TransportFool

From chron.com:

WASHINGTON — Months after the government bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, some lawmakers are questioning tough contract demands by the two auto companies that union officials argue could lead to the replacement of hundreds of union carhaulers with nonunion drivers.

Michigan lawmakers have raised the issue with GM CEO Fritz Henderson and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne in letters during the past week, concerned that the automakers could reduce business with auto transport companies whose drivers are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

“We demand an explanation of your position,” wrote Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., in letters to Henderson and Marchionne. “We do not support your plans to abandon your long-term carrier partners.”

Union officials said GM and Chrysler have sought cost savings of at least 25 percent from Allied Systems Holdings Inc. of Atlanta, and Cassens Transport Co. of Edwardsville, Ill., who deliver assembled vehicles to car dealers in the U.S. and Canada.

The Teamsters represent about 4,800 workers who deliver new cars and trucks to auto dealers. More than 2,000 employees work for Allied, Cassens and Jack Cooper Transport Co. in Kansas City, Mo.

Chrysler Group LLC’s contracts with Allied and Cassens expired Sept. 30 and the company has shifted some work to nonunion contractors, affecting 129 union drivers, including 50 in Detroit, said Fred Zuckerman, director of the Teamsters’ automobile transport division.

According to a one-page summary titled “Chrysler Vehicle Distribution Changes,” the company said some of the changes occurred because a new facility built in Toledo, Ohio, allowed the automaker to mix vehicles in one location for distribution.

Chrysler said in the document that Allied and Cassens failed to address uncompetitive cost structures and beginning Oct. 1 the auto company would re-source 28 percent of its haulaway carrier business “to improve transit time and reduce costs by $31 million over three years.” Chrysler said in the document that Allied and Cassens would reduce 77 Teamster jobs in Michigan.

Zuckerman called it an attempt by Chrysler to undermine union drivers. “We don’t believe for a minute that it had anything to do with cost,” he said.

In addition to the 50 jobs in Detroit, Zuckerman said the Chrysler moves led to union job losses in Winston-Salem, N.C., Warren, Mich., Richfield, N.J., Buffalo, N.Y., Miami, Jessup, Md., and Shelbyville, Ky.

Teamster officials are also watching upcoming talks between General Motors Co. and Allied, whose contract with the automaker expires Feb. 1, 2010. About 400 union drivers deliver GM vehicles for the transport company.

Allied filed for bankruptcy in 2005 and imposed a 17.5 percent wage cut on its workers in 2007 and 2008, Zuckerman said. He said GM has sought cost reductions of 26 percent, cuts he said would be unsustainable.

A GM spokeswoman declined comment. Messages left with Allied and Cassens officials weren’t immediately returned.

The union job losses have caught the attention of several Michigan lawmakers, who sought government loans for GM and Chrysler and pushed for a $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program to revitalize auto sales.

“I urge you to not discriminate against the unionized labor work force,” wrote Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich. “Although cutting costs is a necessary measure, I expect that you will not base your decision exclusively on which operators pay their employees the lowest wage rate.”

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., wrote the “intent of the government’s support for GM and Chrysler and the ‘cash for clunkers’ program was to keep the automobile industry viable and not to force companies in the supply chain like the car haul industry into bankruptcy.”

In a letter to Congressman Peters, Mike Keegan, Chrysler’s senior vice president of supply chain management, wrote that the company explained to Allied and Cassens its inability to continue subsidizing their uncompetitive business models, particularly in light of the automaker’s recent bankruptcy action and the concessions made by the UAW, CAW and dealers.

Keegan wrote that Chrysler’s business relationship with Allied and Cassens will continue in segments and regions where they are more competitive. Of the 77 Teamster jobs that will be lost in Michigan, he said 20 of these positions will be filled by Teamsters in Toledo, Ohio.

You can see more pictures and read the play by play of the entire cleanup by the tow companies involved at TOW411.

This information is off of the Times-Herald of Forrest City, Arkansas article by Alan Smith:

The driver, George Burns of Sandy, Tenn., was not reported injured. Burns works for Allied Systems in Memphis and had eight vehicles on the hauler’s trailer at the time of the blaze.

Shane Dallas, SFC Emergency Management Coordinator, was at the scene and spoke to Burns about what happened.

“The driver stated that he had a blow out and pulled over to get out of traffic,” said Dallas. “He got out of the cab and saw that the rubber on the tire was on fire. He tried to put it out himself with a fire extinguisher. After he figured out that he couldn’t put it out by himself, he tried to remove the trailer so the vehicles he was hauling would not get caught in the fire.”

Dallas stated that Burns told him that he heard a loud pop caused by the fire, so he got away from the hauler. “Seven out of eight of the vehicles he was hauling were heavily damaged in the fire,” Dallas said.

UPDATE from a co-worker of the driver that posted on carhauler.com

I’ll try to get this straight, the driver was given the truck as a spare, the truck had been written up before for brake problems in the recent past, I think just the day before. Anyway, the driver had to make a split pickup at our Ford yard in Memphis, then go across the Ms. river to our GM yard in Ar. About a distance of 25 miles. When he pulled into the GM yard the RR brake on the tractor was smoking so bad drivers said you couldn’t see the tractor. He called back to the shop and they sent an outside jobber to the yard to disable the brake and they claim they told him to bring the truck back to the terminal, 25 miles back to Memphis. The jobber is giving the company a written statement that he told the driver to take the truck back to the termimal. While the jobber worked on the brake , the driver finished loading the truck. The driver claims the jobber told him it was ok to run the load before he took it to the terminal, this was not a city load, it was a road load to Pine Bluff, Ar. The driver did not what to go back to Memphis and switch the load over to another truck. So he took off westbound instead of eastbound towards Memphis. He got about 25 miles and said he saw the tire coming apart, he stopped and it was on fire , he tried the fire extingusher but it just flamed back up. He didn’t know exactly how to release the 5th wheel , but finally got the pin released and got back in the cab just in time for the rear window to blow out. Then a passerby told him he needed to get out of there, he grabbed is clothes bag and got out. Looking back he should not have driven the truck at all after the brake was disabled. It should have been put out of service right then and there. The company or it’s agent (the jobber) should not have told him it was ok to drive either to the terminal or to finish the load, what ever the truth is he would probably not have made it back to the terminal and would have burned up in downtown Memphis. The company used Art. 40 section 6b, because it calls for subject to discharge on the first offense. Flagrant disobeying of orders only calls for a reprimand on the first offense. At this point the driver is out of work , not able to get unemployment because he was fired, and is applying for welfare. wdnj

I didn’t get banned for a raging post, or even for a post at all for that matter. I got banned because I don’t have a union card in my wallet! Here is the notice I got:

vBulletin Message

We can talk all day about whether the Allied Auto Transport drivers did right to accept a pay cut to attempt to save their jobs. There has been a lot of discussion along the same lines about the union rejecting Performance Auto Transports attempt to force a similar pay cut through the bankruptcy court. The facts are that Allied is still hauling cars and paying their drivers the lower wage and PTS is closed.

Is my sense of fair messed up when I think it is UNFAIR for a driver with seniority that lost his job because he voted to strike rather than accept a pay cut to take a position at Allied, that results in either less work or possibly no work at all for a guy that has been driving for a year at Allied under the wage concessions!

This post on The car hauler is what set me thinking about this:

1. Active Car Hauler says:
   June 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm – EditIf PTS workers came to work and the doors were locked I wouldnt have any arguement for their seniority rights, but this is not the case.. Allied drivers understood what would have happened if they didnt except the pay reductions, they did and their still working..PTS drivers rolled the dice and lost…now me and 40 other drivers some of who transferred cause our work was given up by the our company now face losing our jobs cause PTS drivers struck their company out of business…PTS drivers opened a can of worms…Ur former owner is still in,changing ur PTS logo to Allied as we speak, Uniited road is hauling PTS freight ,some of ur drivers who are being absorbed are looking at pay cuts. So who benefits from the strike and closure..the most senior men..and the question is asked why united road and others are taking our freight? maybe because the junior guys the future of the teamsters are dissatisfied and fed up with constantly being stepped on. But realize this, PTS went out of business while u guys struck..at that point You had no work 2 claim your own, you gave up that right ,just as u gave up the right 2 claim severence, vacation, and unemployement . The union has scrabled to force u guys down our throat but were not going 2 stand by and get stepped on cause u guys lost.. In my barn my shop steward went out on comp the day before u guys struck, that was the first sign., he wont return any active drivers call, and he has said he will not take any greveinces….see a pattern here? The teamsters is a democracy not a autonomy….Cassens and Allied have sent u 2 the bottom of their list……why isnt Active doing the same?

Here is another quote from Teamsters for a Democratic Union:

June 17, 2008: In the wake of PTS’s closure, carhaul employers are trying to violate the national contract and deny the right of PTS Teamsters to follow their work.

This attack on our contract, our solidarity, and on Teamsters who struck when they were called out by the International Union cannot be tolerated. All these Teamsters ask is that Article 5 of the contract be honored by Jack Cooper, Allied, Cassens and Active Transportation.

At the national grievance hearing today, the employers refused to abide by the contract, and deadlocked initial cases, including Kentucky Local 651 vs. Cassens, and Dallas Local 745 vs. Jack Cooper. Those hearings will continue tomorrow, but the initial cases show that a stronger stand will be needed to protect our jobs and seniority rights.

They have battles on two fronts now with the non-union haulers and the union haulers. If they choose to battle the shippers they will have 3 plates spinning at once. Question is can they be effective on 3 fronts at once?

Here is a copy of one of the emails Jeff Cornish has received and posted on the PTS site:

To Mr. Cornish,
I want to thank you for trying to save your company. I have only worked for Leaseway Canada/PTS for a while, but this company was the best company I have ever worked for. Thank you for the opportunity to work for you. On behalf of all the Canadian drivers, we are sorry the US Teamster’s had their own agenda. For some reason, I see this as the beginning of the end for union car haul.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a tread going on this subject on the union site that has 37 comments as of 7-1-08!