Open letter to Teamsters General President O'Brien: We demand answers on layoffs

[OT+]

[DanaCos]

• How long has the Teamsters General Executive Board and the negotiating team known about this? How much did you know during the negotiations themselves? And why did you not warn rank-and-file workers, and even continue to ignore it?

?

This is a quote from June of 2017 when he was working for Hoffa as the chief negotiator of the UPS contract. They knew when they were executives in that administration. All of these ex-Hoffa Suckers knew all along.

[Nickjamesups]

[Faust]

The bottom line is for O'Brien, Zuckerman, TDU and all other cheerleading kiss-asses to acknowledge they got their asses handed by Carol Tome and the Big Brown machine.

O'Brien ran away from very good questions.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

He even lied while running away!

[Thisischange?]

That's right, he has to buclkle his chin strap to keep his short ass from tripping on it while exiting the scene of the crime.

[Tony R Cochran]

The UPS Rank-and-File committee has issued this open letter

• The demand for transparency regarding the planned closures of over 200 facilities and the timeline for these closures.
• The urgent need to clarify the number of jobs that will be affected by these closures and the extent to which automation will be implemented.
• The assertion that the Teamsters leadership is complicit in allowing UPS to carry out these deep cuts, despite claiming victory in recent contract negotiations.
• The call for the public release of all relevant documents and transcripts related to the layoffs and contract negotiations.
• The recognition that workers have the right to take action to protect their jobs and livelihoods, even if not sanctioned by the union leadership.

[Tony R Cochran]

This is a quote from June of 2017 when he was working for Hoffa as the chief negotiator of the UPS contract. They knew when they were executives in that administration. All of these ex-Hoffa Suckers knew all along.

Quite so, Dana. In 2017 the IBT did an automation assessment. It mostly examines self-driving vehicles and the various impacts on different sectors represented by the IBT. It even addresses the current (2017) ways of dealing with automation in collective bargaining agreements,

The manner in which Teamster collective bargaining agreements address technological change in the
transportation industry and empower local unions to bargain over changes varies widely, from
boilerplate management rights clauses that give the union little power to bargain over the introduction
of new technology; to language protecting employees from scrutiny and discipline; to detailed
automation transition plans and the establishment of labor-management committees.
In the immediate term, as the implications of the introduction of new technology or automation
technology become more profound, this review of existing Teamster contracts illustrates how the topic
has been dealt with recently in bargaining, and identifies best practices regarding how to address
technology and automation for local unions bargaining in the transportation sector.?

It cites the outdated language, which I will cite in full,

any significant change in equipment or materials which
results in a significant change in the work of the bargaining unit or diminishes the number of workers in
the bargaining unit. 2. The Employer and the Union agree to establish a National Teamster/UPS
Committee for Technological Change, consisting of an equal number of representatives from the Union
and UPS. The Committee shall meet in conjunction with the National Grievance Panel as necessary to
review any planned technological changes covered by this Section. 3. The Employer will advise the
affected Local Unions and the National Teamster/UPS Committee for Technological Change of any
proposed technological changes at least six (6) months prior to the implementation of such change except
where the change was later determined in which case the Employer shall provide as much notice as
possible 4. The Employer shall be required to provide the National Teamster/UPS Committee for
Technological Change, any relevant information to the extent available regarding the technological
changes. 5. The Employer will meet with the Local Union, or, if requested, the National Teamster/UPS
Committee for Technological Change, promptly after notification to negotiate regarding the effects of the
proposed technological changes. If a technological change creates new work that replaces, enhances or
modifies bargaining unit work, bargaining unit employees will perform that new or modified work. The
Employer shall provide bargaining unit employees with training required to utilize the new technology, if
necessary?."

The problem with this language is that diverting volume to new, fully automated hubs not a significant change in equipment or materials of any of the existing infrastructure. Therefore, UPS under it's "management rights" can create a "change of operations" that simply "collapses" conventional hubs (or shifts in those hubs) and simply give a 45 day notice. If they chose to automate something that is currently in a conventional hub, then they would theoretically have to go through the 6-month process. However, given that most hubs have some degree of automation, it is hard argument to make that a bit automation - or, again, simply closing entire shifts - is a "significant change in equipment or materials."

[Tony R Cochran]

https://teamster.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1924UPSNATIONALMASTERFINAL.pdf

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[Tony R Cochran]

But the updated language is even worse,

"1. Technological change shall be defined as any meaningful change in equipment or materials which results in a meaningful change in the work, wages, hours, or working conditions of any classification of employees in the bargaining unit or diminishes the number of workers in any classification of employees in the bargaining unit. During the term of this Agreement such changes shall not include the use of drones or driverless vehicles to transport, deliver or pick up packages, platooning or shifting

[Tony R Cochran]

Some problems of note,

1. Exclusion of Specific Technologies: The language explicitly excludes certain technologies from the definition of technological change, it falls short of protecting workers from the broader impacts of automation and technological advancements. By allowing for a process where the employer can unilaterally implement excluded technologies with no union input, the language fails to safeguard workers against job displacement and worsening working conditions.
2. Establishment of Committee and Meeting Frequency: The creation of a committee with equal representation is a step in the right direction, but the infrequent meeting schedule is inadequate for addressing the rapid pace of technological change. Workers need continuous and proactive engagement to confront the challenges posed by automation and technological advancements. Anything less is a disservice to workers who face the immediate threats of job loss and exploitation.
3. Notice and Resolution Process: The notification process outlined in the language is insufficient in ensuring meaningful participation and negotiation by the union. Allowing the employer to proceed with implementation in emergency situations without adequate union input is unacceptable. Workers' livelihoods are at stake, and they deserve the right to fully deliberate and negotiate the terms of technological changes that affect their jobs and working conditions.
4. New Work and Training Provision: While the provision mandates that workers perform new or modified work resulting from technological changes, it fails to guarantee comprehensive training and support. By giving the employer discretion over determining the necessity of training, the language leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation and inadequate preparation for evolving job roles.

?

This language fails to address the construction of new automated facilities that fall outside the scope of the current agreement in several critical ways:

1. Limited Definition of Technological Change: The definition of technological change provided in the agreement focuses on changes in equipment or materials within existing facilities. It does not explicitly cover the construction of entirely new automated facilities. As a result, the union may have little to no leverage or input regarding the implementation of automation in new facilities, leaving workers vulnerable to job displacement and worsening working conditions.
2. Notification and Negotiation Process: The notification process outlined in the agreement only applies to proposed technological changes within existing facilities. There are no provisions requiring the employer to notify or negotiate with the union regarding the construction of new automated facilities. This omission effectively sidelines the union from discussions about the broader implications of automation on job security and working conditions for workers in the industry.
3. Committee Oversight: While the agreement establishes a committee to review technological changes, its mandate is limited to changes within existing facilities. The committee does not have jurisdiction over decisions related to the construction of new facilities. Therefore, even if the union raises concerns about the construction of new automated facilities, the committee may not have the authority to address them, further marginalizing workers' voices in the decision-making process.
4. Training and Job Placement: In the event that new automated facilities are built, the agreement does not provide clear provisions for training and job placement for affected workers. Without adequate training and support, workers may struggle to transition to new roles or find alternative employment opportunities, exacerbating the negative impact of automation on their livelihoods.

In summary, this agreement fails to address the construction of new automated facilities, leaving workers vulnerable to the disruptive effects of automation without adequate protections or avenues for negotiation.
?
The language of the agreement does not explicitly define what constitutes "new technology" or "technological change." As a result, the determination of whether modifications or upgrades qualify as new technology would likely depend on the interpretation of the language by the parties involved and, potentially, a labor arbitrator.

In the absence of explicit language addressing modifications or upgrades, several factors could influence whether they are considered new technology:

1. Scope of the Agreement: If the agreement defines technological change as any significant change in equipment or materials resulting in a change in work or diminishing the workforce, modifications or upgrades that do not meet this criteria may not be considered new technology. For example, routine maintenance or minor enhancements may not qualify as significant changes under the agreement.
2. Comparison to Existing Technology: If the modifications or upgrades replicate technology already in use in other facilities covered by the agreement, they may not be considered new technology. The arbitrator may consider whether the modifications are standard industry practices or simply bring the facility up to par with existing technology in similar facilities.
3. Impact on Work and Workforce: The arbitrator may assess whether the modifications or upgrades result in a significant change in work processes, job duties, or the size of the bargaining unit. If the modifications have minimal impact on these factors, they may not be deemed new technology under the agreement.

And even if some of this did go to a labor arbitrator; they would likely find in favor of the employer given the language of the agreement for several reasons:

1. Contractual Ambiguity: The language of the agreement regarding technological changes is ambiguous and open to interpretation. This ambiguity leaves room for the employer to argue that the construction of new automated facilities does not fall within the scope of the agreement. Without explicit language addressing the construction of new facilities, the arbitrator may be inclined to interpret the agreement narrowly, limiting its applicability to changes within existing facilities.
2. Limited Oversight by Committee: The agreement establishes a committee to review technological changes but does not explicitly grant the committee authority over decisions regarding the construction of new facilities. Since the committee's mandate is restricted to changes within existing facilities, the arbitrator may conclude that the union's concerns about the construction of new automated facilities fall outside the committee's purview. As a result, the union may have limited recourse to address these concerns through the grievance process.
3. Notification and Negotiation Process: The agreement's notification process applies only to proposed technological changes within existing facilities. Since the construction of new facilities is not explicitly covered, the employer may argue that it is not obligated to notify or negotiate with the union regarding these changes. Without specific provisions addressing the construction of new facilities, the arbitrator may be inclined to side with the employer on this issue.
4. Management Rights: The language of the agreement may implicitly affirm the employer's management rights, including the right to make decisions regarding the construction of new facilities. Labor arbitrators often give deference to management rights unless explicitly restricted by the collective bargaining agreement. Since the agreement does not explicitly restrict the employer's authority in this regard, the arbitrator may uphold the employer's decision to construct new automated facilities as a legitimate exercise of management rights.

????

[TheMilitantTeamster]

So they actually specifically allow drone deliveries???????????? wtf lying saved us real good from robots!

[Tony R Cochran]

TL;DR: The agreement's ambiguous language on "new technology" favors the employer by allowing them to classify routine upgrades as exempt from negotiation, giving them unilateral control over technological changes without meaningful input from the union. This ambiguity empowers the employer to implement changes without accountability, undermining workers' rights and job security.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Wonder if Lyin will respond now that you emailed him lol lol

[Tony R Cochran]

We shall see.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

[DanaCos]

Pretty reasonable questions.

Open Letter Sean O'Brein Questions.jpg

[teamsterdriver25]

Did you contact your Agent first ?

[DanaCos]

Truth Dominoes.jpg