Teamsters Out of a Job After Striking
Good.
A top Teamsters official said this morning that 38 members of the union are out of work because Waste Management replaced them during the strike of trash haulers.
Tom Benvenuto, business agent for Local 200 of the Teamsters, confirmed that 38 workers are now jobless.
“It’s a raw deal,” Benvenuto said.
Striking trash haulers walked off the job Aug. 26, but voted on Sunday to accept a new, five-year contract dating back to April 30.
Lynn Morgan, a Waste Management spokesman, would not confirm how many Teamsters are out of work, but did say they were replaced by workers who were hired by the company as permanent replacement workers.
A raw deal? THEY WALKED OFF THE JOB!!!
Now the teamsters will have to raise there dues to replace that money that was lost to the 38 that walked off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 1817 hrs
They made their bed. Time to take a nap.
Posted by Steve on October 01, 2008 at 1829 hrs
They stood loyally with their friends and coworkers, and now that they’re out of a job in this crappy economy, y’all are rejoicing at their misfortune. Nice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 1953 hrs
Rejoicing, apc, no. Feeling sorry for them, no way. “They stood loyally with their friends and coworkers” So what. Now they are out of a job. Whose fault is that? The company? Nope. The union, yes, themselves, certainly. When you go out on strike, you take a risk and they paid for it with their jobs. Was the strike worth it? Doubt it. Does the union care? Doubt that too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 1957 hrs
No, they won’t have to raise their dues. The 38 new workers probably work in a closed shop so they’ll have to pay union dues anyways even if they don’t want to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 2019 hrs
They stood loyally with their friends and coworkers, and now that they’re out of a job in this crappy economy, y’all are rejoicing at their misfortune. Nice
They had great jobs and a great benefits package. Wasn’t good enough… They decided to strike. Strike from a job and wages that THOUSANDS of the very people who may have lost a job THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN in this economy would love to fill for the very wages and benefits that those union boys thought “just wasn’t good enough”.
Rejoice… Thats a bad choice of words. But I do find it pleasant when the forces of the free market work just like they ought to.
And I’m VERY happy for the 38 people who of their own free will took a great job at a great wage and with a great benefit package.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 2122 hrs
Not rejoicing? Owen’s one-word response to their plight: “Good.”
These workers were executing a fundamental right (a right that a lot of people died for, by the way, back in the days when strikes meant Pinkertons with pistols and shotguns) and they didn’t get exactly what they wanted in bargaining. That’s the way it goes. They paid for it with their jobs, and for many, that seems to be some sort of divine retribution for having the temerity to go out on strike. Who the hell says it’s always autogoddamatic that the company is right and the union is wrong every single time? Have we entered some kind of Utopia where an employer would never try and take advantage of the workforce?
I’ve admitted before that of course there have been mistakes and abuses in the union movement. Corporations have a clean record? Please.
38 workers are now out of a job. Does belonging to a union make them somehow less than full members of the community? Does it make their mortgage payments any less? Does it make their children need fewer school supplies?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 2129 hrs
Not rejoicing? Owen’s one-word response to their plight: “Good.”
Does belonging to a union make them somehow less than full members of the community?
Oh christ apc… you’re really grasping for heartstrings here. Nice emotional play… But the fact is that by belonging to a union these guys MADE A CHOICE to aggregate their value to a company with all the other union members.
I have NO sympathy for them. ZERO. NONE… ZIP… NADA…
They made a choice. A choice to belong to a union… a choice to strike… a choice to turn down other offers by the company.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 2200 hrs
Does belonging to a union make them somehow less than full members of the community?
That doesn’t make sense. How is one related to another?
Does it make their mortgage payments any less? Does it make their children need fewer school supplies?
Apparerntly, to the union, it didn’t matter.
Shouldn’t the union have thought about this possibility? That employees might lose their jobs because of the strike? I find hard to believe they were in the dark about this. After all the strikes that ended up with replacements, you would think the union would know what would happen.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 2238 hrs
I will say one thing…
For the message this may send to other unions that think they can strong arm their way into whatever demands they have I do rejoice.
For the unions that might think twice about striking in the future because of this… GOOD.
For the people who might see this news story and think twice about voting a union into theor workplace GOOD.
Rejoice… Indeed.
On a personal level for the people who lost their jobs, I am not rejoicing, but I am not sorry for them either.
And in a nostalgic moment, I thought back to when I was in college and driving a glass truck to Chicago to deliver insulated glass units to Water Tower Place where the Union guys at the loading dock WOULDN’T EVEN LET US GET OUT OF THE TRUCK as they proceeded to take 200 units off the truck ONE AT A TIME, wheel them up to the 12th floor ONE at a time, and then come back for another…
I wonder if they felt sorry for all the time they wasted me and my co-worker that day? hmmm… no… don’t think so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 2252 hrs
I agree with xxpilot.
i know a guy who drives truck. he was to pick up a pallet of beer and anheiser.
how long does it take to load a trailor. a half hour he thought.
NOPE
the union loader took all of his 8 hours loading that 1 trailor.
thats a hard days work. load 1 trailor.
he would put a pallet on, then sit at his picnic table and have a sandwich. etc. etc.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 0221 hrs
38 workers are now out of a job.
And another 38 are now WITH a job. I guess your glass is always half empty… hmm?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 0641 hrs
The thing that kills me is that the company was trying to HELP them get out of a corrupt and failing pension fund. If they would have stayed in it - they wouldn’t have had anything for retirement.
But they listened to their union bosses and some lost their jobs.
Darn that evil company!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 0648 hrs
Way out-gunned on this one, apc. No jobs were lost. If the union had gotten their way and WM had had to hire only 35 workers back to pay the new package, then jobs would have been lost.
Face it, there are companies that go under all the time. Unions do not go under, all the union official jobs are still there. They have 38 less jobs bringing honest money in to the 200 chapter, did any union official get fired, take a pay cut, reduce his benefits, anything? At this point in history, unions are one of the ‘bad guys’.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 0741 hrs
They made their bed. Time to take a nap.
If there is one thing Teamsters do, and do well, it would be napping. Now, they’ll have plenty of time to do just that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1132 hrs
Outgunned? Sure. I understand I’m never going to win a union argument around here; I’ll always be shouted down. I just don’t understand the bitterness and hostility toward union members.
If a person doesn’t agree with the aims and goals of the union movement, fine, don’t join a union. Like I’ve said ad nauseum, yes, there have been abuses. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me that all companies deal fairly with their workers all the time. If that were so, there would never have been the need for unions in the first place.
And oh christ, youself, xx. I’m not grasping for anything. If it makes you feel better to demonize union members, knock yourself out.
Again, if someone wants to side with corporations every time, if someone believes that they’re always, unfailingly right, that they always have the best interests of their workers in mind (or even just the interests of their workers at all), that workers should automatically take whatever they’re given without complaint, that’s perfectly OK. But the unbridled delight at these people’s misfortune just eludes me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1256 hrs
If a person doesn’t agree with the aims and goals of the union movement, fine, don’t join a union.
Therein lies the problem: many such trades don’t give you a choice. Union membership is mandatory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1336 hrs
Again, if someone wants to side with corporations every time,
Straw man arguement…
Noone is saying that apc
that they always have the best interests of their workers in mind
Lets keep it real here apc…
In the minds of company owners regarding their priorities and primary interests and the employees interests the ranking looks like this:
1. company
2. employeesIn the minds of at will employees regarding their priorities and primary interests and the companies the ranking looks like this:
1. Employee
2. companyI am no sooner going to bash companies because they have their best interest in mind than I would bash employees who have their best interests in mind.
But I’ll bash unions all day who have the unions best interest in mind first and foremost (not the employee or the company) and who consistently have evolved into merely a strong arm advesarial weapon against companies.
If Unions had as much interest in increasing productivity and output as they do demanding higher than market wages and benefits they might bring some value.
if unions were interested in culling the lazy and ineffective from their ranks, they might bring some value.
They do none of these.
Hundreds of millions of employees all over this country individually manage their relationship with their company effectively and find the point where each agrees on their value.
Unions on the other hand take money from employees, lobby government for leverage legislatively, create advesarial relationships between employees and companies, foster an environment where lazy and unproductive workers can diminish the value of the labor force. They aren’t helping anyone
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1348 hrs
These workers were executing a fundamental right…
Bull. There is NO fundamental right to a job. And, in fact, it’s this kind of confusing ‘wants’ with ‘rights’ that’s at the root of so many of our country’s problems. (Witness the root cause for the bailout, for instance.)
So I agree with Owen: Good. And let’s hope more striking workers begin to get the message.
Posted by Venomous Kate on October 02, 2008 at 1502 hrs
Yes, Kate, unions have a fundamental right to strike. Nobody’s ever said anything about a fundamental right to a job. And venomous is obviously an apt descriptive.
xx, yes, evidently everyone here does seem to be saying that they side with the corporations every time. I’ve yet to hear a single person say that workers ever, I mean ever have a grievance worth striking over. I’ve yet to hear anyone even so much as say that unions even have a place in labor-management negotiations. I’ll continue to say that unions aren’t perfect, but that they have a role to play. Y’all obviously believe differently.
Later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1518 hrs
Here’s my issue…
Sure, companies get it wrong and do so often. If you think that your company is wrong and want to leave, fine. If you think your company is wrong and want to leave BUT also want your job to be waiting for you when you return, that’s just being an egotistical jerk.
If my company isn’t treating me right, I’d leave. I’ve done so in the past. To think that I could go back to that company 6 weeks later and expect them to give me my job back is just asinine.
Strike. Go ahead. You drive a truck and won’t be hard to replace with people who want a job.
Posted by Owen on October 02, 2008 at 1525 hrs
I mean ever have a grievance worth striking over. I’ve yet to hear anyone even so much as say that unions even have a place in labor-management negotiations. I’ll continue to say that unions aren’t perfect, but that they have a role to play. Y’all obviously believe differently
I believe employees have every right to go to their employer with grievances.
I believe that people should work with their employer to come to an agreement on the various aspects of their job. And if they don’t like what their empoyer is willing to offer. If your employer is offering below-market pay, below market benefits, and they won’t raise them, quietly interview and line up a new position and then QUIT! Walk out the door. Tell your employer that the compensation plan from another employer was more lucrative and leave. Fuck the company, if they don’t want to pay you what you are worth LEAVE. I’ve done it. It was liberating. No better feeling in the world.
I’ve also gone to an employer with a job offer from another company and given them the opportunity to match it, or let me go. They matched it. If you can prove to an employer that they are paying below market wages or benefits, and tell them “hey, I like you guys, but business is business” thats how it should work. But EVERYONE thinks they are worth more than they are paid. The kid at McDonalds flipping burgers thinks he’s underpaid. And no matter how much you pay people they will ALWAYS think they are underpaid. But only those who seek out other employment in the market for more compensation can say that they were underpaid.
Union employees leave their job, their value, their worth to a company in the hands of someone else. Not wise.
If all employees in all businesses were willing to change, adjust, seek out new employment ACTIVELY manage their career, which includes keeping your resume up to date, working as hard as you can to provide the greatest value to your employer (employers pay you by how much they think you are worth to them) the workforce in general would be better off.
Instead, people get comfortable and lazy. Their employer doesn’t pay them “what they think they are worth”
but all they do is bitch and complain about “the big guys get richer”. But yet they don’t do anything about it. And when you suggest they leave they say “I shouldn’t have to” (what a crybaby crock of shit)I am a big fan of the w-2 worker. Huge. I’m a big fan of ANYONE who goes out and sets to advance themselves. If a company was screwing the employee, I’d be the first to congratulate an employee for looking elsewhere for employment if the grass is greener somewhere else. I think thats FANTASTIC. Warms my heart when I see people actively managing their career.
Pisses me off when I see people whine, complain, and go on strike because rather than prove their employer is not paing a market wage by finding other employment and leaving, they just strike. Pathetic
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1534 hrs
I believe I can tell you where it comes from. From my experiences it is the raises and benefits without merit that upset people. In every union I have first hand information about, the starting pay is higher than a non-union equivalent and raises are guaranteed. During a summer construction job around 1983, I watched my best friend put up an entire wall of concrete block (you guessed it, he was a mason) of a Piggly Wiggly for a job where a private business had successfully bid for a ‘union’ job in West Bend (Muckerheide Construction). He worked along side full time union workers. He normally made approx. 18.50 an hour. For that job, per force, his hourly wage was approx. 32.50 because he had to be paid union wage. With two helpers, one to carry block, one to mix and carry concrete, he finished his wall in 3 days. Three masons and 8 helpers took 10 days and no weekends to put up the wall they started at the same time. The helpers made more than 28.00 per hour. The highest paid mason (read: oldest of the union members present) made over 55.00 per hour.
The guarantee of high pay and constant raise regardless of work ethic or output is what sticks in the craw of most of the people I have ever talked to that have had experience with union workers. It encourages sloth.
Corporations are uncaring mercenary outfits more often than not and will try to get away with whatever corner cutting they can get away with, mercilessly leveraging every advantage. In general, hard working people can identify with and/or respect hard work even if it is cutthroat, much more easily than they can respect organizations that encourage laziness.
Those 38 people’s unemployment salary will likely outmatch or come close to the active salary of the 38 replacement workers(unless they were forced to join the union), the union will not take away the out of work union members’ insurance and they will be the first hired regardless of ability by anyone who is forced to hire from that pool of union labor.
To put it simply, (and I do not think i am alone) I don’t think 1% of union members put forth 100% effort, or even 50% effort at their jobs. There is no reason to. I am quite sure I would fall in to the same trap. Why work as hard as I can for no extra benefit? It is contrary to human nature and the proven reason socialist and communist types of societies have not worked to this point in human history.
Just my opinion and experience.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1559 hrs
I wasn’t going to come back to this thread, but here goes. It’s not like I don’t see and understand your point of view. I’ve joyfully taken the “take this job and shove it” path before, and I’m a better man for it. But for someone without a good education, for someone without the wherewithall to look for a better job while simultaneously working two jobs, for someone who simply isn’t good at confrontation, well, a union is often that person’s ticket to job security in what is often a very insecure world. Not everyone is capable of rising up in righteous indignation and walking out. And what does the say, tire worker in Akron say when he can no longer afford the necessities? “I quit. I’m going to Japan to work for Toyo?” Then there are the very real social aspects of union membership. Some people join the Lions Club or the VFW. Others have their union
Do I absolutely need union representation? No. But there are people in my union who do. Look, I don’t expect y’all to agree with me on this, and I knew when I came in all half-cocked and pissed off that I was going to get shot down. I guess I’m just asking you to look at this from more than one angle and to recognize that these union members are human beings with families, too, that’s all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 1619 hrs
I guess I’m just asking you to look at this from more than one angle and to recognize that these union members are human beings with families, too, that’s all.
Non-confrontational, not educated enough and not having the wherewithall to look for a better job? But yet there they are demanding above market pay and above market wages.
Look… I do recognize these union members are human beings with families too. And I think they would all be MUCH better served. For them, for their future if they stepped outside of their dependence on a union and realized that they could better themselves way more on their own than their union will ever do for them.
Its a shame that a guy goes to work every day and knows that no matter HOW hard he works, and no matter how much work he does… he’s going to make the same. No opportunity to get a performance based raise at the end of the year. Just plug along and make the same as the guy next to you, while the guys who’ve been there longer but might not do any more work than you make way more than you. What kind of career path is that? What kind of opportunity to better yourself is there? What advantage does a motivated individual have over a slacker? None…
Sorry apc… I think its your unions that are doing the disservice here. There is a conflict here.. If employees learned to manage their own career. Learned to work hard and better and be more productive for their raise.. They wouldn’t need a union. Unions don’t WANT employees to learn to manage their own career. Unions would fail if they didn’t find ways to keep their membership dependent on them.
So they preach dependence… They brainwash dependence… They create adversarial relationships and opinions between labor and management. Why? To keep the worker dependent ont hem. What a huge disservice. Its shameful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2008 at 2255 hrs
They paid for it with their jobs, and for many, that seems to be some sort of divine retribution for having the temerity to go out on strike. Who the hell says it’s always autogoddamatic that the company is right and the union is wrong every single time?
Wedding TemplatesPosted by Wedding Templates on October 16, 2008 at 1921 hrs
One does not quit ones’ job without consequences.
And how is it “autogoddamatic” that people out on strike should get to keep their overpaid and underworked jobs? There’s no God-given right to a job.
Posted by Steve on October 16, 2008 at 1949 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134053
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:48 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 122
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:21 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).