Big Noise of UPS Strike May Not Have a Long-Lived Echo
A nationwide sigh of relief was almost audible as Americans learned that the familiar brown United Parcel Service trucks would be back on the road, delivering packages to consumers and businesses. The good news was announced Monday night after UPS and the Teamsters agreed to end the 15-day strike against the world’s largest package delivery service.
Who won? Labor characterized itself as victorious. The company said it got what it needed. For now, the Teamsters are feeling refreshed and emboldened, having staged a strike well calculated to appeal to a broad spectrum of workers and to shore up the union’s tarnished image. But it is premature to portray the settlement as a watershed event for the labor movement after years of declining membership and clout.
The unionized work force at UPS was by no means typical. For example, 100,000 of UPS’ 185,000 employees were working part-time, sorting and loading packages in intense periods of four or five hours. The company claims 80% of the ground delivery market, about as close to a monopoly as can exist in today’s business environment. UPS paid benefits to the part-time workers and had generally good relations with its employees; much of its top management had risen from the ranks.
Few unions could muster both the power and public relations savvy to carry off a successful strike against a large and familiar company like UPS. The last time a strike drew large-scale national attention was the air traffic controllers’ disastrous standoff in 1981 with President Ronald Reagan. The failed strike of the United Auto Workers two years ago at Caterpillar Inc. was a major setback for labor.
The Teamsters characterized the plight of their part-time workers as an issue for public debate on job security. That resonated among American workers who have lived through the unnerving effects of downsizing and outsourcing. But there’s no evidence that the UPS strike settled those job security issues: Under the settlement, some 15,000 employees could eventually lose their jobs if UPS does not recover its full market share. The other big but less visible strike issue was pensions: The Teamsters have a pension plan that is funded by a number of employers, including UPS, and want to keep it that way. UPS wanted to withdraw from the existing fund and create a new one for UPS employees only.
At stake was whether the multi-employer pension plan would be jeopardized by the withdrawal of UPS, which contributes $1 billion annually to the fund. This had implications for how other companies operate and control workers’ pensions. In the settlement, UPS will continue to participate in the current Teamster pension plan. Again, a major issue was largely sidestepped.
Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman, who played a major role in keeping the Teamsters and UPS talking, put the strike in a calm perspective. “We had more than 5,000 disputes last year that were settled peacefully at the bargaining table. That is really how it gets done,” she told National Public Radio.
This was the one that wasn’t settled quietly and made a huge noise. But whether the big noise is ultimately labor’s new big bang--in a nation with only 14.5% union membership in the work force, down from more than 35% in 1945 near the end of labor’s heyday--is far from certain.
