ShareThis Page
Biggest bang for the buck |

Biggest bang for the buck

Recently, as I sat in my break room, a fellow brother handed me your newspaper. I read the June 24 letter to the editor by Jason Reeher (” Union leaders, take a hike “).

I can’t understand what Reeher thinks unions have taken from our local economy. Each union contract is negotiated with the employer. No company is forced into conditions for which it has not had the opportunity to bargain. These proposals are then taken to the employees for a democratic vote to accept or reject. The job of union leaders is to get the best working conditions, wages, benefits and pension for each union employee. What is the problem with that?

Unions such as mine (Teamsters) have had their share of bumps and bangs along the way, but I would never sacrifice the protection I have when it comes to my negotiated contract. As far as I’m concerned, union companies have set the standard for the rest of the work force. Most companies mirror the wages of union workers to keep their workers from becoming unionized, but they don’t add the benefits. Our hard work benefits even those who are not union members.

My company, Yellow Transportation, takes great pride in having one of the best union work forces. Together, the company and the union have worked to make us leaders in our industry. This is how great unions and great companies work for the future of all employees.

I guess when it comes down to it, Mr. Reeher will never feel the way I do when I go to work. My union and its leadership have done their best to give members all the bang for the buck. My men feel protected and are represented to the fullest extent. We take pride in what we do, and we are proud of who we are. I wonder if Mr. Reeher can say that about his job.

Mike Ceoffe

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.