Category: anti-union busting

Jacksonville, FL – Despite ‘competing’ as the world’s two largest parcel delivery and shipping companies, UPS and FedEx are owned by many of the same banks. According to NASDAQ’s ownership summary of both companies, 12 of the top 20 owners of UPS and FedEx are the same banks, investment groups and financial institutions.

Both multi-billion dollar corporations are under ‘institutional ownership’, which means that a majority of their shares are owned by financial institutions, banks and other large monopoly corporations. According to NASDAQ’s ownership summary of UPS on April 11, nearly 71% of UPS shares are owned by institutions. FedEx, a smaller company than UPS, actually had greater institutional ownership, with 83.94% of the company’s shares owned by institutions, according to NASDAQ.

However, most of the largest institutional owners of both UPS and FedEx have substantial interests in both companies. For instance, Vanguard Group Inc., a Pennsylvania-based investment bank that manages nearly $2 trillion in assets, is the single-largest owner of UPS and the third largest owner of FedEx. Vanguard Group is a massive financial institution that boasts the largest ownership in many other large, well-known corporations including Apple, Exxon Mobil and Microsoft.

Primecap Management Company, based in Pasadena, California, is the largest owner of FedEx, holding nearly 19 million shares of the shipping company, according to NASDAQ. However, Primecap is also the 16th largest owner of UPS stock, holding more than 6.3 million shares, also according to NASDAQ.

In all, 60% of the top 20 owners of both UPS and FedEx are the same banks, investment groups and financial institutions.

Institutional ownership is incredibly common among the largest 500 publicly traded companies.

Despite this fact, companies like UPS stress to workers the need to “compete” against rival workers in their industry, like those at FedEx. UPS’s collective bargaining agreement includes an entire article on competition that states: “The Union recognizes that the Employer is in direct competition with…other firms engaging in the distribution of express letter, parcel express, parcel delivery, and freight, both air and surface.”

The company leverages this poison pill of competition to justify subcontracting union work and undermining union standards. It creates an adversarial relationship between workers of UPS and FedEx, when in reality the owners at the top are united in extracting the most profit possible from workers at both companies. When the owners of UPS and FedEx are one in the same, ‘competition’ means which management team can exploit their workers the most and extract the most profit for the banks that own the whole industry.

A prominent argument used by UPS claims that workers must accept concessionary contracts to remain ‘competitive.’ They argue that employing tried-and-true militant tactics, like striking as the Teamsters did successfully in 1997, will result in FedEx stealing UPS’s customers. Historically, the union movement addressed this by organizing entire industries, instead of single worksites or employers. This meant one industry, one union, and at times – one contract. At its best, this method of organizing and bargaining takes wages out of competition and sets industry-wide standards to prevent subcontracting and a race to the bottom through ‘competition.’ Tactically, if the 1% owners of both brands are united, then to combat them and win, workers across the entire industry must also unite.

The attempts of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to organize FedEx have been foiled by U.S. labor law, which misclassifies workers and stifles their ability to unionize. FedEx Ground drivers are misclassified as independent contractors and are legally barred from union representation, even though in practice, they are effectively workers directly employed by the company. FedEx Express drivers are also misclassified under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), as opposed to the National Labor Relations Act. The company claims their employees are ‘airline’ workers, and thus would need to unionize nationally all at once. The RLA also places many more restrictions on workers’ rights, including the ability to strike. It also forces the workers into binding arbitration, which often serve the interest of the boss instead of the workers.

The banks and financial institutions that own both UPS and FedEx are united in their push for lower wages, part-time poverty jobs, fewer benefits and weaker contracts. To effectively fight their race to the bottom, union workers at UPS must organize FedEx workers, regardless of the legal fictions created by politicians in Washington.

Dave Schneider and Dustin Ponder are both rank-and-file Teamsters and members of Part-Time Power at UPS, which is a national group for UPS part-timers.

New York, NY – Since the Feb. 26 walkout at the UPS facility in Maspeth, Queens, Teamsters Local 804 and UPS traded blows in a critical struggle over the fate of 250 workers and their families. Workers walked out to defend a union activist and 24-year worker, Jairo Reyes, after UPS walked him off the job. The company authorized Reyes to start early in the weeks leading up to Feb. 26, but when he filed a grievance over UPS abusing seniority provisions in the contract, the manager went back and claimed he was never authorized to start early, and ironically tried to fire Reyes for “dishonesty.”

The struggle that exploded over UPS’ abuse of their workforce and the unjust firing of union activists ended with the company giving in to the demands of Local 804 and the legion of supporters that they assembled nationwide. Today, April 9, UPS settled with the Executive Board of Local 804, and agreed to rehire all the fired workers, including Jairo Reyes, and committed to treating workers with dignity and respect.

Richard Pawlikowski, a veteran driver who participated in the walkout, spoke about the conditions in Queens, “In our contract, UPS agreed to treat us with dignity and respect at all times. They don’t even do it for five minutes. They treat us like criminals. It finally reached a boiling point.”

Pawilkowski was one of the 36 out of the 250 Queens drivers who were walked off the job by supervisors, and told they were fired. When asked about how he felt after being fired by the company he gave so much for, he said, “I walked out with my pride. I didn’t do anything wrong. I had a clean conscience. I’ve grieved hundreds of abuses by the company, and I have no discipline in my file.”

After the walkout, UPS issued working terminations to the 250 participants. In response, Local 804 launched a national campaign of support that included gathering over 120,000 names on petitions, solidarity from hundreds of local unions and aggressive support from a wide range of politicians. The union held several rallies, and many of the fired drivers even went and discussed the situation with their customers, who demanded UPS rehire their delivery drivers. As support and solidarity continued to spread, UPS caved.

Driver Tom Oliver, who participated in the walkout, spoke about the union power that ultimately brought UPS to the table. “It’s a sweet victory that only happened because we stuck together and we got tremendous support. Even with all the stress that came with the walkout and the aftermath, it brought attention to a lot of problems with our facility that I hope can be corrected.”

Oliver, a committed union fighter, and family man with a wife and two children, joined the walkout and stood up for justice despite the threats of retaliation from UPS. “I think the excessive overtime, the unfair discipline, the micromanaging and the outright bully tactics took a toll on all of us. The unjust firings and, specifically, the firing of Jairo Reyes was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

After a battle that inspired thousands of union members across the country, Local 804 members look forward to resting easy for a night after several weeks of uncertainty. The message from the Local 804 website read: “Tonight is first and foremost about the 250 drivers and their families. We congratulate them on standing together through this ordeal and winning their return to work with respect and dignity.”

Dustin Ponder is a union activist and member of Teamsters 804.

New York, NY – Hundreds of union members and community supporters rallied on the steps of city hall here, April 3, in support of the 250 UPS drivers who were issued terminations for walking out to defend their fellow co-worker.

Union members from Teamsters locals all across the city were joined by MTA workers from Transport Workers Union Local 100, SEIU 32BJ and members of Communication Workers of America and other union supporters.

President of Teamsters Local 804 Tim Sylvester told the crowd, “UPS is threatening to bankrupt 250 families,” and described the attacks as a heartless attack on drivers and their families. The crowd responded with shouts of “shut ‘em down!” and “Save the 250!”

New York Public Advocate Letitia James spoke and threatened UPS with ending their $43 million of tax breaks provided by New York City. She also pointed out that a sweetheart deal on parking tickets is in on the line, now that 250 drivers have been given termination notice and UPS already fired 20 workers on March 31. She went on to proclaim, “This ain’t Wisconsin!”

It was pointed out that different conditions prevail in New York City, which has the highest unionization rate in the country, than in Wisconsin, where right-wing Governor Scott Walker stripped public workers of their collective bargaining rights. “This is not going to end this way,” said City Controller Scott Stringer.

Workers walked out to defend a union activist and 24-year worker, Jairo Reyes, after UPS tried to fire him through an abuse of the grievance procedure. UPS’ abuse of the grievance procedure is a common practice to retaliate against workers who are trying to enforce their rights. UPS issued working terminations to the 250 brave drivers from Teamsters 804, claiming they could maintain the right to dismiss them at anytime.

One of the workers who was issued a termination, Domenick DeDomenico, age 40, spoke of the kind of harassment workers faced on a daily basis at UPS. A car struck DeDomenico while he was delivering packages, and he slipped into a coma for 10 days. He eventually returned to work after brain surgery and serious physical therapy. However, upon his return, UPS issued him a separate intent to discharge for slipping from his delivery rate of 13 packages per hour to 11 packages per hour after his injury. “I have a 13-year-old son and a wife,” said DeDomenico.

Shop steward and 804 driver Vincent Perrone told the crowd, “How do you do something like this to our families? We work 10, 11, 12 hours a day…we leave houses at 6 o’clock in the morning and get home at 10 o’clock at night. It takes a toll on us, on our families, but we want to work. All we want is the dignity and respect we deserve.”

A spokesperson for UPS later issued continuing threats, claiming that if UPS lost their tax breaks and sweetheart deals they may be forced to fire additional employees.

“This company thinks they can get away with whatever they want. If they refuse to listen to reason, if they refuse to back down, it’s time to walk all the buildings and show them what union power means,” said one 804 member who asked to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation for advocating a work stoppage. “We’ve got the support of the city, now’s the time to take a stand.”

The recent defeat of the UAW at the Chattanooga, Tennessee Volkswagen plant marked a serious setback for the working class, the auto-workers of the Tennessee plant, as well as hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file autoworkers within in the UAW. Workers at the plant voted against representation by a narrow margin of 712 to 626. A victory for labor would have marked the unionization of the first foreign auto plant in the U.S. and one of only a handful of unionized plants in the South. As the growth and survival of the U.S. labor movement in general, and the UAW in particular, depends in part on unionizing the largely unorganized South, union militants and rank-and-file activists need to draw key lessons from this defeat and augment our tactics and strategies.

The factors of defeat

Volkswagen, a company where the German autoworkers union sits on the board of directors, signed a neutrality agreement with the UAW, claiming they wanted to implement a ‘German-style’ works council where workers and management could collaborate on various workplace issues. This led many media pundits and union supporters to expect a slam dunk victory for the UAW.

But let’s be clear: unfavorable conditions for labor still reigned in Tennessee. The jobs at Volkswagen pay relatively well in the low-wage South. Racism and national oppression of black people also served as a basis for anti-union propaganda. Automakers in the South have used slogans such as “This is not Detroit,” exploiting racism and attempting to divide white and Black workers.

A major factor put forward by the UAW leadership blamed right-wing politicians and special interest groups for the loss. As UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel, the man in charge of the union’s Southern organizing said, “Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that that would grow jobs in Tennessee.”

While we should not underestimate the effects of the reactionary Senator Bob Corker threatening job losses in front of plant workers, it seemed mild compared to the outright firings, intimidation and attack on workers’ rights common to most labor organizing campaigns.

Perhaps then the deciding factor layed with the UAW’s class collaborationist approach. UAW President Bob King put forward its perspective to the Washington Post: “Our philosophy is, we want to work in partnership with companies to succeed… With every company that we work with, we’re concerned about competitiveness. We work together with companies to have the highest quality, the highest productivity, the best health and safety, the best ergonomics, and we are showing that companies that succeed by this cooperation can have higher wages and benefits because of the joint success.”

Let’s look at this approach in practice. In the neutrality agreement, the UAW agreed, without the consent of the rank and file at the facility, that if they won bargaining rights, any future negotiations would be guided by considerations such as “maintaining and where possible enhancing the cost advantages and other competitive advantages that Volkswagen enjoys relative to its competitors in the United States and North America;” i.e. keeping ‘competitive’ wages and benefit compensation in comparison to the Big Three.

The UAW also agreed that it is “committed to the delegation to the Works Council of certain duties, responsibilities and functions that are traditionally the subject of collective bargaining.” The details of this ‘works council’ would be left to bargaining in the first contract. This means surrendering functions of the union to an entity half comprised of management. To make matters worse, the union also agreed to a strict no-strike clause during first contract negotiations that would bar the workers from implementing basically every effective tactic to pressure their employer during the critical negotiations of that first contract, including picketing, boycotting or slowdown actions. The UAW also surrendered their right to house visits with plant employees, a critical organizing tool in any labor drive.

The UAW leadership’s class-collaborationist strategy opened the door for anti-union groups such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to spread to make inroads at the plant. A group of managers and backward workers to created a “No 2 UAW” website and social media presence. The backward forces opposed to the UAW’s effort publicized and organized around the UAW’s collaborationist approach to successfully defeat the drive. Hourly worker Mike Burton, who created the No 2 UAW website was quoted by In These Times journalist Mike Elk as saying “I am not anti-union, I am anti-UAW,” and that “There are great unions out there, and we just weren’t offered any of them.” Elk’s article details the recent history of sell-out contracts the UAW negotiated with the big three. These contracts included two-tier wage systems that lock in low pay for new hires doing the same work.

In a racist and ruthlessly anti-worker South (and U.S. for that matter), can the tactics and strategies of the UAW leadership deliver victory? After decades of vicious attacks and attempts to destroy organized labor, should our strategy now include shaking hands and agreeing with the boss? Can agreeing to keep wages and benefits lower than competitors and promising to push worker’s productivity ever higher for the same compensation save the union movement? The answer is all too clear to rank-and-file workers across the country.

Militant union members and the rank and file must oppose accepting the company’s line of ‘competitiveness.’ Accepting ‘competitiveness’ means accepting a race to lower wages and rewarding the company that extracts the most profit at the expense of their work force, and undercutting the highest wage scales and standards in that industry.

Capitalists make their profits by exploiting workers. They take part of the value that their workers’ labor produces as profit for themselves. The interests of the capitalists will always conflict with those of their workers because every penny they squeeze out of us, means one more in their pocket. Any union that pledges themselves to cooperation, by definition, must betray those they claim to represent. In such a tight vote, there seems little doubt that Bob King’s class collaborationist snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Just look at the current UAW’s record, and compare it to the UAW of old which implemented a “fight the bosses” strategy to win substantial improvements in the lives of unionized autoworkers. A study of the UAW’s history over the past 60 years makes clear that cooperation means the erosion and long-term destruction of unions. For more on this, read Michael D. Yate’s Monthly Review article “Who Will Lead the U.S. Working Class.”

Fight the boss, fight for class struggle unionism

What type of unionism should we propose in the place of this ‘cooperate with management’ unionism? One which embraces industry wide organizing. This means fighting for industry standards like national master agreements and pattern bargaining agreements to take wages out of competition. To counteract ‘undercutting’ and ‘competition’ we must push for unified standards, contracts and compensation.

From a strategic stand point, we need a unionism which recognizes that the bosses, the corporations and the 1% billionaires who own them are the enemies of the workers. We need a unionism that understands that the rank-and-file workers are the union. The workers themselves should run their unions, not a bunch of career bureaucrats with $100,000 salaries.

We need a unionism willing to revive the strike weapon. Historically, production-stopping strikes played a key role in the CIO organizing millions of workers and winning real wage and benefit increases from the 1930s through the 1950s. The strike and other militant production-stopping tactics awaken workers to their collective power and demonstrate in practice that they possess the real power in the workplace.

To implement these strategies seriously, we need a unionism willing to spend real money on industry-wide organizing campaigns and conducting real strikes instead of donating millions to sellout 1% politicians from both parties.

We must embrace militant, class struggle unionism. We must look to the militant movement embodied by the Chicago Teachers strike and by the spirit of the “Vote No” movement at UPS. This is the unionism of the UAW of the 1930s, led by militants, socialists and communists who conducted the Flint sit-down strikes, where the rank and file led the union and put forward militant demands even by today’s standards. The old UAW implemented tactics that defied the law, and that kept scabs from walking through the factory gates when the bosses and their crony politicians sent in thugs, police and the National Guard in to break the strike.

The ultimate lesson from Tennessee is that the working class cannot expect our generals to lead us to victory in battle, when their tactics and strategies involve shaking hands with those who would gun us down.

If we want to change the fortune of the labor movement, we must organize and unite the militant fighters in our work places and unions to put them on a fighting basis against the bosses. We must form a left wing in the labor movement that is willing to win local unions, labor councils, state federations, and international unions, over to the side of militant tactics and strategies.