Wall RSS FeedWill the Allied Concession Contract be Enforced?
Allied Management Bonuses
Teamsters caught Allied management violating the concession agreement, by giving bonuses to management.
Now, the question is: Will the contract be enforced?
Carhaul Director Fred Zuckerman told Allied Teamsters that he would hold a local hearing today, Oct. 6, but that he would not allow any affected members to be present.
When Teamsters took a 17.5 percent pay cut for three years in May 2007, the signed concession deal (”Term Sheet”) included an “equality of sacrifice” clause (Article 2), which states that there shall be no pay increases for management, with certain limited exceptions.
In August, Teamsters heard leaks about management bonuses, and demanded action.
Articles 2 and 6 of the Allied agreement require the company to provide the union with written monthly reports on any salary changes and access to all financial records.
Unfortunately, Zuckerman has once again kept members in the dark and seems intent on cutting a deal with Allied.
Teamsters at several terminals have filed grievances on the issue, which they have every right to do under Article 8 of the Allied agreement; it states that all provisions are subject to the contract grievance procedure.
Management has stonewalled them. Click here to see one response from management to Local 89 members.
Worse, Zuckerman seems to be treating this issue as a private matter between him and management. When asked about it, he told Allied drivers from Bowling Green and Nashville that it would be “stupid” to allow them to come to a grievance hearing, including the local hearing on Oct. 6.
Members have a right to grieve it, to know the extent of the violation, to have their grievances heard, and to have a say in the remedy. Allied Teamsters have given up many thousands of dollars; they should not have to give up their rights as Teamsters.
What do you think our union should do? Click here to send a comment to the TDU Carhaul Committee.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Once again, Teamster Leadership shows their true colors. Fred Zuckerman does not want rank and file participation in the grievance procedure regarding the Allied bonus payments to some members of management, even while Teamster members are strapped with earning concessions.
Why has Fred Zuckerman changed his position from what he stated in his Sept. 4th letter which characterized the matter as “the egregious breach of the basic commitments made under the Term Sheet” to what he stated at the Sept. 26th meeting at Local 327 in Nashville, “ a little bit of money ($300,000.00) paid to a few members of management”? This seems to be the equivalent of a felony crime committed by Allied, but now being characterized as a misdemeanor, and now being addressed behind closed doors without rank and file members being present. Is this “talk tough and settle short”? Denying members rights under the grievance process?
By the way, the union “sales teams” of stewards and alternates that have signed the line in support of the current tentative proposals, from three different locals, did not cite any of the reasons they now support these concessions. The stewards and alternate who were present at the Nashville meeting did not even raise objections to Fred’s position of preventing rank and file participation in the grievance, with the exception of the Bowling Green steward who clearly spoke of the desire to be present at the grievance hearings.
Fred’s “sales teams” obviously think the current proposals being voted are better than those recently voted down, and that they are good enough to recommend a “yes” vote. However, Fred stated that the “new” proposals were not as good as the previous ones. So Fred’s “sales teams” may have been some of the “yes” votes counted on the previous proposals. Some of these “sales team” stewards and alternates are now supporting the proposal that Fred says is inferior to proposals that were rejected. The wind blows and minds change.
Hopefully there will be some stewards and alternates who have some fortitude and a desire to represent all their members’ interests. In fact, some have already demonstrated such by filing grievances so that the affected members can be directly involved in the grievance process in this matter. The remedies initially sought, should be assessed on Allied, for such bad faith actions.
If these new proposals which still contain wage cuts and concessions pass, it will be only because when some members said “No Give Backs” …… they really meant “Some Give Backs” or ……they got confused and have lost track of which way the dog tail was wagging.
The New Business language expansion is making way for the future…….elimination of much of the “Full” and “Frozen” rate provisions we now have. Almost a built in incentive for employers to give away traffic under one contract, then pick it up again under the next contract at the “New Business” rates. What a plan! Our Grievance Panels have already given away the protection of the 20% backhaul rule while members are laid off which existed only for negotiated, two ended competitive agreements. They blur and interchange the terms “rail diversion”, “new business” and “competitive agreements”. Our Contract should contain a “Glossary of Terms” to clearly define terminology.
It is very clear the direction the employers and some of our leaders are taking with concessionary language changes…….drivers will be working more hours, hauling more cars, under more scrutiny, for far less than we do now. Can’t wait for the next contract……will there be one? Hummmmm?
I continue to stand with the Teamster Members who when they say “No Give Backs” mean “No Give Backs” I will mark my ballot “NO” to clearly affirm this fact!
October 8th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Well Said
Maybe you should have made that POST rather than a Comment
October 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
GREAT POST!!! ONCE AGAIN THE LEADERSHIP IS PREYING ON THE FEARS OF THE MEMBERS DURING THIS DOWNTURN. IS ANYTONE SUPRISED THERE IS A SLOW DOWN? THIS IS THE FIFTH SINCE I HAVE BEEN A CARHAULER. YET, WHEN IT HAPPENS IT COMES AS A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO MOST MEMBERS, THE COMPANY’S, AND MANUFACTURERS. WHY? OUR JOBS ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE OVERALL ECONOMY. I GUESS MY POINT IS WHY ARE WE WILLING TO SETTLE FOR A CONCESSIONARY CONTRACT NOW WHEN IN TWELVE TO FIFTEEN MONTHS FROM NOW THE ECONOMIC UPTURN WILL HAVE BEGUN AND THE COMPANIES WILL REAP ALL OF THE BENEFITS? I HAVE NO DOUBT THIS CONTRACT WILL PASS, DRIVERS ARE SCARED, THEY HAVE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE A STAND. WE ARE RIDING A DEAD DONKEY. EVEN THOUGH MY VOTE DIDN’T COUNT FOR THE LAST PROPOSAL (VOTES FROM DRIVERS IN LOCAL 25 FROM PTS WHO VOTED BUT WERE NOT WORKING WERE CHALLENGED) I WILL ONCE AGAIN VOTE NO. I CAN’T BELIEVE THERE ISN’T MORE OUTRAGE ABOUT THE BONUSES ALLIED SYSTEMS DRIVERS ARE TAKING IT IN THE SHORTS WHILE ONCE AGAIN THE MANAGEMENT IS FLEECEING THE COMPANY. SOME TIMES WE HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT OURSELVES……