Is this "Union" busting?

[Orangetxguy]

I do believe it is. Time will tell.



Updated:

PTS Shuts Down Following Strike
Carrier, Union Trade Charges on Company’s Demise

Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.

Automobile hauler Performance Transportation Services said it has gone out of business, due to a strike against the company last week by the Teamsters union.

PTS and the union traded blame on the company’s demise, with each side claiming the other rejected offers that could have led to a settlement.

The auto hauler ceased operations late Friday, Chief Executive Officer Jeff Cornish said in a statement. PTS is majority owned by California private equity firm Yucaipa Cos.

The company’s proposal included a reduction in wages for both hourly and salaried employees, Cornish said in a statement posted on its Web site.

“The proceeds from these savings would have been invested in new equipment and major refurbishment,” he wrote. “Unfortunately . . . the Teamsters concluded that it was not it their interest to accept our offer.

The Teamsters said in a statement that it countered a PTS offer with a “detailed proposal . . . which included significant operating improvements for PTS and which in our opinion would have enabled to company to survive.

“The company rejected our proposal and insisted only on cutting our members' wages. At the same time, though, the company's top management would not take the same cuts for themselves,” the union said.

PTS is ranked No. 73 on the Transport Topics 100 listing of U.S. and Canadian for-hire carriers and the second-largest car-hauler.


(Click here for previous coverage.)
By Transport Topics



http://www.ttnews.com/articles/baset...?storyid=19965

[Ronin]

Sounds pretty fishy, given they wanted to file an injunction against a strike. They didn't want to bargain with the union. They just wanted their way or the highway.

[Mr. Ford95]

Well it is THEIR company Ronin not the teamsters. They can run it as they please and if the union don't like it, take an F-ing hike. Funny how the union blames management for not taking the same pay cut yet they wouldn't allow their workers to take a cut either. Pot calling kettle there. I have never ever heard of a union allowing their workers to take a pay cut unless the want some new blood in the union and use the pay cut as a way to get the older folks out of there.

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for unions. They want, want, want but refuse to ever give anything in order to get what they want. This isn't Russia where you get paid the same as I do but can sit on your rear all day while I do all the work just because your union and I'm not. Unions are communism at it's finest.

[Uturn2001]

Sounds pretty fishy, given they wanted to file an injunction against a strike. They didn't want to bargain with the union. They just wanted their way or the highway.

It depends on why the injunction was asked for. Was the strike illegal as the company says? If so then an injunction could very well have been in order.

As far as it being union busting it is hard to tell. Many trucking companies run on a fine edge, and having delivered to a major manufacturer on a dedicated run for many months I have seen how hard it can be to get the car makers to renegotiate contracts, raise fuel surcharges, etc.

Between the cost of the special equipment needed for car hauling, the higher than normal wages the drivers make, the skyrocketing fuel costs, the reduction is cars being made and the attitudes of the car makers themselves it is quite possible this company had no choice but to shut down.

[Mackman]

At the same time, though, the company's top management would not take the same cuts for themselves,” the union said.

Why should just the drivers have to take a pay cut. I was not really a big fan of unions intill about 1 year ago. I was at a tanker job for 3 years and really good benifits then just one day out of the blue the company cut are benifits in 1/2. WTF is that all about. Did management take a cut?? I dont think so. I only lasted 6 months after that then i left just like 1/2 of the 50 other drivers did. Nothing but a big slap in the face.

[Ronin]

At the same time, though, the company's top management would not take the same cuts for themselves,” the union said.

Why should just the drivers have to take a pay cut.

Exactly what I'm talking about not that Mr. Ford bothered to read that. A real leader leads from the front, they take the bad times right along with everyone else. Just goes to show they not willing to contribute to saving their own company, so to hell with them!

[Kranky]

Why the f*** should the employees have to accept a pay cut when the cost of living is rising dramatically due to increased fuel costs among other things.

[Karnajj]

Weaker unions can only be a good thing IMO. Never had any use for them.

[JeffTheTerrible]

I know people hate to admit this, but unions have done a lot for working class citizens over the years. Bear this in mind when you consider that you're paid for deadhead miles, thanks to the Teamsters who demanded it. If it hadn't been for what they did so many years ago, I can guarantee you that you would have a hell of a lot more to complain about right now than a three mile per hour reduction in speed. What's wrong with someone who more or less devotes their life to their job to expect safe and fair working conditions? Would you rather have to sleep on a board laid across your seats at night? Would you rather be paid only for the miles you run loaded? Love them or hate them, you have benefited from the efforts of the Teamsters.

The biggest problem with the union is that there is no system of checks and balances, and it has grown out of hand in a lot of places. The union was formed with the right intentions, but never should have been able to wield such power as it does over a company.

The whole situation really is a lot more complicated, and I think a lot of the times that the union fails to realise that they are going to be expected to make concessions on their parts at times. Whether they're proud of themselves or not for having put this company out of business, I don't know, but I'm highly skeptical that they'll declare it to be any sort of victory - all they really managed to do was to put themselves out of a job, and that's the price they pay for overzealousness on their behalf.

[BigWheels]

I know people hate to admit this, but unions have done a lot for working class citizens over the years. Bear this in mind when you consider that you're paid for deadhead miles, thanks to the Teamsters who demanded it. If it hadn't been for what they did so many years ago, I can guarantee you that you would have a hell of a lot more to complain about right now than a three mile per hour reduction in speed. What's wrong with someone who more or less devotes their life to their job to expect safe and fair working conditions? Would you rather have to sleep on a board laid across your seats at night? Would you rather be paid only for the miles you run loaded? Love them or hate them, you have benefited from the efforts of the Teamsters.

The biggest problem with the union is that there is no system of checks and balances, and it has grown out of hand in a lot of places. The union was formed with the right intentions, but never should have been able to wield such power as it does over a company.

The whole situation really is a lot more complicated, and I think a lot of the times that the union fails to realise that they are going to be expected to make concessions on their parts at times. Whether they're proud of themselves or not for having put this company out of business, I don't know, but I'm highly skeptical that they'll declare it to be any sort of victory - all they really managed to do was to put themselves out of a job, and that's the price they pay for overzealousness on their behalf.

What he said. 8)

[slim chance]

Why the f*** should the employees have to accept a pay cut when the cost of living is rising dramatically due to increased fuel costs among other things.

So which is worse, a pay cut or no job?

Exactly what I'm talking about not that Mr. Ford bothered to read that. A real leader leads from the front, they take the bad times right along with everyone else. Just goes to show they not willing to contribute to saving their own company, so to hell with them!

I read a different article that said the management and others did take a pay cut so which is right, a statement from a union negotiator saying they didn't or a statement from the CEO of PTS saying they did? Sounds like one is lying but which one? Not sure but I guess a while back the union allowed some other company to cut the driver's pay by 17.5% so the question might be why is this situation so different?

Article with salery employee paycut

Article with 17.5% pay cut to Allied Holdings

In that first article it said that PTS walked away from the bargaining table but when you are bankrupt how much "bargaining" can you do? Another disturbing find is that in that first article the union negotiator says:

Earlier Friday, prior to Cornish’s announcement, the Teamsters expressed a willingness to continue talks. It also said the “vast majority” of its members at PTS had left to work for other Teamster-represented employers.

So it sounds like after four days the union had already placed or at least somehow knew that a vast majority of the drivers had found "new" employment. Sounds a little strange to me like maybe the union had no plans to actually strike and wanted to get rid of PTS all along. I also wonder if these drivers did go to other companies how much seniority did they loose and how much of a pay cut might they have taken, 10% maybe 15%? How long before they are back to their original pay?

[Mr. Ford95]

What Jeff said. Ronin, Unions can be a good thing but they have all become corrupt these days and refuse to neogatiate to help the company(s.) Now, are they going to help these workers that are out of a job because they refused to concede a little? Sometimes to gain a true victory you have to do a little conceding and this union(like many others) wouldn't give a little to eventually get what they wanted. Give a little know and you hold a big bargining chip for the next go round.

[GMAN]

Unions pit management against labor. It is much better to pay people based upon their individual productivity rather than the same wage for everyone. When you are paid on productivity those who produce earn more than those who simply get by. Unions have driven a number of companies out of business. They virtually killed the steel industry in this country several decades ago. Unions have also helped to drive many companies abroad rather than having to deal with their unrealistic demands. When you put your money into a company you are entitled to share in any profits. Unions seem to want to share in the profits without sharing in the risks.

[JeffTheTerrible]

They virtually killed the steel industry in this country several decades ago. Unions have also helped to drive many companies abroad rather than having to deal with their unrealistic demands.

Pinning this squarely on the shoulders of the union is a bit unjustified. Yes, the ridiculous demands of many unions certainly contributed, but there were other events which set this into motion, as well. For example, remember the massive dumping of exports from Asia, where they would export items at or below cost, simply to weaken the industries of the countries to whom they were exporting goods to? And you may also consider the fact that companies are going to look for cheap labour, regardless. You can pay a worker peanuts in a country like Mexico or China, but in a country with a higher cost of living, you're not going to find skilled technical professionals who'll pay the costs of putting themselves through skill, for a job which will still leave them at poverty level. Then, your elected officials further encourage this practice by allowing the same tax breaks to be received by companies which are outsourcing jobs, and the reduction of tariffs on imported goods, so that some lead painted toy, or bag of poisoned dog food from China can be manufactured and imported much cheaper than it would be to have it manufactured here.

[Kranky]

Why the f*** should the employees have to accept a pay cut when the cost of living is rising dramatically due to increased fuel costs among other things.

So which is worse, a pay cut or no job?

Well, by that logic, why don't you just go and work for free?

You'll still have a job won't you?

[ironeagle_2006]

Hey guys look at the AIRLINES f you want to see how bad labor relations can be. The unions there can not even go on strike and can have massive wag cuts forced on them at anytime by mangement do to a certain laws passed by Regan dealing with the ATC union. Take Delta for example massive layoffs and then the wage cuts while in bankrupcy yet the CEO got MILLIONS in bounuses and the mangers also got MILLIONS in the Stock of the reorganized company yet the workers got the shaft.

[slim chance]

Why the f*** should the employees have to accept a pay cut when the cost of living is rising dramatically due to increased fuel costs among other things.

So which is worse, a pay cut or no job?

Well, by that logic, why don't you just go and work for free?

You'll still have a job won't you?

No, the logic is with the economy the way it is it doesn't require a lot of thought to determine that finding employment elsewhere is not all that realistic. You use the fact that the increased cost of living is the reason why a worker shouldn't accept a pay cut.

The conclusion of the strike was the company shut down meaning the workers have no job. Logic is if they have a hard time paying there bills with the pay cut then I guess I would be kind of tough when you have no pay check at all. Of course now the twist to the story is that supposedly within four days the union announced that many of the drivers had already found union employment elsewhere. How many strikes do strikers sit around filling out applications? Not any that I have seen but I would assume the union wanted this company gone because they didn't want to play ball and passed the drivers on to these other companies knowing that with PTS gone the other companies would gain the extra business. Of course the drivers didn't really have a choice in all of this. Even though it was stated that many of them were willing to take the temporary pay cut along with the management they no longer have that option. Instead they had to find this "other" employment which probably came with a pay cut (any drivers with seniority would be mad if a new guy came in and was given the same as him/her). So I would guess most drivers took some kind of a pay cut anyway. And the conclusion is the union has found a way in this situation to only allow companies they like to continue to operate. Why didn't the union take all of that strike fund and make up the 15% cut the drivers might have to take? If it was a true strike they would have no idea how long it would last and have to be willing to pay strike pay for months so 15% would be a drop in the bucket compared to that.

[Orangetxguy]

Why the f*** should the employees have to accept a pay cut when the cost of living is rising dramatically due to increased fuel costs among other things.

So which is worse, a pay cut or no job?

Well, by that logic, why don't you just go and work for free?

You'll still have a job won't you?

No, the logic is with the economy the way it is it doesn't require a lot of thought to determine that finding employment elsewhere is not all that realistic. You use the fact that the increased cost of living is the reason why a worker shouldn't accept a pay cut.

The conclusion of the strike was the company shut down meaning the workers have no job. Logic is if they have a hard time paying there bills with the pay cut then I guess I would be kind of tough when you have no pay check at all. Of course now the twist to the story is that supposedly within four days the union announced that many of the drivers had already found union employment elsewhere. How many strikes do strikers sit around filling out applications? Not any that I have seen but I would assume the union wanted this company gone because they didn't want to play ball and passed the drivers on to these other companies knowing that with PTS gone the other companies would gain the extra business. Of course the drivers didn't really have a choice in all of this. Even though it was stated that many of them were willing to take the temporary pay cut along with the management they no longer have that option. Instead they had to find this "other" employment which probably came with a pay cut (any drivers with seniority would be mad if a new guy came in and was given the same as him/her). So I would guess most drivers took some kind of a pay cut anyway. And the conclusion is the union has found a way in this situation to only allow companies they like to continue to operate. Why didn't the union take all of that strike fund and make up the 15% cut the drivers might have to take? If it was a true strike they would have no idea how long it would last and have to be willing to pay strike pay for months so 15% would be a drop in the bucket compared to that.

Looks like PTS won't have to wait to long then, to change the corporate name enough to qualify as a different company (add LLP or LLC), change the logo on the truck doors to reflect the new corporate indentity, and hire non-union drivers to work for them..and re-take their business segment.

PTS is going to be able to " NA NA NAAA" the Teamsters.

[Evinrude]

Weaker unions can only be a good thing IMO. Never had any use for them.

That's why you sit at a truck stop for 34 hours with no pay and bad benefits and little pension.

[Mackman]

Weaker unions can only be a good thing IMO. Never had any use for them.

That's why you sit at a truck stop for 34 hours with no pay and bad benefits and little pension.

AMEN to that!!!!!