1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1.....................

[Bob Randall]

I'm not going to sit here and blame "the government" for the difficulty that comes from organizing new workers or workplaces into a union. That's not to say that the government has not successfully made efforts to make it more difficult. Clearly it has and will. Over the decades I listened to experiences of workers that were presently represented or were represented at some point in their careers. I heard repeated, similar, negative accounts of the unions' representation. Accounts that I considered to be horror stories due to neglect by officers, failed duty of representation, as well as out right corruption. THAT was their experience of "the union". As an organizer...should I be expected to tell them that their view is wrong or flawed while knowing that they were truthful and pretty accurate? Better asked...should they expect that "this" union is different? Here's the problem. These experiences are rampant and not exclusive of the Teamsters. SEIU, HERE, LABORERS, UAW, ETC. Mid twentieth century employers started to figure out how to take advantage of union officers by negotiating contracts that favored the officers while neglecting the members. As one example: white paper freight agreements provided for nearly unlimited, two-tiered, part-time workers with no guaranteed hours. Yet, dues were deducted and sent to the Locals regardless of how few hours the part-timers worked. I worked a freight dock for a short while. That dock could have been sufficiently manned by twenty full-time members. Yet, there were much fewer full-timers than that with part-timers nearly tripling the roster. All paying dues. Gold mines for the Locals and their officers. Those were the negotiated conditions to the white paper contracts that the International gave its blessing to. Just one example of so many more. While I don't believe that the primary reason for organizing new members should be out of concern for the Locals economics...hey...this was easier and less costly than spending on organizing. In other cases, employers would negotiate with the officers, absent members, "over a cup of coffee". Of course, the employer "sponsored". Again, employers were figuring how to go around the membership, separate them from the officers and create a three-party system. These examples are merely the tip of the iceberg. You get the idea. Substandard agreements are ignored by the Internationals because "Local autonomy" is paramount. How do we sit here and firstly blame the government for dwindling numbers while being solely responsible for the negative views' workers have that have been previously represented? In my opinion, we can't point the finger until we set and maintain standards while engaging in pattern bargaining with oversight by the Internationals. These are changes that can only begin with pressure from the bottom. (Cuz Brother Carey ain't coming back and Brother Leedham is retired.) But wait! What about Cabbage Head? Do you really expect a commitment to such principals from a guy that runs around yelling "Teamsters versus Everyone"? Or from a guy that believes that Local autonomy is necessary for his own survival. Or without a rational, mass scale plan with a budget to accommodate. 1.3 million. 1.2 million. 1.1 million. 1....................Buncha bullshit. Worry about the government's (Orange Man) support later. Yeeesh!

[Barry455]

As an organizer at your first big meeting of a new unit you've been busting ass on and someone stands up and says "I used to be a Teamster". You break out in a cold sweat because you don't know what their going to say about the experience. Often it's someone who's got a story about how they were "screwed" by the "union". That's pretty bad alright.

What might be worse is when in the stroke of a pen secondary boycott and the closed shop became illegal and "right to work" became legal.

[Bob Randall]

Well, yeah. I mean, there really is a response to everything after you have done this long enough. There are 100 or more things that could be responded to. I have a response for all of them. However, to think that your most strategic effort comes from "having all the answers" is to fall for the bosses' trap rather than to turn the conversation into workers issues. That said...my point was that we own the greatest responsibility for the difficulty that comes with organizing new members. Our failures are commonly known everywhere. We can't ignore that. Blaming "the government" for difficulties is just a lame excuse for our own failures when it comes to attracting new members.

[Gimme_Danger]

The reality is there is more pattern bargaining happening now (overseen by IBT Divisions) then in the last 40 years.

[Bob Randall]

My post did not suggest pattern bargaining for the sake of only pattern bargaining. Setting and maintaining standards was written prior. It doesn't take a linguistic professor to know that the suggested standards were meant to be the best that we can be expected to negotiate. It's way too easy and safe to sit in the Marble Palace and not demand better than we have done in the past.

[Graveyard]

The reality is there is more pattern bargaining happening now (overseen by IBT Divisions) then in the last 40 years.

Pattern bargaining? Sure, hope the “Historic” UPS contract isn’t the pattern. The “Pattern” in the West was $1 in pension, 2023-50% less. (To save the New England Fund?)

O’Brien, “I stopped the robots,” How many layoffs at UPS? Or “100,000 New Members” that the LM-2s easily debunked. Why should we believe any PR out of the IBT?

O’Brien and his BFF-Josh Hawley (R) publicly promote the FLCA that will heavily depend on the FMCS to do our new members well. However, O’Brien’s other BFF-Trump (R) cut almost the entire FMCS workforce (220) that handles collective bargaining disputes. The IBT did not join the AFGE, AFSCME, AFT, IAM, SEIU, and UFCW as a plaintiff in that major labor coalition lawsuits challenging the Trump cuts. Successfully challenged in court as illegal and violated federal law and now the agency has retained a pared-down roster of around 60 active mediators compared to its pre-cut numbers.

Can’t help but wonder what the increase to the 60 active mediators work-load would be? And more importantly, how long will it take to decide the new contract? Or will they adopt the “Pattern Bargaining” that one size fits all rubber stamp?

So go ahead and tell us more of how great the IBT under O’Brien is than the Old Guard. That bar is so low it’s covered with dirt!