RANK-AND-FILE MILITANCY AND POWER: REVISITING THE TEAMSTER STRUGGLE WITH THE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE TEN YEARS LATER Michael Schiavone This article argues that militancy, union democracy, and rank-and-file intensive tactics play a crucial role in collective bargaining, and that by embracing these tactics unions achieve better collective bargaining agreements than they otherwise would have attained. I do this by examining the Teamsters for a Democratic Union, its efforts to democratize the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the effects these have had on collective bargaining. I compare the Teamsters before and after Ron Carey’s reforms, and under James Hoffa, Jr.’s presidency. I analyze the Teamsters negotiations/collective bargaining agreements with United Parcel Service (UPS), as this is the Teamsters’ highest profile campaign and the U.S.’ largest collective bargaining agreement. I focus on the 1997 and 2002 negotiations/agreements, but I provide a brief overview of the 1990 and 1993 agreements to put the 1997 agreement in context. In addition to demonstrating the benefits of militancy, union democracy, and rank-and-file intensive tactics in collective bargaining, I argue that the 1997 UPS campaign is a model for unions on how to effectively create a bottom–up contract campaign. With this being the tenth-year anniversary of the Teamsters’ historic strike with United Parcel Service (UPS), it is a good time to revisit the strike and determine how it was won. Furthermore, by also comparing the 1997 efforts to the 2002 UPS contract negotiations and collective bargaining agreement, I determine that the 1997 contract was better because of the Teamsters employ- ing militance, union democracy, and rank-and-file intensive tactics. The Team- sters adopted these tactics in a large part because of the influence of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). In 2002, the Teamsters, with James Hoffa, Jr. in charge, employed a top–down campaign, with little rank- and-file involvement. The 2002 contract was a disappointment, especially to part-time UPS employees. In addition to espousing the benefits of a militant rank-and-file campaign, the article is also a demonstration on how unions should create a bottom–up campaign. I begin by looking at the TDU’s efforts to democratize the Teamsters. WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 · Volume 10 · June 2007 · pp. 175–191 © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 Immanuel Ness and Blackwell Publishing, Inc. 176 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY Teamsters for a Democratic Union Since its formation in 1976, TDU emphasized militancy and fighting against concessions in collective bargaining agreements. Although not always successful, the TDU “. led many battles, involving thousands of teamsters in collective struggle, including job actions, bylaws campaigns, strikes, union elections, worker education, legal defense, and contract campaigns” (Brenner 1995, 129). These battles paved the way for the TDU’s future successes. In 1986, the U.S. government had begun investigations into the Teamsters through the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), believing that the Teamsters was corrupt and had ties with the Mafia. Indeed, from 1957 to 1990 “. every president of the teamsters, save Billy McCarthy, has been convicted and sentenced for one or another federal offense” (Moody 1992, 24). The government considered placing the Teamsters under trustee- ship. However, the TDU opposed the move. Instead, the TDU argued that the government should monitor Teamster elections, and that members should directly elect the president and other leading union officials. While the U.S. Labor Department continually disregarded TDU, in 1986 the president’s Commission on Organized Crime report noted that the Teamsters’ election methods for Local delegates were illegal: “. the Commission recommends that union members have the right to vote for delegates to their union’s con- vention.” A New York Times editorial also supported this view (Crowe 1993, 39; La Botz 1990, 286). The TDU campaigned around the U.S., gathering 100,000 signatures in support of members directly electing the Teamsters’ leadership. It held rallies across the U.S., and many TDU members persuaded their Locals to adopt the TDU’s position. The campaign was ultimately suc- cessful (La Botz 1997; Moody 1992, 25). In March 1989, the U.S. government and the Teamsters reached an agreement. The government dropped the RICO charges in return for the democratization of the Teamsters. Among the key points were: 1. Government involvement to weed out corruption and mob influence 2. Direct vote for national leaders 3. Direct vote for delegates to the international convention 4. Nominations to be made at the national convention 5. Secure nominations for candidates receiving 5 percent of delegate support through a secret ballot 6. Independent auditor’s review of the international books 7. Government-supervised elections in both 1991 and 1996. (Tillman 1999, 142) Without government intervention, these changes would not have occurred as quickly. Nevertheless, the TDU’s national campaign against trusteeship and for Teamster members to directly elect the top union officials influenced the U.S. government to implement this strategy. The TDU decided not to field a candidate for the 1991 IBT presidential election, instead endorsing Ron Carey because he supported union democracy SCHIAVONE: RANK-AND-FILE MILITANCY AND POWER 177 and militancy in collective bargaining. TDU President Ken Paff argued that TDU supported Carey because he “. had been a Teamster official in the capital of Teamster corruption, New York City[,]...hadnever sought to rise in the hierarchy, had a modest salary, [and] stood up as a militant for his members, including opposing national contract settlements repeatedly” (Convoy Dispatch 1989, 1; Ken Paff quoted in Tillman 1999, 142). The TDU organized meetings in support of Carey; its members provided places for Carey to stay as he toured the country, and “. passed out literature, made phone calls, organized rallies and got out to vote.” This effort paid dividends. In December 1991, Carey “. and his entire slate won a three-way race, receiving 48 percent of the vote and a five-year term” (La Botz 1997; Tillman 1999, 142). In addition, through TDU efforts, the 1991 IBT convention saw 275 reform delegates elected (15 percent of the total delegates) (Feeley 1998, 18). However, this demonstrates the extent that old hierarchy remained in office at different levels as there were 1,900 delegates elected in total (Kwik 1991, 10). Under Carey’s leadership, the Teamsters supported many of the TDU’s goals and it moved to the Left. Carey spearheaded the campaign against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and he increased the orga- nizing budget, while reducing union officials’ salaries. Likewise, “...he increased education for stewards and rank and file members, putting emphasis on contract campaigns, local unions, and shop floor organizing.” In addition, the Teamsters finally endorsed the Democratic Party despite a long history of supporting the Republican Party. However, the Teamsters did not endorse Bill Clinton’s reelection bid because of Clinton’s support of NAFTA (La Botz 1997; La Botz 1998a, 17). The Teamsters’ newfound progressive orientation would eventually pay dividends in its collective bargaining negotiations with UPS. Negotiating an Agreement with UPS The 1990 UPS collective bargaining agreement demonstrates that it is very difficult for the Teamsters to achieve a good contract with UPS. It further demonstrates that without a long preparation, with a campaign that involves militancy and rank-and-file intensive tactics, union members will often accept a substandard contract rather than fight. The 1990, the UPS negotiations served as a backdrop to the Teamsters’ presidential campaign. Reform candidate Ron Carey attempted to defeat the incumbent William McCarthy. McCarthy personally took charge of the negotia- tions as he sensed the importance a good settlement would have for his reelection chances. Likewise, TDU argued that the “1990 UPS agreement has great historic potential. Bargaining patterns and pensions for hundreds of thousands of Team- sters, and elections for a vital new Teamster leadership are all at stake” (Convoy Dispatch 1990, 1). The negotiations were bound to be difficult, as UPS’s profit margins had been declining since 1987. The UPS management initially offered the Teamstersan 11-percent increase over three years, but McCarthy told Local Teamster officials that he would reject the deal. This led UPS management to 178 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY increase its offer by over 25 percent in an attempt to prevent a strike (Bernstein and Vogel 1990, 32). Under the revised offer, UPS workers would have received a 50-cent-an-hour increase for each year of the contract and a $1,000 signing bonus. McCarthy, TDU, and Carey recommended that UPS workers reject the improved offer (Boston Globe, August 11, 1990; Crowe 1990, 41). UPS mounted a “. well-organized campaign [in which it] held numerous work-site meetings to boost the proposed pact” in an attempt to persuade workers to accept the contract (Los Angeles Daily News August 14, 1990). Nevertheless, the TDU believed that UPS workers would reject the offer. However, the rank-and-file voted 65,463 to 53,091 (85 percent turnout) to ratify the contract against the recommendations of McCarthy, Carey, and the TDU. McCarthy argued that the members voted for the contract because UPS conducted a fear campaign. He stated: “I believe that many of the company’s employees were frightened by management’s ability to use permanent replacement workers, or scabs, in the possible event of a strike.” While TDU agreed with McCarthy’s assessment, it also claimed that he failed to adequately counter UPS’ campaign (Boston Globe, August 14, 1990; McCarthy quoted in St. Petersburg Times, August 14, 1990). The rank-and-file’s acceptance of the contract damaged his reelection chances as McCarthy person- ally took charge of the negotiations.