Organizing Against OZ's Shift Closures and Layoffs

[JT67]

I've been listening to a lot to Farrell Dobbs lately. I recommend listening to his lectures online. Great Teamster organizer. Here are few things a union leader could do with the 1.3 million member apparatus behind them. Could O'Brien and Zuckerman rise to the occasion? They would only do so under the complete and total compulsion by events themselves, meaning absolute worker power. In that instance, they would become irrelevant because they would have to be led themselves, for they are nothing more than a mere extension of UPS corporate at the present time.

For concrete examples: here are somel militant actions a union leader could take to address shift closures and layoffs resulting from AI and automation, including leveraging workers from other logistics companies:

1. Organize Mass Demonstrations and Picket Lines: Mobilize UPS workers and their allies for large-scale demonstrations and picket lines outside UPS facilities affected by shift closures and layoffs. These actions can disrupt operations and draw attention to workers' demands.

2. Implement Work Stoppages and Slowdowns: Coordinate work stoppages or slowdowns among UPS workers to directly impact operations and put pressure on management to address their concerns regarding AI and automation-related layoffs.

3. Launch a Mass "Salting" Campaign: Organize a mass "salting" campaign, recruiting workers from other logistics companies, such as FedEx and Amazon, to infiltrate UPS's competitors' facilities and gather information, organize workers, and agitate for change from within.

4. Conduct Guerrilla Tactics: Employ guerrilla tactics, such as sit-ins, occupations, or blockades, at key UPS facilities to disrupt operations and escalate pressure on management to halt shift closures and layoffs.

5. Coordinate Solidarity Actions: Reach out to other unions and worker advocacy groups to coordinate solidarity actions in support of UPS workers affected by AI and automation-related layoffs. This could include joint demonstrations, fundraisers, or boycotts targeting UPS or its corporate partners.

6. Utilize Direct Action Tactics: Organize direct action campaigns, such as occupation of UPS corporate offices or targeted protests at the residences of UPS executives, to escalate pressure and hold decision-makers accountable for their actions.

7. Launch a Media Blitz: Launch a media blitz to raise awareness of UPS workers' struggles and the impact of AI and automation-related layoffs on their livelihoods and communities. This could include press conferences, interviews, and social media campaigns to amplify their voices.

8. Call for International Solidarity: Appeal for international solidarity from workers and unions around the world to stand with UPS workers in their fight against AI and automation-related layoffs. This could involve coordinated actions, such as global strikes or boycotts targeting UPS and its affiliates.

By taking bold and militant actions like these, a union leader can effectively challenge shift closures and layoffs resulting from AI and automation while rallying support from workers across the logistics industry and beyond. These actions demonstrate a commitment to militant unionism and a willingness to confront corporate power head-on in defense of workers' rights and livelihoods.

Yawn I fell asleep reading this.

[Wiggy]

Somebody asked a question, they got a reply. More detailed than "say fuck alot, practice striking, then fold" like we're used to.

[Faust]

Reposting for all:


I actually think we came very close to a strike last year and that O'Brien was horrified by it. He was horrified because of several reasons. A strike is highly disruptive for the union membership; it forges close solidarity and creates deep bonds between people and families unlike almost anything else, and this unity is a great threat to the union leaders. They see our unity as problem, unless they can leverage it to get "just enough" to live a quiet and well-compensated life. Also, leaders are born in struggle; the UPS strike of 2023 that didn't happen would have been certainly one of the largest walk-outs in 50 years and the largest this century. It would have led to a whole new generation of leaders that don't come from the traditional "I-am-a-tenth-generation-Teamster" incestuous clans we have running locals, JCs and the IBT right now. This terrifies the status quo. In other words, despite the incredible pressure building towards a strike, OZ took the "UPS Labor Management Off Ramp" and detoured us down layoff lane and division avenue.

UPSers were never close to a strike.

A strike would have exhausted the weak Teamsters strike fund in two weeks.

UPS full timers live beyond their means and many would have crossed.

On top of that, about 40k freeloaders from RTW states that would have also crossed.

[Thisischange?]

Sad but true Fuust. Is your avatar a picture of a handshake at the GEB?

[DanaCos]

UPSers were never close to a strike.

A strike would have exhausted the weak Teamsters strike fund in two weeks.

UPS full timers live beyond their means and many would have crossed.

On top of that, about 40k freeloaders from RTW states that would have also crossed.

I was hearing plenty say they were going to cross if it came down to a strike. Now, most just talk and when the time comes, they don't have the nerve. With the technology and social media we have today, exposure would have been real bad.

Back in 97, a driver crossed the picket line. I was told his house never looked the same. During the 2013 Vote No movement, a woman met me and a guy (Bobby Curry) to buy a Vote No shirt. She talked a big game about how we all needed to turn this contract down blah blah. She ended up turning on me on Facebook and when I was at the gate during the elections, she grabbed the current boards shirt and said "Give me a shirt, I know who I am voting for". People say and do the strangest things.

[Thisischange?]

You got that right, people operate in self presevation mode. In the long term they undermine their own well being.

[Tony R Cochran]

UPSers were never close to a strike.

A strike would have exhausted the weak Teamsters strike fund in two weeks.

UPS full timers live beyond their means and many would have crossed.

On top of that, about 40k freeloaders from RTW states that would have also crossed.

I disagree. Here at Local 162, there was such a demand to vote yes for the strike authorization that the old bureaucrats - Davison and Vedus - had to change plans several times! First, they wanted the voting to be done at the union hall, which is on 162nd Ave and far for the many part-timers without cars, over only two days for two hours each (a Saturday and Sunday 10-12, I believe). Well, the membership pushed back, so Davison and Vedus relented and said we could all come in at any time during business hours. An outrage ensued - voting should be done at the gates! I didn't have to organize anything - the membership was so eager to vote yes to authorize a strike - remember this came very late in the game as OZ waited till June - that the overwhelming message they sent to the leadership meant that Davison and Vedus and the rest of them had to come and set up ballot boxes and take votes at both gates on Swan Island and all UPS facilities in the Local - from Hillsboro to Alderwood - over a week! And they kept the union hall open for drop-ins.

Not only that, we had a well-attended strike fund meeting the prior October (2022), and members overwhelmingly voted to increase our dues to be set aside in our Local strike fund. This fund would have added some $200-$300 a week to the International's fund.

Full-timers, RCPDs, and part-timers were very united here in the Pacific Northwest. Of course, the divisions became very clear after the TA was announced. That was one of the intentions of the TA: slow down the growing militancy of workers who had struggled through the COVID19 pandemic with sub-par wages - note that full-time inside workers on progression made less in many cases than new hires because UPS had to offer MRAs in many facilities to keep up with the labor market, and MRAs were not applicable to 22.3s or RCPDs; the other was to create division by giving more money to RCPDs on top scale and increasing the top scale of 22.3s (but still paying 22.3s $9 an hour less than RCPDs, which is not the case for 22.2s) while also leaving out the GWI for 22.3s still in progression, keeping part-wages just about at the "Amazon level" of $21, and throwing all the non-seniority part-timers into a ridiculously offensive $2 increase over 5 years, with 50 cents per year starting in 2024. Finally, OZ wanted to add confusion, and some of it was of their own "get it done now" making: after Local 89 and myself pointed out that the MRAs were not protected, OZ/Vedus cooked up a Memorandum of Agreement that was signed on July 25th but only revealed to Local 89 and the rest of the membership on August 3rd stating that MRAs would be protected and include wage increases. Again note: Local 89 was not made aware of this at the July 31st vote and they voted against the TA. But then this MoA magically appeared on August 3rd on Instagram, signed on July 25th. The part-timers were organized and many could see $21 was far less than what they were making, and this had the possibility of sinking the whole TA. In fact, many part-timers voted yes because of this MoA on MRAs, and the subsequently "revised" part-time pay scale. (UPS is now driving a feeder truck through this language, as I predicted).

Slowing down the anger, sowing division and confusion and finally - because OZ had no clue on what an actual good TA would look like for the entire membership, throwing together whatever the hell they could at the last minute to avoid their own deadlines that they were tripping towards - you can't argue with a calendar or a clock - they then had the duty to beat the membership into supporting this thing through disinformation, division, intimidation, and lies. By the time the TDU/OZ machine ripped through, most people found themselves in such hostile work environments that no one wanted to even discuss the union, much less the union leadership. Many voted yes because they didn't want to be "blamed" for sinking the deal and causing a strike. Others voted yes because they were afraid. Some, and these are the minority, voted yes out of sheer self-interest. Not many people "won" in this contract; the 22.3 progression remains at 4 years, there are no AI/automation protections, and so on. A small group of top-scale RCPDs got living wages and so did the feeder and sleeper teams. But the majority of us are languishing on inside progression or in part-time poverty. Now, for all the huffing and puffing by OZ, we face shift closures, layoffs, more work for those of us remaining, (yes) fewer hours, and eventual elimination in the face of automation.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Not to mention that Davison and his buddy the wee little bald one decreased funding to the Western Pension.

[DanaCos]

You got that right, people operate in self presevation mode. In the long term they undermine their own well being.

Got that right. Take the 623 Drunk for instance. She showed up after the dust settled and joined TDU and threw up a bunch of tough guy posts on social media. I made a complimentary gesture to her on the way out of work, saying she should run for steward. She said, "Get the fuk out of my face". Slowly but surely people found out her true intentions. Let's not forget her booze cruise with Obrien after talking all kinds of smack about him. The California TDU chapter can attest to her mental capacity after TDU put her on the steering committee. Just another fine example of how TDU puts people in positions to help their cause and not the true members' causes. Just like writing articles about Bobby Curry being the "Vote No Leader". He didn't lead sh!t. He never attended meetings and just started handing literature at the gates once they started publishing articles about him leading the charge. Pfffft, yeah ok.

So, does TDU putting up Zuckerman as some kind of reform leader in 2013 and putting up Obrien as some kind of reform leader in 2018 surprise me? Fuk NO! TDU is a cancer to the union. Period! They care about only one thing... growing TDU monetarily and using the Teamsters union to do it!

[Faust]

I disagree. Here at Local 162, there was such a demand to vote yes for the strike authorization that the old bureaucrats - Davison and Vedus - had to change plans several times! First, they wanted the voting to be done at the union hall, which is on 162nd Ave and far for the many part-timers without cars, over only two days for two hours each (a Saturday and Sunday 10-12, I believe). Well, the membership pushed back, so Davison and Vedus relented and said we could all come in at any time during business hours. An outrage ensued - voting should be done at the gates! I didn't have to organize anything - the membership was so eager to vote yes to authorize a strike - remember this came very late in the game as OZ waited till June - that the overwhelming message they sent to the leadership meant that Davison and Vedus and the rest of them had to come and set up ballot boxes and take votes at both gates on Swan Island and all UPS facilities in the Local - from Hillsboro to Alderwood - over a week! And they kept the union hall open for drop-ins.

Not only that, we had a well-attended strike fund meeting the prior October (2022), and members overwhelmingly voted to increase our dues to be set aside in our Local strike fund. This fund would have added some $200-$300 a week to the International's fund.

Full-timers, RCPDs, and part-timers were very united here in the Pacific Northwest. Of course, the divisions became very clear after the TA was announced. That was one of the intentions of the TA: slow down the growing militancy of workers who had struggled through the COVID19 pandemic with sub-par wages - note that full-time inside workers on progression made less in many cases than new hires because UPS had to offer MRAs in many facilities to keep up with the labor market, and MRAs were not applicable to 22.3s or RCPDs; the other was to create division by giving more money to RCPDs on top scale and increasing the top scale of 22.3s (but still paying 22.3s $9 an hour less than RCPDs, which is not the case for 22.2s) while also leaving out the GWI for 22.3s still in progression, keeping part-wages just about at the "Amazon level" of $21, and throwing all the non-seniority part-timers into a ridiculously offensive $2 increase over 5 years, with 50 cents per year starting in 2024. Finally, OZ wanted to add confusion, and some of it was of their own "get it done now" making: after Local 89 and myself pointed out that the MRAs were not protected, OZ/Vedus cooked up a Memorandum of Agreement that was signed on July 25th but only revealed to Local 89 and the rest of the membership on August 3rd stating that MRAs would be protected and include wage increases. Again note: Local 89 was not made aware of this at the July 31st vote and they voted against the TA. But then this MoA magically appeared on August 3rd on Instagram, signed on July 25th. The part-timers were organized and many could see $21 was far less than what they were making, and this had the possibility of sinking the whole TA. In fact, many part-timers voted yes because of this MoA on MRAs, and the subsequently "revised" part-time pay scale. (UPS is now driving a feeder truck through this language, as I predicted).

Slowing down the anger, sowing division and confusion and finally - because OZ had no clue on what an actual good TA would look like for the entire membership, throwing together whatever the hell they could at the last minute to avoid their own deadlines that they were tripping towards - you can't argue with a calendar or a clock - they then had the duty to beat the membership into supporting this thing through disinformation, division, intimidation, and lies. By the time the TDU/OZ machine ripped through, most people found themselves in such hostile work environments that no one wanted to even discuss the union, much less the union leadership. Many voted yes because they didn't want to be "blamed" for sinking the deal and causing a strike. Others voted yes because they were afraid. Some, and these are the minority, voted yes out of sheer self-interest. Not many people "won" in this contract; the 22.3 progression remains at 4 years, there are no AI/automation protections, and so on. A small group of top-scale RCPDs got living wages and so did the feeder and sleeper teams. But the majority of us are languishing on inside progression or in part-time poverty. Now, for all the huffing and puffing by OZ, we face shift closures, layoffs, more work for those of us remaining, (yes) fewer hours, and eventual elimination in the face of automation.

The vote to authorize a strike has always been favorable. It's usually well over 90%. I can see this is your first contract.

But when its time to vote for a contract most will vote YES in fear of striking.

Despite the pension mess negotiated by Mark Davison, members were afraid to strike. The shady 85% approval showed that.

[JT67]

The vote to authorize a strike has always been favorable. It's usually well over 90%. I can see this is your first contract.

But when its time to vote for a contract most will vote YES in fear of striking.

Despite the pension mess negotiated by Mark Davison, members were afraid to strike. The shady 85% approval showed that.

Good call EE. It is obviously his first contract anyway. UPSers aren’t going to strike. Part timers, the majority don’t care. They never will care. Tony is a little boy with an education. He has the gift of being a beautiful writer but a whack job. He is not as good a writer as you though.

[Davis]

Hey lighten up a little, its nice that someone is thinking about the issues we face, I wish our leadership had thought a little more about these issues.

[JT67]

Lighten up? He thinks he knows everything. EE just pointed out Tonys lack of experience.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Tony is 37 years old and worked for 3 different unions and has been on multiple strike lines

[Opus Dei]

The Militant are you Tony's alter ego? I saw alot of that on Teamster.net

[TheMilitantTeamster]

His buddy. Almost 20 years at UPS

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Oh and there are several people ILR who know who I am and that I’m quite inseparable from Tony. Including Howard Williamson — who I worked with ! and other notable people because Tony knows em. Tony has a following here at our local—he’s hated by some yes, but if you actually work with him you will see he fights for every single Teamster. Even ones I can’t stand lol

[TheMilitantTeamster]

The vote to authorize a strike has always been favorable. It's usually well over 90%. I can see this is your first contract.

But when its time to vote for a contract most will vote YES in fear of striking.

Despite the pension mess negotiated by Mark Davison, members were afraid to strike. The shady 85% approval showed that.

Not my first rodeo at ups and I’d say after Covid we were all ready to fight. The shit that was presented to us was enough to get a high yes vote plus this time there was no real organized opposition. In 2018 the no vote had an organization. I wasn’t that involved either way but I voted no. This time there was little opposition and the only message we heard was YES. So it passed. I don’t think people are happy with it.

[Tony R Cochran]

Thanks for your comments on here

And yes, 2018! But back then TDU wasn't TURD.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Last if ya all want solutions then that’s fine. But if you are going to just dump on people who offer up ideas that we can all agree or disagree with - because aren’t we all united against that turd running our union - then I’m out. This could become Teamster 4chan real fast. Keep your fire focused on our failure leaders

[Tony R Cochran]

The vote to authorize a strike has always been favorable. It's usually well over 90%. I can see this is your first contract.

But when its time to vote for a contract most will vote YES in fear of striking.

Despite the pension mess negotiated by Mark Davison, members were afraid to strike. The shady 85% approval showed that.

Faust, you make a valid point about the typical support seen in strike authorization votes within most unions. However, I'd like to provide some additional insights based on my experience.

My first strike line was against Aramark in 2008 with Unite Here. While I did not engage in strike activity as an organizer at SEIU, my first campaign ever was getting an MoU ratification for Pima County workers in Arizona. While I feel that Andy Stern was strike-averse, I am grateful that I was able to learn so much from the SEIU Wave program and work on collective bargaining agreements in Arizona, California, and Oregon. With Unite Here, I was a Boycott Coordinator and LGBTQ+ Liaison, working with Lisa Jaicks and Cleve Jones out of Los Angeles. I was on many strike lines, first against Aramark, then against Hyatt in San Francisco, and also against Hyatt Long Beach. Unite Here had a mandatory once-a-week picket for all organizers because they always had a strike or labor dispute popping off in Southern California. We often were at the LAX Hilton where management had used guns for hire to intimidate the housekeepers. Some interesting times. Also, I worked with AFSCME, but my time there was rather unremarkable.

As for the strike, I think that people were as ready as they will ever be. You could almost see it on O'Brien's face as he was rushing back and forth across the country. There was a palpable "Fuck, I can't take that $17 an hour starting rate they offered for part-timers" rush along with his own self-imposed deadline. On the UPS side, they really started to lose it when the UPS pilots' union said they would not cross the picket lines. So, we would have totally halted UPS air, most of the ground, and they would have had some scabs and management moving maybe 10% of the ordinary volume. To his credit, O'Brien did go to South Africa for that international conference of labor organizations to get support for UPS Teamsters, meaning that UPS packages in Canada, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa would have been idling. Most unions outside of the US retain a right to sympathy strikes. The entire logistics network would have collapsed, and it would have set a major precedent allowing us to negotiate from strength and also build solidarity amongst our ranks. Would there have been tension? Definitely. Would people rise to the occasion? They were ready, as they were in 2018 when they voted the TA down. I think that when O'Brien stopped the strike, all that energy we had directed at UPS turned inward and it caused division, confusion, and demobilized the entire membership. We are still dealing with this breakdown in leadership now, and we face shift closures, layoffs, and AI/automation with absolutely no leadership from OZ.

OZ had the chance to embody the uncompromising spirit of Farrell Dobbs, who declared, "Sell-out bureaucrats must be exposed and driven from the ranks." Of course, this would have meant resigning! But OZ had a golden opportunity to rally UPS workers, demanding nothing less than a truly historic contract. However, OZ, and O'Brien in particular, completely failed to stand firm. This resulted in a sell-out deal that set the labor movement back. By capitulating to management's terms, especially on pensions, 22.3 progression, part-time wages, AI/automation and "change of operations," O'Brien betrayed the trust of UPS workers and undermined the collective strength they had built. This sell-out deal not only harmed UPS workers but also dealt a blow to labor solidarity as a whole. O'Brien's actions allowed the exploitative practices of corporations like UPS to continue unchecked, setting a dangerous precedent for future negotiations in the industry.

Moreover, O'Brien's failure to lead effectively at UPS had broader implications for the labor movement. His sell-out deal sent a chilling message to workers across the logistics sector, discouraging them from organizing and fighting for their rights. Instead of inspiring mass organizing efforts at FedEx and Amazon, O'Brien's actions served as a cautionary tale, illustrating the dangers of weak leadership and capitulation to corporate interests.

In failing to uphold the principles of solidarity and resistance embodied by Farrell Dobbs, OZ not only betrayed UPS workers but also set the labor movement back, depriving workers of the opportunity to secure meaningful gains and usher in a new era of worker empowerment. A failure of truly historic proportions.