[PEN-L:11772] Harvard's Elaine Bernard on the Strike

[Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,  Thanks for all the information you're pouring into
cyberspace!  I thought you might find the following of interest.  A
question was posted to  Noam Chomsky on Znet (www.lbbs.org) and he
passed it on to Elaine Bernard whose answer is below.

The Teamster UPS strike is without question
the most important labor dispute in a decade
or more.  It's large, with over 180,000
workers on strike.  It's national in scope,
with actions taking place in every state and
major city around the country.  It effects a
significant section of the business
community.  UPS has 80% of the small package
business and this volume of freight cannot
easily be picked up by other carriers.  It
will have a noticeable effect on the economy
as a whole -- though from UPS's point of
view, this is the best time of year for a
strike, before the heavy fall season.

For Ron Carey (President of the Teamsters)
this is a crucial strike, as he was a UPS
employee (as was his father, so Carey has
deep roots with this company), and from my
knowledge of Carey, I would suggest that much
of his personal reform commitment has come
from his frustration over the decimation of
the wages and working conditions at UPS
through concession agreements signed by the
teamster old guard in the 1980s.

Finally, the UPS strike is the first big
national dispute, by a major affiliate of the
AFL-CIO under Sweeney, Trumka and Chavez-Thompson's watch,
and they recognize that the
whole labor movement has a big stake in the
outcome of this strike.

While the teamsters are not yet a model of
union democracy, they've come a long way
since the election of Carey and a reform
slate.  While the Wall Street Journal seems
to think that Carey has called the UPS strike
simply to take attention off recent scandals
over illegal union election activities and
money laundering during his re-election
campaign, this is complete nonsense.  It's a
simple fact that no union leader could get
180,000 workers into the streets, foregoing
wages, and risking everything, simply as a
cover-up.  These workers aren't anybody's
"cannon fodder." They're angry at UPS and
know that the company has been making lots of
money, on their backs -- and they are
demanding their share.  Further, on the
corruption issue, no link has been made to
Carey himself or any teamsters involved in
his re-election campaign.  There's no
question that the "Ansara/Share" affair has
hurt Carey, and in my opinion, reflects poor
judgement in working with outside
consultants, but Carey is not a mobster, does
not have connections to organized crime and
has been in a long and hard battle to clean
up those parts of the union that are still in
the grips of "wise guys" and their friends.

Carey has a tough row to hoe.  He is fighting
on two fronts, both inside his union (against
the old regime -- now lead by James Hoffa
Jr.) and with the employers.  And the
internal battle has clearly weakened his
capacity to deal with employers and they know
it and are taking advantage of it any time
they can.  When Carey tried to shut down UPS
for a protest a few years ago around the
company's directive increasing the load that
drivers would be forced to accept (from 75
pounds to an incredible 150 pounds), the
opposition told workers it was an "illegal
strike" and not to participate.  It was
sabotaged from inside.  The internal fight
within the teamsters continues to this day,
though in this current dispute, the Hoffa
forces do not appear to be openly criticizing
the strike -- though clearly a victory for
the union in this dispute would bolster
Carey's authority, so I don't expect that
they will be silent for long.

In my opinion, the hiring of scabs will not
be an issue in this dispute.  UPS is
currently using their supervisory staff to
try and deliver the freight currently in
their system (caught by the strike), and
doesn't appear to be picking up any new
packages for delivery.  And they probably
won't for the duration of the strike.
Permanently replacing such a large trained
staff is tough, and its not likely to happen.
One issue to watch for, however, is that UPS
may try and fire activists for picket line
activities after the dispute.  One way you
can tell who "won" a strike -- as the final
agreement is often a compromise -- is if the
union can prevent this type of victimization.


However, a more likely termination scenario
is that Clinton might intervene (he arguably
has the power to do so under the Taft-Hartley
Act) by determining that the strike
constitutes a "national emergency."  This
would give him the power to force the
strikers back-to-work (as he has done with
Airline and Rail disputes in recent years,
thought they are under different
legislation).

The two key issues in the dispute are
pensions and full-time jobs.  On pensions,
the company is seeking to get out of the
Teamster pension fund.  This would weaken the
unions multi-employer fund (with UPS the
largest employer in the fund), reduce
portability of the pension for members,
significantly reduce the union and therefore
workers control over the pension  and permit
UPS in future bargaining to reduce
contributions to the fund and to seek to
convert it from a defined benefit to defined
contribution plan.  Pensions are an issue
that the union will fight very hard on -- and
one which the company wants to focus
attention on, even seeking to play the
corruption card.  Needless to say, it is the
companies, not the unions, which have been
stealing workers retirement savings.  There
are some problems with the UPS teamster
pensions, including the fact that the
teamster pension isn't a national fund, but
rather is regional, so you end up with
different rules, etc, in different parts of
the country.  But ultimately, its more
controlled by the members than what UPS has
in mind.

On the full-time jobs issue, this is a vital
issue for both the teamsters and the AFL-CIO
as a whole, and fits in with the labor
movements desire to position itself as the
force fighting for good jobs with good
benefits and working conditions.  The
concession bargaining in the 1980s, with the
notorious "two tier agreements" are now
coming home to roost.  By permitting UPS to
hire limitless part-time workers, with a
large wage differential -- which began at $ 4
an hour and today is $ 9 (with a part-time
worker earning $ 11 an hour, and working
beside and doing the same work as a full-time
worker who earns $ 20 an hour.  Is there any
question why UPS has gone to over 60% of its
workforce part time.  By the way, this wage
differential, would be illegal if instead of
"part-time" workers, this second class of
workers were classified as "female" or "black"
or "elderly."  While the company has offered
to "create" some new full time jobs, they are
essentially going to simply fill some of the
existing full time positions which are
constantly being vacated via attrition.  The
unions demand around the part-time issue are
not earth shattering.  They will continue to
accept the wage differential (though clearly
they want to start to close the gap).  They
are not trying to stop the use of part
timers, but rather to start to change the
ratio.  The company, which has been making
money hand over fist in the last decade with
these concessions, does not feel it has to
give in at all.

What's at stake here is 1) whether labor can
conduct a national strike, without the
interference of the government, 2) whether
the teamsters can stop the bleeding of full
time jobs and the growing move towards
precarious employment by major employers, 3)
whether the teamsters union, one of the last
unions in the country still positioned to
hold a nation wide strike, will be able to
demonstrate, not just to its own members, but
to all of the unorganized workers that
organization works, that unions can make a
difference in fighting for decent jobs and
wages and worker rights in the workplace.

Elaine Bernard
Harvard Trade Union Program
htup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx