Proof that the Union could car less if it ruins a business

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jun 16, 2008 | 07:09 PM

mastrdrver

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2002

Posts: 1,817

From: O-Town

Proof that the Union could care less if it ruins a business

Autoblog.com

Quote:

The strike last week by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) against Performance Transportation Services (PTS) was the straw that broke the camel's back. The second largest car hauler in the United States was unable to survive the wage-related dispute, especially after filing for bankruptcy protection in 2006 and 2007. On Friday, PTS announced that it's stopping all operations and going out of business.

and the clincher:

Quote:

It seems the striking workers have also been accommodated as the Teamsters are reporting that the "vast majority" of their 1,250 drivers have found work at other unionized locations.

I know it isn't the UAW/CAW, but if they think in the same manner, I really worry about anyone who employs UAW/CAW workers.

Last edited by mastrdrver; Jun 16, 2008 at 09:19 PM.

Jun 16, 2008 | 08:53 PM

R377

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2000

Posts: 2,712

From: Ontario

Quote:

t seems the striking workers have also been accommodated as the Teamsters are reporting that the "vast majority" of their 1,250 drivers have found work at other unionized locations.

Seems like a lot of spin to me, with the union just saying this to try to save face. I find it hard to believe there were 1,250 unfilled vacancies for unionized drivers that gosh darn it the companies just couldn't find the people for until they got this lucky break and the PTS workers became available. And what company wouldn't jump at the chance to hire a bunch of workers that have been proven to put themselves so far ahead of the company that they'd rather see the company fail than to compromise?

Jun 16, 2008 | 11:03 PM

KyleW93z

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2005

Posts: 113

From: Ft Collins, Colorado

Ugh, makes me sick.

Jun 17, 2008 | 03:58 AM

guionM

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2001

Posts: 13,713

From: The Golden State

The whole thing sounds suspicios to me.

There is something big being left out in this example.... trust me.

Jun 17, 2008 | 09:05 AM

Dragoneye

Registered User

Joined: Aug 2007

Posts: 801

From: New York

Quote:

Originally Posted by guionM

The whole thing sounds suspicios to me.

There is something big being left out in this example.... trust me.

Jun 17, 2008 | 11:14 AM

GTOJack

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 976

From: SE MI

This could be a problem with the new Camaro. The CAW/UAW knows its GMs newest golden egg and will strike/slow down that plant every time it wants something.
PTS will shuffle some paperwork to make it look like it was sold off and hire nonunion workers under a new name.

Jun 17, 2008 | 12:28 PM

Clean97Z

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 198

From: Rogers, MN

Quote:

Originally Posted by R377

I find it hard to believe there were 1,250 unfilled vacancies for unionized drivers that gosh darn it the companies just couldn't find the people for until they got this lucky break and the PTS workers became available.

My buddy is a union driver for the teamsters, and it took him more than 6 months to find a new job after he was laid off last winter. He must have been looking in the wrong places..