Fred Zuckerman, Co-Chairman July 15, 2008
TNATINC
25 Louisiana Avenue N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20001
RE: Zuckerman lies
Dear Fred PFH,
I have watched you lie day after day about the position I took at the Two-Man Committee regarding your tentative agreement with the employers. For once in your life tell the truth. Tell the members you lied and John Thyer and Dan Shott did, in fact, vote no at the Two-Man Committee on the tentative agreement. I did not vote on the National portion of the agreement for a very simple reason; you assured me that the Supplemental agreement did have protection regarding equalization of loads and we would have means to make an employer staff a facility properly. So listening to what you said, but not trusting you, I elected not to vote on the National and wait for your explanation of the Supplement. My first question to you during the Supplement meeting was, “My question is the same Fred. Where is the protection regarding equalization and staffing?” Your response was to the affect, there is none. I even gave an example: if Local 604 could negotiate a rate with Cassens Transport Co. in Fenton, Missouri going to Norfolk, Virginia under Article 2, Section 8, then get a return haul from Norfolk that only came back as far as Louisville, Kentucky, and being there is no equalization under this agreement, my Fenton, MO driver could haul every load that existed in Louisville, KY back to St. Louis, MO and your drivers would never haul a St. Louis load again. If you remember, your final answer was “yes, you could do that.”
So now you have insisted on starting a fight with me and the members of this Local. Let’s put it all on the table. Tell the truth about all the changes in the contract, because I am going to.
Article 2, Section 8, now will allow Locals to negotiate wage rates on new and old business, such as the crap you endorsed in several locations were the Union imposed a 15% wage reduction on members without a vote, such as St. Paul, MN; Warren, OH and Kansas City, MO.
Article 12, New Section 5 - What the hell does this got to do with bad economic times? This allows the employer to fire every driver they have. Now you claim (at a Kansas City meeting) this only pertains to PTS - I thought you took a strike vote because PTS walked away from the negotiating table? This just shows your incompetence; they got concessions in this contract and they weren’t even there.
Article 22 - I hardly know where to start. Lets see, no equalization, one would think this is about as bad as it could get, until we figure out that you have given the employer an incentive to put their traffic on rail, then take it back one year later, and pay half wages. Job security my ass! You claim that old New Business would not be affected by this new running mile language, but then you claim old New Business will not be equalized as was required under the old language. Which is it FRED? It can’t be both!
Economic Settlement Agreement - Every one in Carhaul understands the economic slump we are in. Everyone also understands our employers will not be hiring very many people over the next three years. So can you tell me why you would give the employers tiered wages? Sounds like the employers are better at negotiating than you are. Remember, Carhaulers stood on the picket line for five weeks to make sure we did not have tiered wage language in our contract.
Articles 40, Note 3 - If you can’t figure out the problem with this language, then you have forgotten what it was like to haul cars. The pressures are high enough without the BOSS having something else to hang over our heads.
Article 48 - This Article, as changed, must have been written by the employers, because no TEAMSTER would ever entertain such give backs. It appears, once again, you have been outsmarted by the Employers. This change to the 20% rule will now allow an employer to layoff members, offer some crappy job away from their families; and, if they do not accept the job, the employer can backhaul all they want. Guess what, the driver will never be called back, because when we loose equalization language, we loose the tool to force the employer to recall laid-off members. Just how stupid can you be? The pain of the tour of duty language is almost unbearable. You negotiators can’t even explain to the members what “5 tours of duty means.” Miller in Local120 tells the members something completely different than what you claimed in
Kansas City, and then Hewer tells a third story in Janesville, Wisconsin. The truth of the matter is the employers have not told you what they meant by “5 tours of duty” yet; and, when they do, you will cower down and say OKAY. Oh, by the way, my members want to thank you for giving their employers language that will force them to take a trip from St. Louis to Chicago, and then spend two days delivering short loads out of Elwood, IL to the city of Chicago. Here is a good idea - why don’t you and the rest of your so called negotiators, pack your bags and leave for a while, the country preferably. I hope you did not spend a lot of time negotiating the language under Article 48, Section 3(d), where the employers are required to give the Local Union the reports pertaining to foreign drives loading at our terminals, you do understand there is no equalization of loads in this contract? I know, we can stock the bathrooms with these papers, thanks FRED.
New Article 104 - It is nice to see that the negotiators of the Michigan Office Workers Supplement did negotiate something of meaning. Too bad they could only negotiate something for themselves. Section 2 - If you are a Michigan Office worker and you decide to run for an officer’s position at the Local Union, you will loose your seniority with your employer after one year. Somebody needs to ask Terry Hewer, the negotiator of this Supplement, how long he can be in office before he looses his seniority? Nice job controlling the politics FRED.
Article 53, Section 1 of the Western Supplement - So now you are condoning double breasting! It is obvious you have lost your mind by allowing employers to open new terminals that will not be covered by the scope of the agreement.
Just one of these items is enough for a member to reject this contract. Accumulative, these items become an embarrassment. So FRED, quit telling your lies about what took place at the Two-Man Committee meeting and please quit lying to the members about this contract. Say the word, it is CONCESSIONARY!
Teamsters Local Union No. 604
John Thyer
Secretary-Treasurer
cc: James P. Hoffa
Mark Potashnick Esq.
Via Fax/Mail