[Jackrabbit379]

Oh yeah, there are so many websites, that talk about Union, and Hoffa, and stuff. Never knew that there was so much out there. :shock:

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Jackrabbit379

Oh yeah, there are so many websites, that talk about Union, and Hoffa, and stuff. Never knew that there was so much out there. :shock:

It's too bad that the greed and corruption got the best of them. We need good, solid, strong union representation in this country now more than we ever have in my lifetime!!

When I was growing up, Blue Collar America was still strong; now, either the illeagal aliens or the Arabs have taken it over, or it's been shipped to Mexico or China. :x :evil:

[Jackrabbit379]

Yeah, I agree.

[GMAN]

The unions may have started out as something positive for some American workers, but things have gone very wrong with them. At one time the Teamsters, who primarily represented truckers, was probably the most powerful union in the nation. There were a very high percentage of members represented in the major trucking companies of the time. The Teamsters were powerful enough to literally shut this country down. If memory serves, it was during the 1970's. There were enough members who were willing to follow the union mantra to bring this nation to a screeching halt. Many of us remember what it was like back then. In the South, unions have never been very strong, but in the Midwest and Northeast, if you were a driver you probably belonged to the Teamsters. I think unions have been both a blessing and curse for this country. They helped bring wages to a high level and build a strong middle class during the 1950's and 1960's. They began to decline during the 70's after the strike. Trucking was deregulated and competition from independents proved to be part of the unraveling of the stranglehold the Teamsters had on the movement of products. When the Teamsters were at their highest point, they made it very uncomfortable for companies to move operations out of the U.S. If they still had their power, many of the companies who moved manufacturing abroad would never have been able to do so. It wasn't just the Teamsters who were strong and represented American workers. There are a number of other unions, many under the umbrella of the AFL-CIO. Corruption within the unions and ties to organized crime helped to move many away from the unions. The Federal government went after Jimmy Hoffa with a frenzy after the shut down. He was forced out of the union Presidency and never regained his power. Unions were largely responsible for killing much of the U.S. steel industry. It was a combination of poor management and uncompromising unions that closed or moved many of this nations largest steel plants abroad. Another factor was several nations subsidizing their homegrown steel industry by dumping steel on the American market.

WalMart had a lot to do with unions demise. They used their buying power to purchase cheap products abroad. One industry after another seemed to dry up. The textile industry, once the envy of the world, is little more than a memory. The steel industry of today probably imports as much or more of it's product than it makes. Foreign automakers moved in to the American market and to circumvent tariffs and began to build cars in this country. The Japanese were probably the most successful at keeping unions at bay.

There is plenty of blame to go around as to why unions are pretty much a thing of the past. If the Teamsters were still strong, they would likely have shut the country down at the first leap in fuel prices back in the 80's. I doubt whether they can ever regain their momentum. They have had a lot to do with nearly killing the U.S. automakers. Again, it isn't all the unions, the management of these companies are heavy laden with bureaucracy, over paid executives and suffer a lack of vision. They seem to have forgotten how to listen to their customers. Twenty or thirty years ago, foreign made cars were not even allowed to park in automaker parking lots. Now, you will probably see as many imports or foreign cars as American.

A large percentage of truckers today are owner operators. I don't see how a union would do us much good. I prefer to be paid for my efforts. Unions seem to undermine initiative. Under a union shop, everyone is paid the same, regardless of performance. That is one of the biggest problems I have had with unions over the years. Not every worker deserves to be paid the same wage. I think it is better to be paid based on performance rather than an hourly wage. Besides, unions are so impotent I fail to see how they can really benefit most workers, at least in this industry. They may help the LTL or local drivers, but I don't see the benefit for those OTR drivers. If owner operators could organize, they could shut the freight down. That isn't going to happen. You cannot find two who will agree on what color the sky is, much less anything important. Besides, owner operators are business people. They are no longer drivers. They are business people.

[Jackrabbit379]

Wow! Thanks, GMAN

[geeshock]

Hey gman, you posted my opinion better than i could have, lol

[chapchap70]

The last company I worked for belonged to the United Service Workers Union. It is an environmental/remediation company. In the northeast, unions seem to have a stranglehold on publicly funded work. If you want to find out the affects of this, look into what it costs to build a school say in New York and the same school in the south. If a company wants to bid on the work it almost has to be union.

So some companies want to be union shops so they can get the public work. These companies wouldn't have their workers join the union and pay off the union bosses to keep quiet about their treatment of workers, would they? :roll:

[GMAN]

I have seen companies go from a family atmosphere to one of adversity once a union comes in to the business. Management and labor should work together to achieve common goals. When there is adversity and friction, things just don't work as well. Companies need the flexibility to adjust to rapidly changing economic conditions. Unions can inhibit that effort. I think everyone should be paid what they are worth. When workers are paid on performance they generally are paid what they are worth. Most drivers are paid on performance. The more miles you drive, the more money you earn. If you have one driver who drives 1,500 miles and another who does 3,000 during the same time period they should not be paid the same money. One was more productive than the other in a miles method of compensation. He should be compensated more than the one who drove fewer miles. In a union environment both would be paid the same. It would encourage the one who contributed less and drover fewer miles to not be any more productive. He earns the same pay regardless. It would discourage the more productive driver because he earns the same as the guy who did half the amount of work. There is no need for him to work any harder than the less productive driver since he won't earn any more money for his efforts.

Most of the places I have delivered who are unionized, take longer to get loaded/unloaded and they seem to sit more than work. After all, what is the point in being more productive? Compensation is the same, regardless. :x

[Jackrabbit379]

Very instructive, GMAN

[driverboy]

Good posts on unions and various opinions, and as a highly paid union driver I actually agree with most views, trucking is a complex arena to unionize. Things change in a day and sometimes hourly as far as what is needed, where and when and following the strict hierarchy of seniority is hard to dole out work to those that have worked at the company the longest, sometimes near impossible. I see those struggles daily and it's ugly.

The comment from Gman about the 1500 mile to 3000 mile comparison I have a harder time with though. While agreed the 3000 mile guy would in this case drive twice as far as the 1500 guy (how about A=1500 and B=3000), for A to take as long daily as B he would have to pull over and sleep (or shop, or.....) for hours and hours every day. I do that at my company and I am fired, my every move is GPS tracked, speed, time at each stop, every componet of my run is monitored and archived daily.

We are allowed a few breaks and a lunch as per labor laws allow and that's it. I can not do a run half as long as another and demand the same pay by dogging that run to take double what it should. I would not be paid the excess amount at all, I would be paid what the run is "houred out" at. Simialr to a mechanic, if the shop rate pays 5 hours to R&R a transmission, that mechanic can take 3 hours or 10 hours he still gets paid the same. Take the 10 too many times and you'll have some questions to answer to, mainly why are you taking up a bay (or truck in our case) for so long.

However, what if driver A is crossing international borders that take hours to get over at times, has multi stops per route and is live loaded and unloaded at either end in busy cities with heavy traffic with a 10 hour day. Driver B logs twice the miles but is drop and hook at both ends in small cities and hits his run in 10 hours as well?

Should driver A be paid half of driver B? There I do not agree, and with a compensation system on miles only that would happen in the above situation. For that reason I am all for an hourly wage for regional day cab work. Not feasible for OTR, but if your home every night hourly works well.

The notion of being lazy in a union as it pertains to trucking is not accurate. You have a run, it pays a flat rate expressed as hours paid and the driver is expected to get the run done in that time or better or you will be called in for explanations. It's a tight ship in my world, screw up and your out. Many are turfed and surely many more will be, miss your window and your destination loses over 2 million an hour in gross sales.