Shop steward Quit

[PiedmontSteward]

One thing I did learn from the TDU site was that two people in our local are making more than $150K annually. That's a lot of coin for what little I see changing for the better in our hub.

Admittedly, we are one of the worst unions in the country when it comes to top-loaded salaries. I don't necessarily have a problem with a local president pulling in $90k-100k/year, but the guys in the $150k+/year club are doing so with multiple salaries as local officials and then as an international VP (which, again, I don't have a problem with per se) while also being the head of a joint council and/or Conference or as an international trade rep. That being said, with the workload of being a business agent (especially in a large hub and/or in an area with multiple facilities) it's not very likely they would be one of the officials with a second job as going to/from IBT HQ in DC would absolutely hamper representation.

Sure, these guys are working around the clock usually 6-7 days a week, nearly 365 days a year and deserve to be compensated fairly for it but it's pretty easy to lose perspective when you're in the same tax bracket as the guy across the table from you rather than the member you're representing. I disagree with TDU on a great many things ranging from strategy, tactics, and rhetoric.. but they are -- unfortunately -- on the money here. I personally don't think local union officials should ever make more than the highest paid worker they represent plus a certain percentage not to exceed 10%.

The fact that many local union officers and staff members are in the Central States pension fund doesn't help either. I'm not crying poverty for local union reps, but the IBT officials are in a different and more generous pension fund that will actually exist when they retire while many local business agents and secretaries won't see much from CS when they retire.

 

[RealPerson]

Admittedly, we are one of the worst unions in the country when it comes to top-loaded salaries. I don't necessarily have a problem with a local president pulling in $90k-100k/year, but the guys in the $150k+/year club are doing so with multiple salaries as local officials and then as an international VP (which, again, I don't have a problem with per se) while also being the head of a joint council and/or Conference or as an international trade rep. That being said, with the workload of being a business agent (especially in a large hub and/or in an area with multiple facilities) it's not very likely they would be one of the officials with a second job as going to/from IBT HQ in DC would absolutely hamper representation.

Sure, these guys are working around the clock usually 6-7 days a week, nearly 365 days a year and deserve to be compensated fairly for it but it's pretty easy to lose perspective when you're in the same tax bracket as the guy across the table from you rather than the member you're representing. I disagree with TDU on a great many things ranging from strategy, tactics, and rhetoric.. but they are -- unfortunately -- on the money here. I personally don't think local union officials should ever make more than the highest paid worker they represent plus a certain percentage not to exceed 10%.

The fact that many local union officers and staff members are in the Central States pension fund doesn't help either. I'm not crying poverty for local union reps, but the IBT officials are in a different and more generous pension fund that will actually exist when they retire while many local business agents and secretaries won't see much from CS when they retire.

I think a lot of people would not complain as much about the 90-100K a year if they seen a little more of the BA's or presidents. If they seemed to fight a little harder for you, and or had CLEAR answers, not just telling people what they want to hear.

If the BA is Overworked with many other Unions they represent as well, guess it is time to take a pay cut and hire an assistant....

 

[PiedmontSteward]

I think a lot of people would not complain as much about the 90-100K a year if they seen a little more of the BA's or presidents. If they seemed to fight a little harder for you, and or had CLEAR answers, not just telling people what they want to hear.

If the BA is Overworked with many other Unions they represent as well, guess it is time to take a pay cut and hire an assistant....

I agree with you, up until a point. Many members expect and demand their BA to be in the building every day enforcing the contract when this really isn't feasible. Whenever my BA is seen walking into the hub, any supervisor with a radio that spots him warns the rest of the building and then the sort manager will typically "shadow" him until he leaves. If he comes into the building to speak with members and/or to handle a handful of things with an individual sort manager, a lot of times he'll get swamped with issues that have been/already are being addressed by a steward and the member is simply "steward shopping" on a higher level.

A lot of these issues aren't necessarily urgent and can be brought up at the monthly membership meeting, which most members don't attend.. Additionally, a lot of members will complain to the BA and even the stewards about supervisors working when they aren't willing to file grievances on the issue. It's hard to get some members to understand that they are the ones responsible for enforcing the contract and while the union will back them up every step of the way, we won't be holding their hand either.

It's absolutely necessary that the BA regularly be in the barns he represents and every union member should know who they are, but physically being in the hub every day simply isn't realistic. There are a ton of things that business agents do behind the scenes, ie. preparing cases and individual members for panel, preparing discharge/suspension cases at the local level, settling grievances on the center/local level, meeting with stewards, etc.

 

[RealPerson]

I agree with you, up until a point. Many members expect and demand their BA to be in the building every day enforcing the contract when this really isn't feasible. Whenever my BA is seen walking into the hub, any supervisor with a radio that spots him warns the rest of the building and then the sort manager will typically "shadow" him until he leaves. If he comes into the building to speak with members and/or to handle a handful of things with an individual sort manager, a lot of times he'll get swamped with issues that have been/already are being addressed by a steward and the member is simply "steward shopping" on a higher level.

A lot of these issues aren't necessarily urgent and can be brought up at the monthly membership meeting, which most members don't attend.. Additionally, a lot of members will complain to the BA and even the stewards about supervisors working when they aren't willing to file grievances on the issue. It's hard to get some members to understand that they are the ones responsible for enforcing the contract and while the union will back them up every step of the way, we won't be holding their hand either.

It's absolutely necessary that the BA regularly be in the barns he represents and every union member should know who they are, but physically being in the hub every day simply isn't realistic. There are a ton of things that business agents do behind the scenes, ie. preparing cases and individual members for panel, preparing discharge/suspension cases at the local level, settling grievances on the center/local level, meeting with stewards, etc.

I agree also, but Once a week on each shift? Ehh.. Just a show of force is what it takes. Back when I hired on 19 years ago, I seen my BA couple 3 times a week. When he would come in the building the supervisors would act like it was their moms catching them in the cookie jar, haha...

It is one thing for a couple people to complain but, when Many in your building, and many on these boards or FB pages..

I am not saying sting them up, just make it out for 10 minutes each shift once a week??? You know some people live an hour away and don't have time to drive to the hall, or work during the day and also have families so no time either...

You know yourself the power of the Union is going downhill, and even more with all these divided Locals, IBT, supplements and so on.

50-53% passage of the master and biggest supplements is a divided house...

Let me ask what the % was for the contract after the strike?? I bet it was high, but I honestly do not know..

 

[PT Car Washer]

If the Locals did as you suggest the company would complain to the International and that would put a stop to it.

 

[Inthegame]

Admittedly, we are one of the worst unions in the country when it comes to top-loaded salaries. I don't necessarily have a problem with a local president pulling in $90k-100k/year, but the guys in the $150k+/year club are doing so with multiple salaries as local officials and then as an international VP (which, again, I don't have a problem with per se) while also being the head of a joint council and/or Conference or as an international trade rep.

Those top loaded salaried officials produce contracts that make Teamsters the highest paid in the industry. TDU is smoke screening this issue, using scale to amplify a non-issue. Last year Hoffa's salary costs you and me less than .30 cents each, one time. Those "bloated" $150K salaries costs each member .12 cents one time.

I disagree with TDU on a great many things ranging from strategy, tactics, and rhetoric.. but they are -- unfortunately -- on the money here. I personally don't think local union officials should ever make more than the highest paid worker they represent plus a certain percentage not to exceed 10%.

TDU lists total compensation and doesn't bother to mention that column "friend" in the LM2 is reimbursements for expenses incurred, in other words money spent by the party for union functions that is returned to the party. That is not compensation to the party. (EG ...an agents buys food and pop for a meeting and gets paid back by the treasury) They also include column "E" which normally is an allowance for union business such as auto allowance. If a member uses their personal vehicle while working for UPS they get reimbursed. Would we then consider that reimbursement "compensation"? Of course not, they're reimbursed, they spent money and they're paid back. Huge difference neglected by the off the money TDU.

 

[Catatonic]

TDU lists total compensation and doesn't bother to mention that column "friend" in the LM2 is reimbursements for expenses incurred, in other words money spent by the party for union functions that is returned to the party. That is not compensation to the party. (EG ...an agents buys food and pop for a meeting and gets paid back by the treasury) They also include column "E" which normally is an allowance for union business such as auto allowance. If a member uses their personal vehicle while working for UPS they get reimbursed. Would we then consider that reimbursement "compensation"? Of course not, they're reimbursed, they spent money and they're paid back. Huge difference neglected by the off the money TDU.

​Surely you are not suggesting that TDU would mislead Teamsters!

 

[Inthegame]

​Surely you are not suggesting that TDU would mislead Teamsters!

Egads...the thought sends shivers down me spine, but you don't have to call me Surely.

 

[PiedmontSteward]

Those top loaded salaried officials produce contracts that make Teamsters the highest paid in the industry. TDU is smoke screening this issue, using scale to amplify a non-issue. Last year Hoffa's salary costs you and me less than .30 cents each, one time. Those "bloated" $150K salaries costs each member .12 cents one time.


TDU lists total compensation and doesn't bother to mention that column "friend" in the LM2 is reimbursements for expenses incurred, in other words money spent by the party for union functions that is returned to the party. That is not compensation to the party. (EG ...an agents buys food and pop for a meeting and gets paid back by the treasury) They also include column "E" which normally is an allowance for union business such as auto allowance. If a member uses their personal vehicle while working for UPS they get reimbursed. Would we then consider that reimbursement "compensation"? Of course not, they're reimbursed, they spent money and they're paid back. Huge difference neglected by the off the money TDU.

You are helping paint a more accurate picture (and really showing that you are In the Game) of how TDU is (mis)calculating the salary figures and their misrepresentation of information, but it's still difficult to defend some of these salaries at the upper/middle echelons when we've been bleeding members during the recession. For the sake of discussion, I went ahead and reviewed the LM-2's from the IBT and a lot of the trade reps that receive "double" salaries actually receive substantially less from IBT than I previously thought and are thus being fairly compensated for their time in this capacity. I also reviewed columns "E" and "friend" under my own local's LM-2's and realized our agents and officers make somewhat less than I previously thought.

Unfortunately, the multiple salaries and inclusion/exclusion in the IBT Family Pension Plan has been/will continue to be a political issue insofar as a local official supporting or not supporting the recent UPS contract, as I'm sure you know, and all this does is further muddy the waters. Additionally, I didn't/wouldn't use the word "bloated" because the implication there is that these officials aren't earning their compensation.

 

[Inthegame]

You are helping paint a more accurate picture (and really showing that you are In the Game) of how TDU is (mis)calculating the salary figures and their misrepresentation of information, but it's still difficult to defend some of these salaries at the upper/middle echelons when we've been bleeding members during the recession. For the sake of discussion, I went ahead and reviewed the LM-2's from the IBT and a lot of the trade reps that receive "double" salaries actually receive substantially less from IBT than I previously thought and are thus being fairly compensated for their time in this capacity. I also reviewed columns "E" and "friend" under my own local's LM-2's and realized our agents and officers make somewhat less than I previously thought.

Unfortunately, the multiple salaries and inclusion/exclusion in the IBT Family Pension Plan has been/will continue to be a political issue insofar as a local official supporting or not supporting the recent UPS contract, as I'm sure you know, and all this does is further muddy the waters. Additionally, I didn't/wouldn't use the word "bloated" because the implication there is that these officials aren't earning their compensation.

And I'm with you all the way on some of these salaries. None of our guys are even on the $120K list, even with "E" and "friend".
The affliates plan was suspended under Carey but past obligations still exist (ERISA). Most officials now receive a single pension as it always should have been.
We're singing from the same hymnal as some of these numbers are disturbing, especially the remarkable coincidence of family members receiving big numbers. Now that burns my bottom.
I'd prefer TDU concentrate on the abusers and not lump the earners into the same pot. Makes me wonder how Ken P can walk straight as he's so busy spinning.

 

[PiedmontSteward]

And I'm with you all the way on some of these salaries. None of our guys are even on the $120K list, even with "E" and "friend".
The affliates plan was suspended under Carey but past obligations still exist (ERISA). Most officials now receive a single pension as it always should have been.
We're singing from the same hymnal as some of these numbers are disturbing, especially the remarkable coincidence of family members receiving big numbers. Now that burns my bottom.
I'd prefer TDU concentrate on the abusers and not lump the earners into the same pot. Makes me wonder how Ken P can walk straight as he's so busy spinning.

Fortunately, if someone is dumb enough to elevate a kid that shares their last name to a union position without a shred of merit or experience, they're also dumb enough to do things that'll get them pulled in front of the IRB. And usually -- if they're that stupid -- they'll dig an even deeper hole by refusing to either cooperate or show up at their hearing and get banned for life.

 

[Inthegame]

Fortunately, if someone is dumb enough to elevate a kid that shares their last name to a union position without a shred of merit or experience, they're also dumb enough to do things that'll get them pulled in front of the IRB. And usually -- if they're that stupid -- they'll dig an even deeper hole by refusing to either cooperate or show up at their hearing and get banned for life.

That's as good a definition of L120's Brad Sr and Jr as I've heard.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

That's as good a definition of L120's Brad Sr and Jr as I've heard.

The definition of arrogance. Thats what happens, when you have a pony tail.

Kind of makes you wonder why Gegare retired so quick....



​-Bug-

 

[Inthegame]

The definition of arrogance. Thats what happens, when you have a pony tail.

Kind of makes you wonder why Gegare retired so quick....



​-Bug-

Wish he would've taken another Fred into retirement...