-
This is a quote from June of 2017 when he was working for Hoffa as the chief negotiator of the UPS contract. They knew when they were executives in that administration. All of these ex-Hoffa Suckers knew all along.- How long has the Teamsters General Executive Board and the negotiating team known about this? How much did you know during the negotiations themselves? And why did you not warn rank-and-file workers, and even continue to ignore it?
"The Teamsters Package Division and the union as a whole are deeply engaged in monitoring these technological developments and strategically preparing for the future, with a particular focus on the impact automation could have on our members at UPS and the entire package delivery industry,” said Sean O’Brien, Director of the Teamsters Package Division.
-
Dana brings up a great point , 7 years ago O’Brien was talking about monitoring technology as well they should have! Obviously we he did not monitor any of the advances being made in robotics. UPS was already planning this automation back then , they always set the stage for the next contract ( possibly the next two contracts) while we never look past the present. Instead of PR firms we should be hiring tech experts to educate us on what’s coming next so we can be ready to negotiate from a position of knowledge and strength.Comment
-
Comment
-
The UPS Rank-and-File committee has issued this open letter to General President Sean O’Brien and the Teamsters General Executive Board.
The Independent Teamsters Organizing Committee (ITOC) has voted unanimously to unite and stand in solidarity with the UPS Rank-and-File Committee’s important, necessary and urgent open letter. We support the letter in its entirety and also in these particulars:- The demand for transparency regarding the planned closures of over 200 facilities and the timeline for these closures.
- The urgent need to clarify the number of jobs that will be affected by these closures and the extent to which automation will be implemented.
- The assertion that the Teamsters leadership is complicit in allowing UPS to carry out these deep cuts, despite claiming victory in recent contract negotiations.
- The call for the public release of all relevant documents and transcripts related to the layoffs and contract negotiations.
- The recognition that workers have the right to take action to protect their jobs and livelihoods, even if not sanctioned by the union leadership.
In the face of mass layoffs, shift and hub closures and outright deceit by Teamster leadership, we demand transparency and accountability, which are essential rights for every worker.
We anticipate that President O’Brien and his allies on the General Executive Board will either vehemently oppose or outright ignore this letter. However, their passive or active resistance only fuels our determination. Our commitment extends beyond mere justice; it is a relentless pursuit of a world where workers control the means of production, shaping their own destiny. We stand firm in our vision, unwaveringly dedicated to forging a future where the power lies firmly in the hands of the working class.
Comment
-
Quite so, Dana. In 2017 the IBT did an automation assessment. It mostly examines self-driving vehicles and the various impacts on different sectors represented by the IBT. It even addresses the current (2017) ways of dealing with automation in collective bargaining agreements,The manner in which Teamster collective bargaining agreements address technological change in the
transportation industry and empower local unions to bargain over changes varies widely, from
boilerplate management rights clauses that give the union little power to bargain over the introduction
of new technology; to language protecting employees from scrutiny and discipline; to detailed
automation transition plans and the establishment of labor-management committees.
In the immediate term, as the implications of the introduction of new technology or automation
technology become more profound, this review of existing Teamster contracts illustrates how the topic
has been dealt with recently in bargaining, and identifies best practices regarding how to address
technology and automation for local unions bargaining in the transportation sector.
It cites the outdated language, which I will cite in full,“1. Technological change shall be defined as any significant change in equipment or materials which
results in a significant change in the work of the bargaining unit or diminishes the number of workers in
the bargaining unit. 2. The Employer and the Union agree to establish a National Teamster/UPS
Committee for Technological Change, consisting of an equal number of representatives from the Union
and UPS. The Committee shall meet in conjunction with the National Grievance Panel as necessary to
review any planned technological changes covered by this Section. 3. The Employer will advise the
affected Local Unions and the National Teamster/UPS Committee for Technological Change of any
proposed technological changes at least six (6) months prior to the implementation of such change except
where the change was later determined in which case the Employer shall provide as much notice as
possible 4. The Employer shall be required to provide the National Teamster/UPS Committee for
Technological Change, any relevant information to the extent available regarding the technological
changes. 5. The Employer will meet with the Local Union, or, if requested, the National Teamster/UPS
Committee for Technological Change, promptly after notification to negotiate regarding the effects of the
proposed technological changes. If a technological change creates new work that replaces, enhances or
modifies bargaining unit work, bargaining unit employees will perform that new or modified work. The
Employer shall provide bargaining unit employees with training required to utilize the new technology, if
necessary."
The problem with this language is that diverting volume to new, fully automated hubs not a significant change in equipment or materials of any of the existing infrastructure. Therefore, UPS under it's "management rights" can create a "change of operations" that simply "collapses" conventional hubs (or shifts in those hubs) and simply give a 45 day notice. If they chose to automate something that is currently in a conventional hub, then they would theoretically have to go through the 6-month process. However, given that most hubs have some degree of automation, it is hard argument to make that a bit automation - or, again, simply closing entire shifts - is a "significant change in equipment or materials."
Comment
-
But the updated language is even worse,
"1. Technological change shall be defined as any meaningful change in equipment or materials which results in a meaningful change in the work, wages, hours, or working conditions of any classification of employees in the bargaining unit or diminishes the number of workers in any classification of employees in the bargaining unit. During the term of this Agreement such changes shall not include the use of drones or driverless vehicles to transport, deliver or pick up packages, platooning or shifting but in the event the Employer desires to implement any change described in this sentence, it shall be required to notify the National Negotiating Committee six (6) months in advance of any such change and shall be required to bargain the effects of any such change. If no agreement is reached between the parties the matter shall be resolved under Article 8. 2. The Employer and the Union agree to establish a National Teamster/UPS Committee for Technological Change, consisting of an equal number of representatives from the Union and UPS. The Committee shall meet upon request, but not less than three (3) times per year, to review any proposed technological changes cov- ered by this Section. As part of this meeting, the Committee shall discuss whether the planned technological change violates any pro- vision of this Agreement. Further, the Employer will review any training required for bargaining unit employees to perform new or modified work generated as a result of the new technology or to utilize the new technology, as necessary. 3. The Employer shall simultaneously advise the affected Local Unions and the National Teamster/UPS Committee for Technological Change of any proposed technological changes when the change has entered the field testing phase or at least six (6) months prior to the implementation of such change except where the change was later determined in which case the Employer shall provide as much notice as possible. In all cases, the Company will provide notice of any technological change covered by this Sec- tion before the technology is implemented. The Employer agrees that prior to any change, it shall notify the Package Division and the affected Local Union(s) in writing with the specific details and information then available and then meet jointly with them to in- form them of the proposed changes and to resolve questions raised in connection with the effects of the proposed change. The infor- mation will be provided at least forty-five (45) days prior to the meeting. During this joint meeting the Employer and the Union shall reduce to writing all agreed upon issues and both parties shall sign the written document in acknowledgement of such agreement. The parties shall also reduce to writing all unresolved issues, if any, and they shall be referred directly to the National Teamster/ UPS Committee for Technological Change. This meeting shall be completed where practical at least forty-five (45) days prior to the implementation of the proposed change. The change may not be implemented until the forty-five (45) days’ notice is provided and the meeting is completed unless the change is dictated by emer- gency conditions. The Union shall not unreasonably delay the scheduling or completion of the requested meeting. Any unre- solved issues which have been reduced to writing, will be resolved pursuant to Article 8. 4. If a technological change creates new work that replaces, en- hances or modifies bargaining unit work, bargaining unit employ- ees will perform that new or modified work. The Employer shall provide bargaining unit employees with training required to utilize the new technology, if necessary."Comment
-
Some problems of note,- Exclusion of Specific Technologies: The language explicitly excludes certain technologies from the definition of technological change, it falls short of protecting workers from the broader impacts of automation and technological advancements. By allowing for a process where the employer can unilaterally implement excluded technologies with no union input, the language fails to safeguard workers against job displacement and worsening working conditions.
- Establishment of Committee and Meeting Frequency: The creation of a committee with equal representation is a step in the right direction, but the infrequent meeting schedule is inadequate for addressing the rapid pace of technological change. Workers need continuous and proactive engagement to confront the challenges posed by automation and technological advancements. Anything less is a disservice to workers who face the immediate threats of job loss and exploitation.
- Notice and Resolution Process: The notification process outlined in the language is insufficient in ensuring meaningful participation and negotiation by the union. Allowing the employer to proceed with implementation in emergency situations without adequate union input is unacceptable. Workers' livelihoods are at stake, and they deserve the right to fully deliberate and negotiate the terms of technological changes that affect their jobs and working conditions.
- New Work and Training Provision: While the provision mandates that workers perform new or modified work resulting from technological changes, it fails to guarantee comprehensive training and support. By giving the employer discretion over determining the necessity of training, the language leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation and inadequate preparation for evolving job roles.
This language fails to address the construction of new automated facilities that fall outside the scope of the current agreement in several critical ways:- Limited Definition of Technological Change: The definition of technological change provided in the agreement focuses on changes in equipment or materials within existing facilities. It does not explicitly cover the construction of entirely new automated facilities. As a result, the union may have little to no leverage or input regarding the implementation of automation in new facilities, leaving workers vulnerable to job displacement and worsening working conditions.
- Notification and Negotiation Process: The notification process outlined in the agreement only applies to proposed technological changes within existing facilities. There are no provisions requiring the employer to notify or negotiate with the union regarding the construction of new automated facilities. This omission effectively sidelines the union from discussions about the broader implications of automation on job security and working conditions for workers in the industry.
- Committee Oversight: While the agreement establishes a committee to review technological changes, its mandate is limited to changes within existing facilities. The committee does not have jurisdiction over decisions related to the construction of new facilities. Therefore, even if the union raises concerns about the construction of new automated facilities, the committee may not have the authority to address them, further marginalizing workers' voices in the decision-making process.
- Training and Job Placement: In the event that new automated facilities are built, the agreement does not provide clear provisions for training and job placement for affected workers. Without adequate training and support, workers may struggle to transition to new roles or find alternative employment opportunities, exacerbating the negative impact of automation on their livelihoods.
In summary, this agreement fails to address the construction of new automated facilities, leaving workers vulnerable to the disruptive effects of automation without adequate protections or avenues for negotiation.
The language of the agreement does not explicitly define what constitutes "new technology" or "technological change." As a result, the determination of whether modifications or upgrades qualify as new technology would likely depend on the interpretation of the language by the parties involved and, potentially, a labor arbitrator.
In the absence of explicit language addressing modifications or upgrades, several factors could influence whether they are considered new technology:- Scope of the Agreement: If the agreement defines technological change as any significant change in equipment or materials resulting in a change in work or diminishing the workforce, modifications or upgrades that do not meet this criteria may not be considered new technology. For example, routine maintenance or minor enhancements may not qualify as significant changes under the agreement.
- Comparison to Existing Technology: If the modifications or upgrades replicate technology already in use in other facilities covered by the agreement, they may not be considered new technology. The arbitrator may consider whether the modifications are standard industry practices or simply bring the facility up to par with existing technology in similar facilities.
- Impact on Work and Workforce: The arbitrator may assess whether the modifications or upgrades result in a significant change in work processes, job duties, or the size of the bargaining unit. If the modifications have minimal impact on these factors, they may not be deemed new technology under the agreement.
And even if some of this did go to a labor arbitrator; they would likely find in favor of the employer given the language of the agreement for several reasons:- Contractual Ambiguity: The language of the agreement regarding technological changes is ambiguous and open to interpretation. This ambiguity leaves room for the employer to argue that the construction of new automated facilities does not fall within the scope of the agreement. Without explicit language addressing the construction of new facilities, the arbitrator may be inclined to interpret the agreement narrowly, limiting its applicability to changes within existing facilities.
- Limited Oversight by Committee: The agreement establishes a committee to review technological changes but does not explicitly grant the committee authority over decisions regarding the construction of new facilities. Since the committee's mandate is restricted to changes within existing facilities, the arbitrator may conclude that the union's concerns about the construction of new automated facilities fall outside the committee's purview. As a result, the union may have limited recourse to address these concerns through the grievance process.
- Notification and Negotiation Process: The agreement's notification process applies only to proposed technological changes within existing facilities. Since the construction of new facilities is not explicitly covered, the employer may argue that it is not obligated to notify or negotiate with the union regarding these changes. Without specific provisions addressing the construction of new facilities, the arbitrator may be inclined to side with the employer on this issue.
- Management Rights: The language of the agreement may implicitly affirm the employer's management rights, including the right to make decisions regarding the construction of new facilities. Labor arbitrators often give deference to management rights unless explicitly restricted by the collective bargaining agreement. Since the agreement does not explicitly restrict the employer's authority in this regard, the arbitrator may uphold the employer's decision to construct new automated facilities as a legitimate exercise of management rights.
Comment
-
TL;DR: The agreement's ambiguous language on "new technology" favors the employer by allowing them to classify routine upgrades as exempt from negotiation, giving them unilateral control over technological changes without meaningful input from the union. This ambiguity empowers the employer to implement changes without accountability, undermining workers' rights and job security.Comment
-
So basically the only thing that’s for sure is 45 day notice!
Btw thank you T for this I know how hard you workComment
-
Wonder if Lyin will respond now that you emailed him lol lolComment
-
More layoffs no information from union
Oeiple Get called same day “don’t come in till next week”
Comment
-
You do not have permission to view this gallery.
This gallery has 1 photos.Comment
-
Did you contact your Agent first ?Comment
-
You do not have permission to view this gallery.
This gallery has 1 photos.Comment
Tweet
Comment