Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
Every five years, UPS Inc. and the Teamsters Union step into the ring to negotiate the nation's biggest
collective bargaining agreement. Riding on the outcome are the livelihoods of about a quarter of a million
workers and the fate of nearly 16 million parcels and letters tendered or received by 8.8 million global
customers.
The opening bell has sounded.
Atlanta-based UPS and the union that it has been married to—for better or worse—for about 75 years
met in Washington Sept. 27 so the Teamsters could formally present UPS with its initial proposals for two contracts.
The big contract covers between 240,000 and 250,000 employees in the company's small-package operations. The other proffer
governs an additional 12,000 to 13,000 workers in its UPS Freight less-than-truckload (LTL) unit.
The start date is unusual in that it comes almost 10 months before the July 31, 2013, expiration of both five-year
contracts. The two sides agreed on the early start.
In an early June statement, the Teamsters said the decision to "push UPS to the bargaining table" was
triggered by the company's "recent strong financial performance" and its record profits.
"The struggling economy and the company's recent announcements about record quarterly profits make this good timing to
open negotiations," Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer and former director of the union's package division, said at the
time. Hall is leading the Teamsters' negotiating team.
Hall said in the statement that the union first wants to address "operational issues" such as subcontracting, workload,
and safety and health so it can focus next year on the contract's financial components, such as wages, health care, and pensions.
UPS declined to comment. Generally, companies favor an early launch date for contract talks in order to get the matter quickly
behind them, and to provide their customers with enough lead time to establish contingencies if negotiations don't go as planned.
Hall spent Sept. 21 in Chicago briefing a cluster of local union officials representing UPS and UPS Freight on key contract
issues. In a Sept. 24 post on its website, the Teamsters said the "UPS and UPS Freight proposals were unanimously approved" by
the local unions. The Teamsters would not comment on specifics of its proposals.
INTERNAL DISAGREEMENT
In a document posted on its website, Teamsters for a Democrat Union (TDU), a dissident group that
frequently clashes with the union establishment led by longtime General President James P. Hoffa, said
that Hall told the locals he would keep union demands modest at UPS Freight because the unit has not been
profitable. According to the TDU document, Hall said the priorities in talks with UPS Freight would be pensions,
health care, and wages, in that order.
Most of the attention, however, will be focused on the small-package bargaining. According to TDU, the union's
proposals include increases in pension payments, including hikes for the 48,000 full-time UPS workers that in 2007
were transferred from the Teamsters' Central States multiemployer pension plan to one that is jointly administered by
UPS and the union.
Under the multiemployer scheme, companies fund pensions not just of their own workers and retirees but also of workers at
other firms participating in the plan. In the trucking industry, that program worked well as long as there were numerous
unionized truckers to equitably distribute the costs. As bankruptcies and consolidations decimated the ranks of union carriers,
survivors like UPS became liable for a larger share of the cost.
UPS paid $6.1 billion to withdraw from the original plan, one of the Teamsters' largest, because it was fed up with funding
the pensions of retirees from other, long-gone companies. It is expected that the change will save UPS a significant amount of
money over time.
According to TDU, the Teamsters proposal also calls for wage increases, especially in starting pay for part-timers. All
part-time workers, other than sorters and pre-loaders, start at $8.50 an hour, a rate TDU said has been frozen since 1987.
Another small-package contract objective, according to TDU, is to force UPS to honor its commitment to convert thousands of
part-time Teamsters jobs to more generous full-time positions. A provision of the 2007 contract requires UPS to offer part-timers
the chance to fill at least 20,000 full-time operational jobs during the life of the contract. Six of every seven available
full-time jobs would have to be staffed by former part-timers, according to the contract.
Similar language was included in contracts negotiated in 1997 and 2002. The issue became a rallying cry for the union in 1997
when it called a strike that shut down UPS for 15 days.
However, Ken Paff, TDU's veteran chief organizer and one of Hoffa's fiercest critics, said the company has not lived up to its
end of the contract bargain over the past five years, and the union leadership hasn't held UPS' feet to the fire.
According to Paff, Hoffa agreed not to aggressively pursue the issue in return for management allowing the Teamsters to
organize workers at UPS Freight, which was known as Overnite Transportation Co. before being acquired by UPS in 2005 for $1.2
billion. Overnite was nonunion throughout its long history, and endured a prolonged and sometimes violent battle with the
Teamsters to stay that way.
Paff said that Hoffa acquiesced in order to show some gains in the union's once-powerful freight division that has been badly
depleted over the years by unionized carrier bankruptcies and a widespread shift to nonunion trucking operations.
SUREPOST, FEDEX COULD BE FACTORS
TDU indicated that Hall wants UPS to propose language that would protect Teamsters jobs threatened by the growth of the
company's delivery relationship with the U.S. Postal Service, in return for the "union's continued cooperation" with the
program, known as "UPS SurePost."
Under the program, UPS tenders parcels to the USPS, which then takes the shipments the so-called "last mile," from the local
post office to destination. The program, designed for e-commerce shipments from online merchants to residences, is inexpensive
for shippers. In many cases, it gives e-merchants the latitude to offer free shipping to its customers, a feature that often
cements an online sale.
The delivery model has gained enormous traction in recent years, mirroring the rise of e-commerce itself. While it is a
relatively low-margin business for UPS, it remains a big growth segment for the company. This is in marked contrast to its
traditional business-to-business service, which has dramatically slowed as companies become more cautious about the U.S. and
international economic environment.
Since the program took off, the Teamsters have grumbled that it reduces the need for more drivers. Paff, for his part, said
it could violate the existing small-package agreement that prohibits subcontracting a service that would otherwise be performed
by a driver.
However, a well-placed industry source said UPS does not divert packages to nonunion subcontractors. Instead, the source said,
the company gives shippers the option of either using UPS to deliver a package directly to the residence or using it to deliver
to the local post office, where the package is turned over to the letter carrier for the last leg.
Still, the source agrees that the program, on balance, lessens the need for UPS drivers and cuts back on their potential
overtime.
The union may need to tread lightly on this issue during negotiations. FedEx Corp., UPS' chief rival and a nonunion ground
carrier, offers a similar service with USPS known as "SmartPost." Given FedEx's labor-cost advantages and the fact that the
product is already price-sensitive, businesses could easily migrate to FedEx should the Teamsters play hardball with UPS, whose
drivers are paid close to $30 an hour and are considered to have generous benefits.
In fact, the specter of FedEx could loom large over all of the talks. FedEx Ground, which competes directly with UPS' core
ground-parcel business, has made major strides over the past 15 years, winning new business and taking market share from its
rival. The Teamsters are not oblivious to the fact, confirmed in FedEx's most recent quarterly results, that all of FedEx's
growth is coming from its ground parcel and LTL units, while its core air business stagnates.
On Oct. 9 and 10, FedEx will unveil a long-awaited plan to revamp its FedEx Express air and international unit, which has been
plagued by high costs and weaker demand for airfreight services in the United States and abroad. Analysts and observers expect the
company to announce significant cost reductions at the two-day meeting.
While the savings would mostly affect FedEx's Express unit, they could bleed into other parts of its operations as well. The
net effect could widen FedEx's cost advantage over UPS, resulting in even more shipment migration.
The initial salvo has just been fired, and no one expects the first round to be the last word. Still, with a slowing U.S.
economy, uncertainty over the November election and fiscal policy in Washington, a monetary crisis in Europe, still-elevated
unemployment, and the threat posed by UPS' very formidable rival, it is thought that the Teamsters will be anxious to strike
a deal, and to do it quickly.
Even as a last-minute deal today appeared to delay the tariff on Mexico, that deal is set to last only one month, and tariffs on the other two countries are still set to go into effect at midnight tonight.
Once new U.S. tariffs go into effect, those other countries are widely expected to respond with retaliatory tariffs of their own on U.S. exports, that would reduce demand for U.S. and manufacturing goods. In the context of that unpredictable business landscape, many U.S. business groups have been pressuring the White House to pull back from the new policy.
Here is a sampling of the reaction to the tariff plan by the U.S. business community:
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA)
“Tariffs are taxes,” AAPA President and CEO Cary Davis said in a release. “Though the port industry supports President Trump’s efforts to combat the flow of illicit drugs, tariffs will slow down our supply chains, tax American businesses, and increase costs for hard-working citizens. Instead, we call on the Administration and Congress to thoughtfully pursue alternatives to achieving these policy goals and exempt items critical to national security from tariffs, including port equipment.”
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
“We understand the president is working toward an agreement. The leaders of all four nations should come together and work to reach a deal before Feb. 4 because enacting broad-based tariffs will be disruptive to the U.S. economy,” Michael Hanson, RILA’s Senior Executive Vice President of Public Affairs, said in a release. “The American people are counting on President Trump to grow the U.S. economy and lower inflation, and broad-based tariffs will put that at risk.”
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
“Manufacturers understand the need to deal with any sort of crisis that involves illicit drugs crossing our border, and we hope the three countries can come together quickly to confront this challenge,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said in a release. “However, with essential tax reforms left on the cutting room floor by the last Congress and the Biden administration, manufacturers are already facing mounting cost pressures. A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico threatens to upend the very supply chains that have made U.S. manufacturing more competitive globally. The ripple effects will be severe, particularly for small and medium-sized manufacturers that lack the flexibility and capital to rapidly find alternative suppliers or absorb skyrocketing energy costs. These businesses—employing millions of American workers—will face significant disruptions. Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk.”
American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA)
“Widespread tariff actions on Mexico, Canada, and China announced this evening will inject massive costs into our inflation-weary economy while exposing us to a damaging tit-for-tat tariff war that will harm key export markets that U.S. farmers and manufacturers need,” Steve Lamar, AAFA’s president and CEO, said in a release. “We should be forging deeper collaboration with our free trade agreement partners, not taking actions that call into question the very foundation of that partnership."
Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA)
“We are concerned that placing tariffs on generic drug products produced outside the U.S. will put additional pressure on an industry that is already experiencing financial distress. Distributors and generic manufacturers and cannot absorb the rising costs of broad tariffs. It is worth noting that distributors operate on low profit margins — 0.3 percent. As a result, the U.S. will likely see new and worsened shortages of important medications and the costs will be passed down to payers and patients, including those in the Medicare and Medicaid programs," the group said in a statement.
National Retail Federation (NRF)
“We support the Trump administration’s goal of strengthening trade relationships and creating fair and favorable terms for America,” NRF Executive Vice President of Government Relations David French said in a release. “But imposing steep tariffs on three of our closest trading partners is a serious step. We strongly encourage all parties to continue negotiating to find solutions that will strengthen trade relationships and avoid shifting the costs of shared policy failures onto the backs of American families, workers and small businesses.”
Businesses are scrambling today to insulate their supply chains from the impacts of a trade war being launched by the Trump Administration, which is planning to erect high tariff walls on Tuesday against goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China.
Tariffs are import taxes paid by American companies and collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Agency as goods produced in certain countries cross borders into the U.S.
In a last-minute deal announced on Monday, leaders of both countries said the tariffs on goods from Mexico will be delayed one month after that country agreed to send troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in an attempt to stem to flow of drugs such as fentanyl from Mexico, according to published reports.
If the deal holds, it could avoid some of the worst impacts of the tariffs on U.S. manufacturers that rely on parts and raw materials imported from Mexico. That blow would be particularly harsh on companies in the automotive and electrical equipment sectors, according to an analysis by S&P Global Ratings.
However, tariff damage is still on track to occur for U.S. companies with tight supply chain connections to Canada, concentrated in commodity-related processing sectors, the firm said. That disruption would increase if those countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own, a move that would slow the export of U.S. goods. Such an event would hurt most for American businesses in the agriculture and fishing, metals, and automotive areas, according to the analysis from Satyam Panday, Chief US and Canada Economist, S&P Global Ratings.
To dull the pain of those events, U.S. business interests would likely seek to cushion the declines in output by looking to factors such as exchange rate movements, availability of substitutes, and the willingness of producers to absorb the higher cost associated with tariffs, Panday said.
Weighing the long-term effects of a trade war
The extent to which increased tariffs will warp long-standing supply chain patterns is hard to calculate, since it is largely dependent on how long these tariffs will actually last, according to a statement from Tony Pelli, director of supply chain resilience, BSI Consulting. “The pause [on tariffs with Mexico] will help reduce the impacts on agricultural products in particular, but not necessarily on the automotive industry given the high degree of integration across all three North American countries,” he said.
“Tariffs on Canada or Mexico will disrupt supply chains beyond just finished goods,” Pelli said. “Some products cross the US, Mexico, and Canada borders four to five times, with the greatest impact on the auto and electronics industries. These supply chains have been tightly integrated for around 30 years, and it will be difficult for firms to simply source elsewhere. There are dense supplier networks along the US border with Mexico and Canada (especially Ontario) that you can’t just pick up and move somewhere else, which would likely slow or even stop auto manufacturing in the US for a time.”
If the tariffs on either Canada or Mexico stay in place for an extended period, the effects will soon become clear, said Hamish Woodrow, head of strategic analytics at Motive, a fleet management and operations platform. “Ultimately, the burden of these tariffs will fall on U.S. consumers and retailers. Prices will rise, and businesses will pass along costs as they navigate increased expenses and uncertainty,” Woodrow said.
But in the meantime, companies with international supply chains are quickly making contingency plans for any of the possible outcomes. “The immediate impact of tariffs on trucking, freight, and supply chains will be muted. Goods already en route, shipments six weeks out on the water, and landed inventory will continue to flow, meaning the real disruption will be felt in Q2 as businesses adjust to the new reality,” Woodrow said.
“By the end of the day, companies will be deploying mitigation strategies—many will delay inventory shipments to later in the year, waiting to see if the policy shifts or exemptions are introduced. Those who preloaded inventory will likely adopt a wait-and-see approach, holding off on further adjustments until the market reacts. In the short term, sourcing alternatives are limited, forcing supply chains to pause and reassess long-term investments while monitoring policy developments,” said Woodrow.
Editor's note: This story was revised on February 3 to add input from BSI and Motive.
Businesses dependent on ocean freight are facing shipping delays due to volatile conditions, as the global average trip for ocean shipments climbed to 68 days in the fourth quarter compared to 60 days for that same quarter a year ago, counting time elapsed from initial booking to clearing the gate at the final port, according to E2open.
Those extended transit times and booking delays are the ripple effects of ongoing turmoil at key ports that is being caused by geopolitical tensions, labor shortages, and port congestion, Dallas-based E2open said in its quarterly “Ocean Shipping Index” report.
The most significant contributor to the year-over-year (YoY) increase is actual transit time, alongside extraordinary volatility that has created a complex landscape for businesses dependent on ocean freight, the report found.
"Economic headwinds, geopolitical turbulence and uncertain trade routes are creating unprecedented disruptions within the ocean shipping industry. From continued Red Sea diversions to port congestion and labor unrest, businesses face a complex landscape of obstacles, all while grappling with possibility of new U.S. tariffs," Pawan Joshi, chief strategy officer (CSO) at e2open, said in a release. "We can expect these ongoing issues will be exacerbated by the Lunar New Year holiday, as businesses relying on Asian suppliers often rush to place orders, adding strain to their supply chains.”
Lunar New Year this year runs from January 29 to February 8, and often leads to supply chain disruptions as massive worker travel patterns across Asia leads to closed factories and reduced port capacity.
That changing landscape is forcing companies to adapt or replace their traditional approaches to product design and production. Specifically, many are changing the way they run factories by optimizing supply chains, increasing sustainability, and integrating after-sales services into their business models.
“North American manufacturers have embraced the factory of the future. Working with service providers, many companies are using AI and the cloud to make production systems more efficient and resilient,” Bob Krohn, partner at ISG, said in the “2024 ISG Provider Lens Manufacturing Industry Services and Solutions report for North America.”
To get there, companies in the region are aggressively investing in digital technologies, especially AI and ML, for product design and production, ISG says. Under pressure to bring new products to market faster, manufacturers are using AI-enabled tools for more efficient design and rapid prototyping. And generative AI platforms are already in use at some companies, streamlining product design and engineering.
At the same time, North American manufacturers are seeking to increase both revenue and customer satisfaction by introducing services alongside or instead of traditional products, the report says. That includes implementing business models that may include offering subscription, pay-per-use, and asset-as-a-service options. And they hope to extend product life cycles through an increasing focus on after-sales servicing, repairs. and condition monitoring.
Additional benefits of manufacturers’ increased focus on tech include better handling of cybersecurity threats and data privacy regulations. It also helps build improved resilience to cope with supply chain disruptions by adopting cloud-based supply chain management, advanced analytics, real-time IoT tracking, and AI-enabled optimization.
“The changes of the past several years have spurred manufacturers into action,” Jan Erik Aase, partner and global leader, ISG Provider Lens Research, said in a release. “Digital transformation and a culture of continuous improvement can position them for long-term success.”
Women are significantly underrepresented in the global transport sector workforce, comprising only 12% of transportation and storage workers worldwide as they face hurdles such as unfavorable workplace policies and significant gender gaps in operational, technical and leadership roles, a study from the World Bank Group shows.
This underrepresentation limits diverse perspectives in service design and decision-making, negatively affects businesses and undermines economic growth, according to the report, “Addressing Barriers to Women’s Participation in Transport.” The paper—which covers global trends and provides in-depth analysis of the women’s role in the transport sector in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) and Middle East and North Africa (MENA)—was prepared jointly by the World Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the International Transport Forum (ITF).
The slim proportion of women in the sector comes at a cost, since increasing female participation and leadership can drive innovation, enhance team performance, and improve service delivery for diverse users, while boosting GDP and addressing critical labor shortages, researchers said.
To drive solutions, the researchers today unveiled the Women in Transport (WiT) Network, which is designed to bring together transport stakeholders dedicated to empowering women across all facets and levels of the transport sector, and to serve as a forum for networking, recruitment, information exchange, training, and mentorship opportunities for women.
Initially, the WiT network will cover only the Europe and Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa regions, but it is expected to gradually expand into a global initiative.
“When transport services are inclusive, economies thrive. Yet, as this joint report and our work at the EIB reveal, few transport companies fully leverage policies to better attract, retain and promote women,” Laura Piovesan, the European Investment Bank (EIB)’s Director General of the Projects Directorate, said in a release. “The Women in Transport Network enables us to unite efforts and scale impactful solutions - benefiting women, employers, communities and the climate.”