Connect with us

News

UPS union negotiated a historic contract. Now workers have the final say

Published

on

UPS union negotiated a historic contract. Now workers have the final say

UPS workers are voting on whether to approve a deal negotiated by Teamsters leadership.

Brynn Anderson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brynn Anderson/AP


UPS workers are voting on whether to approve a deal negotiated by Teamsters leadership.

Brynn Anderson/AP

When Luigi Morris reports to the UPS distribution center in Canarsie, Brooklyn at 4 a.m., packages are already overflowing off the conveyor belt.

Morris, a part-time warehouse worker, spends his three-and-a-half hour shift loading heavy items — bed frames, car tires, air conditioning units — on trucks for delivery across New York City. He’s typically expected to load a minimum of four trucks with 300 packages each.

Advertisement

“My hands hurt, my knees hurt, my back hurts,” Morris said. “And we only have a ten-minute break.”

Morris earns $16.60 per hour — up from $15.50 when he was hired last year.

On July 25, the Teamsters union reached a tentative contract agreement with UPS, securing wage increases for the 340,000 workers it represents and narrowly averting a nationwide strike after weeks of stalled negotiations. Teamsters leadership had threatened a disruptive walkout if the company failed to meet their economic demands.

Rank-and-file union members are casting their ballots until August 22. For the deal to go into effect, it needs to pass by a majority vote.

While Teamsters leadership is boasting of historic gains, Morris isn’t convinced the deal does enough to fairly compensate and protect UPS employees — especially part-timers, who make up the majority of the company’s unionized workforce, and whose strenuous work the delivery giant relies on.

Advertisement

Under the five-year agreement, wages for existing part-timers would be raised to no less than $21 per hour, with subsequent increases over the course of the contract.

“The contract has a lot of gains. There are many positive things we obtained because of the strike threat,” Morris said. “But then, $21 an hour is below our expectation.”

Morris said he’s voting against the deal — not because it isn’t a step forward for workers, but because he thinks the union could leverage its momentum to fight for more.

José Francisco Negrete, a part-time package handler in Anaheim, California, is also voting no on the deal. He said he was “discombobulated” when he saw the economic provisions of the tentative agreement.

“I wanted UPS to acknowledge what we gave to UPS during the pandemic, especially the lockdown of 2020,” Negrete said. “Nowhere in this contract does it reflect what we gave UPS during that time.”

Advertisement

Union says deal ‘raises the bar for all workers’

This year, UPS workers have more power to reject the deal than in previous contract votes. That’s because Teamsters general president Sean O’Brien, who took the helm of the union in 2021, pushed for a change to the union constitution that allows workers to vote down a deal with a simple majority.

Previously, two-thirds of workers needed to vote down a contract in order to override Teamsters leadership if turnout was below 50%. Former Teamsters leader James Hoffa, for example, ratified the 2018 contract despite 54% of workers voting against it.

Teamsters leadership is urging workers to approve the deal. The union’s social media channels are filled with video testimonials of workers who say they’re voting in favor of it.

Along with wage increases, UPS agreed to equip new delivery vehicles with air conditioning, end forced overtime and eliminate a two-tier pay system for delivery drivers, among other concessions.

“This is the most lucrative contract in labor history,” O’Brien said during a webinar for union members, referring to $30 billion in new money in the agreement. “We got more money, higher wages than ever before, huge non-economic gains.”

Advertisement

Local Teamsters chapters across the U.S. voted nearly unanimously to endorse the contract. O’Brien said it “sets the tone for the entire labor movement.”

A Teamsters spokesperson said workers gain more in this tentative agreement than over the last 40 years. Part-time wage growth from 1982 to 2022 was $7.25 an hour; over the course of the new five-year agreement, it would amount to $7.50 an hour.

UPS CEO Carol Tomé also called the deal a “win-win-win” agreement for Teamsters leadership, employees and the company.

“This agreement continues to reward UPS’s full- and part-time employees with industry-leading pay and benefits while retaining the flexibility we need to stay competitive, serve our customers and keep our business strong,” Tomé said in a statement when the deal was announced.

During an earnings call on August 8, UPS said its revenue for the most recent fiscal quarter fell short of expectations, as delivery volume dropped during labor negotiations. UPS also lowered projected 2023 revenue due to the cost of the contract, which is the largest private sector bargaining agreement in North America.

Advertisement

A strike among 340,000 UPS workers would disrupt package deliveries across the country and shake up an increasingly competitive package delivery market. President Biden praised Teamsters and UPS for avoiding the widespread ramifications of a shutdown.

If workers vote down the tentative agreement, they could force the Teamsters negotiating committee to re-open talks with the company — and bring back the threat of a strike.

A range of opinions among workers

UPS workers have a range of views on the deal hammered out by the union. Christina Pixton, a part-time package handler in Reno, Nevada, said she’s content with the hourly pay raise she would see: $23.20, up from her current rate of $19.

“I saw enough movement in the contract to get us in a spot where I don’t have a reason to vote no,” Pixton said. “Our last contract really took us backward, so for us to make progress is huge for us.”

But some employees are pointing to the company’s recent economic gains as evidence that it can afford to raise starting wages more. UPS posted a record profit last year, as the company reached $100 billion in revenue in 2022 for the first time.

Advertisement

Jennifer Hancock, a part-time package sorter, has worked at UPS for more than three decades. She’s an organizer with Teamsters Mobilize, an employee group that aims to level the playing field for part-time workers. Hancock said she thinks the economic elements of the deal could go further, like establishing a $25 base rate for part-timers.

But the fact that O’Brien has challenged the Teamsters status quo and pushed UPS to make concessions, Hancock added, has empowered workers to voice this kind of dissent.

“The election of Sean O’Brien really motivated people to think that they could make a difference — that we have a new contract coming up, we have a new president, let’s try some new things,” Hancock said. “That was a signal that things had changed.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

China poses ‘genuine and increasing cyber risk’ to UK, warns GCHQ head

Published

on

China poses ‘genuine and increasing cyber risk’ to UK, warns GCHQ head

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

China poses a “genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK”, the head of Britain’s signals intelligence agency has said.

The remarks by Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ, follow a slew of alleged China-related espionage activity in the UK, including a suspected cyber attack that targeted the records of thousands of British military personnel.

Keast-Butler told a security conference in Birmingham on Tuesday that while the cyber threats from Russia and Iran were “globally pervasive” and “aggressive” respectively, China was her agency’s top priority.

Advertisement

“China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK,” she said, calling the country “the epoch-defining challenge” in a direct echo of the British government last year.

“In cyber space, we believe that the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China’s] irresponsible actions weaken the security of the internet for all,” said Keast-Butler.

“China has built an advanced set of cyber capabilities and is taking advantage of a growing commercial ecosystem of hacking outfits and data brokers at its disposal,” she added.

Her warnings came a week after a reported cyber attack on private IT contractor SSCL, which has multiple government contracts, accessed the records of up to 272,000 people on the UK Ministry of Defence’s payroll.

Defence secretary Grant Shapps told parliament last week that the attack had been carried out by a “malign actor”. He did not confirm who was behind it, but a person with direct knowledge of the incident said Beijing was thought to be the culprit.

Advertisement

SSCL, which is owned by Paris-based Sopra Steria, a digital services company, holds the payroll details of most of the British armed forces and 550,000 public servants in total through its other state contracts, including with the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Metropolitan Police.

The hack is one of a series of recent incidents that has sparked growing concern across Europe and in the US about Chinese cyber and espionage activity.

On Monday, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Britain faced threats from “an axis of authoritarian states like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China” as three men appeared in a London court on charges of assisting intelligence services in Hong Kong.

On Tuesday, the UK government summoned China’s ambassador to Britain, Zheng Zeguang, over the case.

John Lee, Hong Kong’s chief executive, on Tuesday said his administration had demanded the British government provide an explanation about the prosecution of one of the three men, Bill Yuen, who was the office manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London.  

Advertisement

Beijing officials have also repeatedly denied the British accusations, calling them “groundless and slanderous” in what has become a tit-for-tat series of allegations and denials.

Meanwhile, Felicity Oswald, who heads the National Cyber Security Centre, a branch of GCHQ, warned CyberUK conference attendees about the Chinese Communist party’s cyber capability, which she described as “vast in scale and sophistication”.

She said western security agencies had repeatedly raised the alarm about Volt Typhoon, a Chinese hacking network, which FBI director Christopher Wrap said this year had targeted the US electricity grid and water supply.

Oswald added that a Chinese law, introduced in recent years, that required Chinese citizens to report any cyber security vulnerabilities they identified to the government “should worry all of us”.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Despite state bans, abortions nationwide are up, driven by telehealth

Published

on

Despite state bans, abortions nationwide are up, driven by telehealth

Abortion rights activists at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on March 26, the day the case about the abortion drug mifepristone was heard. The number of abortions in the U.S. increased, a study says, surprising researchers.

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images


Abortion rights activists at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on March 26, the day the case about the abortion drug mifepristone was heard. The number of abortions in the U.S. increased, a study says, surprising researchers.

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

In the 18 months following the Supreme Court’s decision that ended federal protection for abortion, the number of abortions in the U.S. has continued to grow, according to The Society of Family Planning’s WeCount project.

“We are seeing a slow and small steady increase in the number of abortions per month and this was completely surprising to us,” says Ushma Upadhyay, a professor and public health scientist at the University of California, San Francisco who co-leads the research. According to the report, in 2023 there were, on average, 86,000 abortions per month compared to 2022, where there were about 82,000 abortions per month. “Not huge,” says Upadhyay, “but we were expecting a decline.”

Advertisement

The slight increase comes despite the fact that 14 states had total abortion bans in place during the time of the research. According to the report, there were about 145,000 fewer abortions in person in those states since the Dobbs decision, which triggered many of the restrictive state laws.

“We know that there are people living in states with bans who are not getting their needed abortions,” says Upadhyay. “The concern we have is that that might be overlooked by these increases.”

Florida, California and Illinois saw the largest surges in abortions, which is especially interesting given Florida’s recent 6-week ban that started on May 1.

Abortion rights opponents demonstrate in New York City, on March 23. Some states’ abortion bans are known as “heartbeat bills,” because they make abortion illegal after cardiac activity starts, usually around six weeks of pregnancy.

Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images


Abortion rights opponents demonstrate in New York City, on March 23. Some states’ abortion bans are known as “heartbeat bills,” because they make abortion illegal after cardiac activity starts, usually around six weeks of pregnancy.

Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

Advertisement

The latest report also captures for the first time the impact of providers offering telehealth abortions from states with protections for doctors and clinics known as shield laws – statutes that say they can’t be prosecuted or held liable for providing abortion care to people from other states.

Between July and December 2023, more than 40,000 people in states with abortion bans and telehealth restrictions received medication abortion through providers in states protected by shield laws. Abortion pills can be prescribed via telehealth appointments and sent through the mail; the pills can safely end pregnancies in the first trimester.

The report includes abortions happening within the U.S. health care system, and does not include self-managed abortions, when people take pills at home without the oversight of a clinician. For that reason, researchers believe these numbers are still an undercount of abortions happening in the U.S.

Accounting for the increases

A major factor in the uptick in abortions nationwide is the rise of telehealth, made possible in part by regulations first loosened during the coronavirus pandemic.

According to the report, telehealth abortions now make up 19% of all abortions in the U.S. In comparison, the first WeCount report which spanned April 2022 through August 2022 showed telehealth abortions accounted for just 4% of all abortions. Research has shown that telehealth abortions are as safe and effective as in-clinic care.

Advertisement

“It’s affordable, it’s convenient, and it feels more private,” says Jillian Barovick, a midwife in Brooklyn and one of the co-founders of Juniper Midwifery, which offers medication abortion via telehealth to patients in six states where abortion is legal. The organization saw its first patient in August 2022 and now treats about 300 patients a month.

“Having an in-clinic abortion, even a medication abortion, you could potentially be in the clinic for hours, whereas with us you get to sort of bypass all of that,” she says. Instead, patients can connect with a clinician using text messages or a secure messaging platform. In addition to charging $100 dollars for the consultation and medication – which is well below the average cost of an abortion – Barovick points to the cost savings of not having to take off work or arrange child care to spend multiple hours in a clinic.

She says her patients receive their medication within 1 to 4 business days, “often faster than you can get an appointment in a clinic.”

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday followed about 500 women who had medication abortions with the pills distributed via mail order pharmacy after an in-person visit with a doctor. More than 90% of the patients were satisfied with the experience; there were three serious adverse events that required hospitalization.

In addition to expansions in telehealth, there have been new clinics in states like Kansas, Illinois and New Mexico, and there’s been an increase in funding for abortion care – fueled by private donors and abortion funds.

Advertisement

The impact of shield laws

During the period from October to December 2023, nearly 8,000 people per month in states with bans or severe restrictions accessed medication abortions from clinicians providing telehealth in the 5 states that had shield laws at the time. That’s nearly half of all monthly telehealth abortions.

“It’s telemedicine overall that is meeting the need of people who either want to or need to remain in their banned or restricted state for their care,” says Angel Foster, who founded The MAP, a group practice operating a telehealth model under Massachusetts’ shield laws. “If you want to have your abortion care in your state and you live in Texas or Mississippi or Missouri, right now, the shield law provision is by far the most dominant way that you’d be able to get that care.”

Foster’s group offers medication abortions for about 500 patients a month. About 90% of their patients are in banned or restrictive states; about a third are from Texas, their most common state of origin, followed by Florida.

“Patients are scared that we are a scam,” she says, “they can’t believe that we’re legit.”

Since the WeCount data was collected, additional states including Maine and California have passed shield laws protecting providers who offer care nationwide. The new shield laws circumvent traditional telemedicine laws, which often require out-of-state health providers to be licensed in the states where patients are located. States with abortion bans or restrictions and/or telehealth bans hold the provider at fault, not the patient.

Advertisement

Existing lawsuits brought by abortion opponents, including the case awaiting a Supreme Court decision, have the potential to disrupt this telehealth surge by restricting the use of the drug mifepristone nationwide. If the Supreme Court upholds an appeals court ruling, providers would be essentially barred from mailing the drug and an in-person doctor visit would be required.

There is also an effort underway in Louisiana to classify abortion pills as a controlled substance.

Continue Reading

News

Anglo American plans break-up after rejecting £34bn BHP bid

Published

on

Anglo American plans break-up after rejecting £34bn BHP bid

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Anglo American plans to break itself up as the embattled mining group tries to win over shareholders following its rejection of a £34bn takeover bid from rival BHP.

In a series of sweeping changes to the 107-year-old mining company, Anglo said on Tuesday that it would sell or demerge its De Beers diamond business, its South African-based Anglo American Platinum operation as well as its coking coal assets.

London-listed Anglo will instead focus on its copper, iron ore and crop nutrients businesses. BHP, the world’s biggest miner, has set its sights on securing Anglo’s copper business, which is expected to boom as the world decarbonises.

Advertisement

Since rebuffing two approaches from BHP, Anglo’s chief executive Duncan Wanblad has been under intense pressure to set out the group’s future as a standalone group.

Laying out the proposed changes, Wanblad said: “These actions represent the most radical changes to Anglo American in decades.” They will result in “a radically simpler business [that] will deliver sustainable incremental value creation”.

Anglo said it would also pull back on spending on Woodsmith, a flagship project in the UK designed to create a vast underground mine producing a yet-unproven fertiliser. Instead of spending $1bn a year to build the mine by 2027, only $200mn will be spent next year and nothing in 2026.

Shares in Anglo fell 0.5 per cent to £27.03 in early trading on Tuesday. BHP’s improved offer valued Anglo at £27.53, up from approximately £25 in its original bid.

Anglo shareholders have predicted that the group would struggle to sustain its current structure. They have long complained that the value of Anglo’s coveted copper mines in Latin America has been obscured by its other lacklustre operations, particularly its platinum and diamond divisions.

Advertisement

As part of its bids, BHP has a provision requiring Anglo to spin off its two Johannesburg-listed subsidiaries, Anglo American Platinum and iron ore miner Kumba.

Following Anglo’s announcement on Tuesday, shares in Anglo American Platinum, which produces a range of metals in South Africa, fell 7 per cent. Anglo intends to keep Kumba Iron Ore as part of a “premium” iron ore division that would also include its Minas Rio mine in Brazil.

Alongside dismantling the structure it has maintained for years, Anglo also vowed to cut a further $800mn of costs annually on top of $1bn already earmarked.

Anglo provided few details on where the cost savings would come from, saying it would “need to consider its global workforce arrangements to realise the opportunities for its employees and to ensure delivery of the accelerated strategy”.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending