TransportFool

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!

I read an article the other day on the madison record about a transport driver suing Cottrell because he hurt his back using the manual skids on the Cottrell trailer he was pulling. The more I thought about it the more absurd it seemed to me. It seems to me if I have these questions you can bet the defense attorneys will have them and more. For these to make sense, you may need to read the article first.

If the ramps were bent or deformed why were they not replaced or at least repaired?

Had the driver written up the needed replacement of the ramps but been overridden by the maintenance dept?

If Jack Cooper Transport bought trucks with manual ramps because of the cost savings didn’t they then accept the risk of back injury that naturally comes with the manual ramps?

If road grime was jamming the tracks was the truck washing methods or intervals changed to try for the obvious fix before declaring that the product was defective?

update;

I found a post steve did on Carhauler news a while back that basically has the same take on the same article.