The Teamsters Need to Reform the Reform Movement

By Claire Schachtely

A UPS worker breaks down the union contract negotiated by freshly-elected Teamster leadership and why the contract comes up short for workers.  

In Summer of 2023, thousands of workers and community members prepared for 340,000 Teamsters to strike UPS in what could have been one of the biggest strikes in modern labor history. After a breakdown in contract negotiations, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) staged practice pickets all over the country. A walkout appeared imminent. But on July 25th, the release of a tentative agreement (TA) by Teamster president Sean O’Brien caught workers off guard, precluding the groundbreaking strike and bringing a year-long contract campaign to a sudden halt. 

O’Brien was more transparent throughout contract bargaining, but the practice of closed bargaining continued.

The TA generated mixed feelings and confusion among UPS coworkers. Although O’Brien was more transparent throughout contract bargaining compared to previous administrations, the practice of closed bargaining continued and many workers were iced out of negotiations. This is an overall theme of the new administration: improvements and a reformist direction, but an unwillingness to overcome structural shortcomings that limit union democracy and worker autonomy. 

The “Historic” Contract

Leadership of the largest private sector union in America dubbed this the “strongest” contract ever. After years of concessions, any basic contract modifications can be spun as a victory. Partially due to much-needed raises, low expectations, and a “vote yes” campaign from union leadership, the contract sailed through voting and was ratified by 86.3 percent. However, the deal falls short, particularly for the vast majority of UPS Teamsters who are part-time warehouse workers. 

Companies like UPS love creating tier systems, not only to save on the cost of labor, but also to pit workers against each other and against the union.

UPS conceded to the elimination of the previous tiered-wage system for drivers, called the 22.4 tier. But in its place, a new tier was added. Now, newly-hired part-time workers make several dollars less than their coworkers performing equal work. Companies like UPS love creating tier systems, not only to save on the cost of labor, but also to pit workers against each other and against the union. The tiered-wage system also incentivizes UPS to generate turnover, as new workers come at a substantially lower cost. 

The contract also comes up short in improving workplace conditions. A major demand in the contract campaign was protection against excessive heat. For years, drivers did not have air conditioning in the brown delivery trucks. The Teamsters successfully fought to have AC installed in the trucks, but only in new vehicles. With a slow turnover in replacing trucks, drivers will continue working in the same conditions that have tragically injured and taken the lives of several workers. On our increasingly warming planet, water breaks and ice machines are not enough – we need AC. 

Business unionism prioritizes economics over making structural changes that will empower the rank and file and challenge corporate power.

The contract doesn’t fix the day-to-day workplace conditions that workers face on the shop floor: over-supervision, excessive speed ups, and lack of respect. This is, in part, business unionism in action: union leadership focuses on the economics during contract negotiations and they prioritize this over making structural changes that will empower the rank and file and challenge corporate power.

Union Leadership 

When O’Brien was elected in 2020, he vowed to deliver a strong union contract for UPS. He led UPS Teamsters through a year-long contract campaign, the likes of which hadn’t been seen since 1997, the last time Teamsters struck UPS nationwide. His administration got members excited and engaged in a way the Teamsters only had a distant memory of. A major shift felt like it was happening within the labor movement – the largest private sector union in the US had leadership that would genuinely take on corporate power instead of cozying up to it.

But over time, O’Brien’s politics and class interests revealed what type of unionist he is. He said, “I work with billion dollar corporations like UPS … and we collectively work together. Why? To create jobs, but also to make their businesses as successful as possible, because if their business is successful, our members are going to be successful.”

This notion makes the incorrect assumption that wealth generated by UPS workers is distributed fairly among the employees. The astronomical profits that shareholders accumulated while workers struggled demonstrates that the company’s success has little bearing on the workers. This is another element of business unionism: focusing union energy on keeping businesses economically profitable and successful. Union officials may side with employers and the billionaire class in order to help businesses stay competitive. 

Additionally, business unionists view themselves as representing a group of workers who just have occasional flare ups with their bosses rather than operating on the understanding that the entire working class will constantly be in struggle with employers due to the nature of capitalism, which pits the interests of the owners against the workers. 

O’Brien did not challenge the notion of business unionism in the way we had hoped for upon his election, but he did reveal a nuance. His fiery rhetoric about taking on UPS headfirst to win a strong contract gave him credit as a militant business unionist. 

Class-struggle unionism recognizes the exploitative nature of capitalism and aims to combat it with a labor movement that prioritizes the demands of the working class.

Compare O’Brien’s rhetoric to that of UAW president Shawn Fain, who said Ford’s recent TA is about “more than just economic gains for auto workers. It is a turning point in the class war that’s been raging in this country […]. This contract is more than just a contract, it’s a call to action to workers everywhere to organize and fight for a better life.” 

Leaders who orient towards class struggle are taking on corporate America, delivering strong union contracts, and fighting for the entire working class to build power against the capitalists. 

This is a step closer to Joe Burns’s concept of class-struggle unionism, which recognizes the exploitative nature of capitalism and aims to combat it with a labor movement that prioritizes the demands of the working class. 

Ratifying the Contract and the “Vote NO” Movement 

Despite the contract’s concessions – a tiered wage system, allowing gig workers, no cost of living adjustment (COLA) in the pension, driver-facing cameras, limited protections for excessive overtime, automation replacing warehouse jobs, and few meaningful changes to workplace conditions – the IBT was in full support of the agreement.

Using our union dues to campaign, union leadership mobilized and pushed members to vote yes on the agreement. O’Brien posted, “Anyone who calls our contract concessionary is lying…it is truly historic. Anyone who tries to sell you something else is selling you short.” Any kind of dissenting opinions or “vote no” sentiment was labeled as destructive and “anti-union” by the leadership. 

Powers outside of union leadership also influenced how workers voted on the TA. The capitalist media was quick to uncritically support the TA, praising the fact that a strike was averted. Biden applauded the TA as an example of good faith negotiations. Labor Notes and Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) also praised the TA, which was disappointing as they had previously acted as watchdogs of the union. TDU was a major player in getting O’Brien elected, despite several charges against him from the union, including O’Brien threatening and intimidating members of Local 251 for running an election campaign that challenged local leadership. TDU as a reform caucus was known for fighting corruption and democratizing the union through incremental change. But orienting towards O’Brien severely limited their power to push back on the contract.

Despite the barriers, a “vote no” movement emerged from the rank and file group Teamsters Mobilize, as members (rightfully) felt we deserved more out of the contract. They challenged the administration and helped workers understand we could get a better contract, and with that a better livelihood, if we voted no.

The Response From the Left 

In Spring, DSA launched nationwide support for the Teamsters contract through the Strike Ready campaign. The campaign pushed to get chapters across the nation to pledge support for UPS workers if we went on strike. It united DSA nationally around a campaign, the likes of which hadn’t been seen since Bernie ran for president. This did a lot to build DSA internally, but it did not go far enough.

DSA offered conditional support depending on the occurrence of a nationwide strike, but when we didn’t strike, the campaign ended. DSA leadership simply vowed to stand with Teamsters, “as they vote to accept or reject the TA.”

DSA should have weighed in and had an opinion on this contract and how it relates to the entire working class. 

DSA should have weighed in and had an opinion on this contract and how it relates to the entire working class. This neutrality appears to be motivated by letting the UPS workers lead DSA, and not the other way around. But this theory of change leaves out analysis of political conditions and the actual state of working-class consciousness in the US. 

On a practical and local level, UPS workers had no idea what the DSA Strike Ready campaign was, there was not adequate engagement with the rank and file for this campaign to be on workers’ radars. Overall, the Strike Ready campaign did more for DSA than for UPS workers. 

Instead of abandoning the campaign and taking a neutral stance, DSA should have had a plan B on how to orient to workers if a concessionary TA was released. UPS workers faced enormous pressures from the company, the capitalist class, and our union leadership. We needed support in the time between the TA and the contract ratification.