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.”
Uproar Wins Changes to Pension Cuts in New England
August 28, 2005: The recently announced pension cuts in New England went over like a Yankees victory in Fenway Park. The angry uproar by members and local officers has pressured the New England Pension Fund Trustees to reverse two of their most unfair pension cuts announced in July.
The new is not all good. The restrictions on 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57 remain in place. New England Teamsters who did not have enough years of credit by July 31, 2005 will not be eligible for 25- or 30-and-out until age 57.
Unlike in the past, the changes did not include grandfathering provisions to protect Teamsters who were close to making their 25 or 30 years and were planning to retire soon. Members are calling for the fund trustees to grandfather existing negotiated promises. Teamsters who were close to qualifying under the old rules should have their contracts honored.
Change #1: No Punishment for Continuing to Work
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 and be eligible to retire at any age.
Change #2: Honoring Promises in Existing Contracts
Under the original cuts, Teamsters would have suffered a reduction in their pension accrual if they were covered by contracts that did not include annual increases in their pension contributions of 5 percent. 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.
The Pension Fund Trustees have backed off of this unreasonable rule. Now, the Pension Fund will honor all existing contracts by maintaining the accrual rate. When these contracts expire, the new contracts must include increased pension contributions of 5 percent a year to maintain the accrual rate.
Pension Reform, Accountability Needed
Both of the reforms to the original cuts address problems that were first reported by TDU. It remains to be seen whether membership pressure can convince the Trustees to introduce stronger grandfathering provisions that will protect Teamsters who were planning to retire under the old rules.
Teamster members and officers won these improvements by putting pressure on the Pension Fund Trustees. This 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 back reforms 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.
The new is not all good. The restrictions on 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57 remain in place. New England Teamsters who did not have enough years of credit by July 31, 2005 will not be eligible for 25- or 30-and-out until age 57.
Unlike in the past, the changes did not include grandfathering provisions to protect Teamsters who were close to making their 25 or 30 years and were planning to retire soon. Members are calling for the fund trustees to grandfather existing negotiated promises. Teamsters who were close to qualifying under the old rules should have their contracts honored.
Change #1: No Punishment for Continuing to Work
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 and be eligible to retire at any age.
Change #2: Honoring Promises in Existing Contracts
Under the original cuts, Teamsters would have suffered a reduction in their pension accrual if they were covered by contracts that did not include annual increases in their pension contributions of 5 percent. 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.
The Pension Fund Trustees have backed off of this unreasonable rule. Now, the Pension Fund will honor all existing contracts by maintaining the accrual rate. When these contracts expire, the new contracts must include increased pension contributions of 5 percent a year to maintain the accrual rate.
Pension Reform, Accountability Needed
Both of the reforms to the original cuts address problems that were first reported by TDU. It remains to be seen whether membership pressure can convince the Trustees to introduce stronger grandfathering provisions that will protect Teamsters who were planning to retire under the old rules.
Teamster members and officers won these improvements by putting pressure on the Pension Fund Trustees. This 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 back reforms 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.
CSPIC Members Lobby Congress About Pension Bill
August 28, 2005: TDU member Frank Bryant wrote to tell us, “As you advised in your article ‘Taking Action to Protect Your Pension’ in the July/August issue of Convoy Dispatch, a group of my Rank and File brothers and sisters decided to do just that: to take action to protect our pensions.”
On Aug. 25 a delegation of Teamster members traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional aides about pending pension legislation. The delegation included Tommy Burke, Kevin Wright, Frank Bryant (all from Local 391, North Carolina), Randy Brown, President of Local 728, Atlanta and Sandy Pope, President of New York Local 805. They met with aides from Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Enzi and Burr—all of whom are on the Senate committee which introduced the legislation in the Senate.
On Aug. 25 a delegation of Teamster members traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional aides about pending pension legislation. The delegation included Tommy Burke, Kevin Wright, Frank Bryant (all from Local 391, North Carolina), Randy Brown, President of Local 728, Atlanta and Sandy Pope, President of New York Local 805. They met with aides from Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Enzi and Burr—all of whom are on the Senate committee which introduced the legislation in the Senate.
Hoffa Establishes Procedure for Potential Raids on AFL-CIO Unions
August 5, 2005: On July 26, one day after James Hoffa pulled the Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO, the Teamster General Counsel sent a notice to all Teamster locals establishing a procedure to be followed if any local desires to raid an AFL-CIO affiliated union.
This statement appears to point in a dangerous direction. Instead of coming out squarely against raids, it provides a procedure to potentially initiate them, and even hints at a suggested reason: claim another union has a substandard contract.
We hope Teamsters, Teamster officers, and other Change to Win unions will urge Hoffa to adopt a solidarity policy. Every AFL-CIO union should do the same.
The directive to locals states that “…we did not disaffiliate for the purpose of raiding AFL-CIO affiliates at already organized job sites. In this regard, if you are planning any organizing activity in connection with a bargaining unit already represented by a AFL-CIO affiliated union, you must follow the following procedures prior to engaging in further activity:
1. Submit a letter to the General President which sets forth the name of the targeted employer; the location of the targeted employer; the current bargaining representative of the unit; and your reasons for targeting the unit (e.g. adversely affecting the area standards).
2. Courtesy copy the letter to the IBT Legal Department.”
The statement reads quite differently regarding Change to Win unions: it says there shall be no raiding or interfering with the organizing drives of those unions.
The new policy was sent out over the name of IBT General Counsel Patrick Szymanski.
What the Teamster raiding policy will be in practice remains to be seen. Hopefully, the IBT will quickly arrange no-raid agreements with all AFL-CIO unions. We need solidarity with other unions and other workers, regardless of where their leaders line up on the AFL-CIO split.
This statement appears to point in a dangerous direction. Instead of coming out squarely against raids, it provides a procedure to potentially initiate them, and even hints at a suggested reason: claim another union has a substandard contract.
We hope Teamsters, Teamster officers, and other Change to Win unions will urge Hoffa to adopt a solidarity policy. Every AFL-CIO union should do the same.
The directive to locals states that “…we did not disaffiliate for the purpose of raiding AFL-CIO affiliates at already organized job sites. In this regard, if you are planning any organizing activity in connection with a bargaining unit already represented by a AFL-CIO affiliated union, you must follow the following procedures prior to engaging in further activity:
1. Submit a letter to the General President which sets forth the name of the targeted employer; the location of the targeted employer; the current bargaining representative of the unit; and your reasons for targeting the unit (e.g. adversely affecting the area standards).
2. Courtesy copy the letter to the IBT Legal Department.”
The statement reads quite differently regarding Change to Win unions: it says there shall be no raiding or interfering with the organizing drives of those unions.
The new policy was sent out over the name of IBT General Counsel Patrick Szymanski.
What the Teamster raiding policy will be in practice remains to be seen. Hopefully, the IBT will quickly arrange no-raid agreements with all AFL-CIO unions. We need solidarity with other unions and other workers, regardless of where their leaders line up on the AFL-CIO split.
Hoffa Administration Issues “Whitewash” Report
July 27, 2005: The International Union has released the “McDonald Report” (available on the IBT website) which purports to demonstrate that the Hoffa administration is working hard to maintain a corruption-free union.
However, the report actually does not deal with that issue at all. Instead it is an 89-page denunciation of Ed Stier, who was the Hoffa administration’s own anti-corruption director for five years.
The document was prepared by Edward McDonald, an attorney who works with the Hoffa administration. McDonald specializes in representing white-collar criminals.
His clients include one of the nation’s largest waste management corporations (major Teamster employers), domestic and foreign bank officials, a member of the Saudi royal family, and the former chairman and deputy chairman of the Russian Securities Commission.
He admits in the report, which took 14 months and untold dues dollars to prepare, that he never even sought to meet or speak with Stier.
The McDonald Report claims that Stier never accomplished much of anything, although he was paid millions of dollars in Teamster dues money; that Project RISE, which Stier headed, was a failure; that Stier padded his bills; and that he lacks credibility. It also claims that Carlow Scalf, Hoffa’s now-discredited Executive Assistant, was astute enough to figure all this out, so Stier falsely charged that Scalf stifled anti-corruption efforts at the behest of Chicago Teamster officials.
This raises the question of why the Hoffa administration consistently paid the bills and promoted RISE and Ed Stier for five long years, until Stier started seriously investigating powerful Teamster officials.
So, the Hoffa version boils down to this: The IBT paid $15 million over five years for an anti-corruption program, and got nothing. So now they have paid Edward McDonald a whole lot more, to denounce Stier. (They have not revealed how much McDonald was paid, but reportedly it was about $500 per hour.)
As a result, our Teamsters Union has no anti-corruption program, and no hope of replacing the I.R.B. with an internal clean-up program as long as Hoffa is at the helm. With a record like that, no wonder they need a scapegoat.
Click here for past Convoy coverage of the corruption scandal
(Acrobat Reader Required)
Click here for Ed Stier's April 29, 2004, Resignation letter
(Acrobat Reader Required)
Click here for Stier's April 2004 Corruption Report
(Acrobat Reader Required, Very Large File)
Click here for Stier's July 13, 2005 response to McDonald Report
(Acrobat Reader Required)
Pension Cuts Hit New England
July 27, 2005: The Union Trustees on the New England Teamsters Pension Fund have agreed to new pension restrictions—including eliminating 25-and-out and 30-and-out pensions before age 57.
The cuts are coming just as news of the fund’s strong financial performance is hitting members’ homes. The Fund just mailed its summary annual report to members this week, in which it reported that Fund assets grew by more than $121.5 million in the last fiscal year.
Members who do not have 25 years of credit by July 31, 2005, will not be eligible for 25- or 30-and-out until age 57. Members who do have 25 years of credited service, but are under age 57, are protected and can get their earned pension. But if they continue to work they will have their pension frozen until that age. So a Teamster who is 53 and 27 years credit, with a pension accrued of $2,300 per month, could work the next four years with zero pension improvement. Then, at 57, the pension will snap back to the full rate.
Pension accrual rates are also frozen. New contracts will have to increase pension contributions by 5% per year to maintain the present rate of accrual.
But the biggest cuts are in early retirement: the Trustees’ July 13 announcement states that the goal is to keep Teamsters working longer.
While most Teamsters don’t retire before 57 and will be hurt very little, many do retire early. Many are forced to because of company closures (including the Red Star victims) or health factors. These Teamsters are going to take the brunt of the cuts imposed.
Worst hit of all are those who fall short of 25 years. A Teamster with 24 years credit, at age 49, will not become eligible for any Special Service (25- or 30-year) pension for eight years, until age 57.
An announcement is expected to reach New England Teamsters any day with the details of the cuts.