Teamsters has released a press release announcing their alliance with Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS) to jointly go after non-union carriers. It appears to be an effort to regain some of the credibility they lost when the “Damaged When Delivered” report was released. The press release continues the Teamsters pattern of inflammatory statements like; “Both groups have concerns about the quality of service being performed by automobile transport companies Fiat/Chrysler has started using, after moving the work away from experienced, professional carriers.”. Since the press release shows no signs of any real influence by the new watchdog group we will have to wait to see if they can really make the necessary changes in this campaign. If CARS can make this a crusade against unsafe and dangerous practices by any car hauler rather than an all out attack on any carrier that has not unionized they will have done the public a great favor. As long as the Teamsters are leading the fight I believe it will stay focused on non-union carriers regardless of how experienced or well trained their operators are

Are the teamsters taking the right approach?

Another blogger’s view “Teamsters try a new angle”

Update 12-8-09: Mr Fred Zuckerman took the time to go over the report with me and address my questions. I miss understood the issue with truck in the picture above. It isn’t a safety/damage issue but rather the manufacturer that this truck is loading for has some specific requirements that prohibit bottomless drop pockets. I would agree with him that if the customer wants it done a certain way then that is the way it should be done. Since that seems to be a whole different set of  issues then I think that picture needs more explanation under it. especially since the rest of the report deals with Damage and safety issues.

Basically the point he is trying to make is that if the manufacturers use the lowest bid model then the rate will be lower than what  is possible to do a safe quality job at.  He states that the typical union driver has had several weeks of training and that often non-union drivers have inadequate training and sometimes they have had no training.

If you have an opposing view point you are welcome to leave a comment but lets keep them professional.

Update 12-8-09: Another update, I spoke with Tom from Accelerated services and he looked up The load that truck 107 did out of Ohio and it appears that the vehicle pictured above is a 2005 Equinox that was a smart auction car that was successfully delivered to it’s destination with no damage.

If you are featured in this report you are welcome to leave your response to the allegations in the comments section.

This is off of PR Newswire:

“Fiat management is seeking to transform the auto transport industry from one that provides stable jobs that support drivers and their families into a cut-throat, low-cost, low-quality segment of its supply chain,” Hoffa wrote. “In the United States, Fiat/Chrysler has recently embarked on an effort that transforms how automobiles are delivered to dealer showrooms. The results are disturbing from the perspective of both business and consumers.”

“Not only is Fiat/Chrysler attempting to destroy thousands of good jobs in the carhaul industry, but they are contracting to brokers that hire improperly trained workers. These inexperienced drivers are securing new vehicles in such a manner that the automobiles are at risk of being damaged while being transported to the dealerships,” said Fred Zuckerman, Director of the Teamsters Automobile Transporters Industry Division. “The consumer is not only getting a product that is not in the same condition it was when it came of the line, but may in fact be at risk of injury due to the damage inflicted on these automobiles by inexperienced carhaul drivers.”

Having been a non-union transport driver for an entire career I have certainly seen drivers damage vehicles while moving them but I certainly don’t think the scope of the problem is as big as Hoffa implies. I also know first hand that the union carriers are not immune form this problem either!

This is off of Rueters:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- International Brotherhood of
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today commended the Obama administration
for its efforts to reopen the GM plant in Wilmington, Del. Hoffa also urged
the White House and Fisker Automotive to ensure that these are good jobs, with
the wages, benefits and retirement security the workers deserve.

"Thousands of workers and their families were devastated when GM closed this
facility in August," Hoffa said. "The decision by Fisker Automotive to retool
the plant and build electric vehicles is an important step in rebuilding our
economy. By rehiring laid-off workers, the White House and the company are
showing a commitment to reinvesting in our national infrastructure. It is
important that they do so in a way that is good for workers and good for the
community."

In addition to workers who build the cars, thousands of hardworking men and
women who are indirectly involved with production of the plant also lost their
jobs, including more than 20 Teamster carhaulers.

“We believe the automotive OEMs are trying to run the unionized car haulers out of business,” Fred Zuckerman, the Teamster’s car haul division director.

I think their experience with Performance has them realizing they need to keep all the union companies they can!

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.

Was this contract that much better than the first one they turned down? Well, it was substantially better in some key areas but I think it has more to do with the auto transport industry feeling the impact of the economic trouble the big three auto makers are in. Another factor is the successful efforts by non-union auto transporters to land contracts. Another round of strikes would have really swung the door open for the non-union carriers who got their foot in the door during the PTS strike. Here is what one teamster had to say:

KarHauLer wrote:

NON-union is taking our jobs…
United Road has moved into Ontario and has hired driver for a mere $700.00 per week thru a driver service… Hauling Toyotas
What next?

• November 18th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  The Chap Man Says:

  Sometimes it takes losing a great job like the PTS employees did to realize how good they had it. It is a true shame that PTS closed and opened the door for the Non-Union carriers.

  Now that the door is open expect it to be kicked down…

  Here is the kicker to the situation, the same Union drivers that held their ground with PTS are now working for those non union carriers and doing the job that they should have done in the first place before their company closed. The reality is that there are not a lot of Union Jobs out there because the companies that do business with the Union can not afford to stay open.

  The sad part of the situation is that the owner of the company is not affected on a personal level; unlike the union employees who ultimately lose there job and now have a history that most employers do not want to touch.

  It is a sad but true statement, but if the union employee did what is described in the contract as “fair days work for a fair day’s wage” then companies like PMT, Allied, and the fallen PTS would be strong and competitive in today’s market.