as new benefits are funded and old benefit liabilities are being amortized under appropriately rigorous schedules.”
On access to information:
Teresa Ghilarducci: “Why not add a worker representative on the board of trustees? … [T]hrough their representatives they would have a genuine link and awareness of ongoing pension funding issues. A worker representative would further transparency goals.”
On what needs to be done:
Teresa Ghilarducci: “Implement funding rules that freeze benefit accruals for funds with below 60 percent funding, but don’t make 80 percent a blanket trigger. … [R]eform should help employers find ways to stay in the system and get through short-term difficulties.”
Norman Stein: “Existing employee benefit expectations should be respected. … [R]estrictions on employees’ access to certain types of benefits, or the immediate negation of certain benefit guarantees, or a mandatory freeze on new benefit accruals, should be avoided wherever possible.”