Teamsters President Sean O’Brien can’t shake his non-endorsement stunt. The mainstream media is now referring to him as the “Trump Whisperer,” yet we still think that ”Wielder of Illusory Strikes” is a catchier nickname.
O’Brien is also currently embroiled in fallout at UPS after a union-claimed contract “win” in 2023. That collective bargaining stint substantially raised labor costs, which forced UPS to cut corporate jobs, lean into automation, and shutter entire warehouse shifts. And as we have seen, unions can only shrug their shoulders when layoffs happen.
Unfortunately for UPS, the Teamsters’ continuing antagonism illustrates the complications that arise after unions dig their claws into a workplace. Sure, the 2023 contract averted “the costliest strike in at least a century,” but UPS is not immune to financial headwinds, and amid pressure from a union that represents 330,000+ UPS workers, here’s why more job cuts are coming:
- The projected effects of incoming tariffs;
- A 50% reduction in Amazon volume, which Amazon acknowledged is the result of a UPS request;
- An overall restructuring to future-proof UPS.
Buyout facts: UPS is being transparent about offering voluntary packages to full-time drivers while cutting 20,000 jobs and closing 70+ facilities.
The company published a statement about their U.S. Driver Voluntary Program as part of “the largest network reconfiguration in UPS history.” For full-time drivers, the company is offering “a generous financial package if they choose to leave.” Additionally, UPS pledged “to remain committed to the agreements we reached in 2023, as part of our contract negotiations.”
The Teamsters reaction: Predictably, O’Brien is steamed and insists that the company “is contractually obligated to create 30,000 Teamsters jobs.” He threatened that the loss of union jobs will prompt “a hell of a fight.” O’Brien also called the buyout plan “illegal” and a move that “will directly violate the union’s national contract.”
Is the buyout plan really a contract violation? The master contract’s relevant language in Article 22 Section 3 is as follows:
The parties agree that providing part-time employees the opportunity to become full-time employees is a priority of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Employer commits that during the life of this Agreement, it will offer part-time employees the opportunity to fill at least twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) permanent full-time job openings throughout its operations covered by this Agreement.
So, 22,500 job openings must be “fill[ed],” not “create[d].” The following paragraphs then refer to “creating at least seventy-five hundred (7500) new full-time jobs from existing part-time jobs during the last three years of this Agreement,” with the company having until 2028 to do so.
Sure, 22,500 + 7,500 = 30,000. However, O’Brien’s spin doesn’t fit the plain language of the agreement.
Meanwhile on social media, a Reddit user claiming to be a UPS worker has inquired, “If volume is low how can they just magically create jobs?” That’s a solid point, and it’s no wonder that a progressive publication is asking “whether all the sound and fury produces anything” from O’Brien.
The answer to that question? A resounding “no.”
