L.A. Outlaws Non-Union Truckers

Posted on July 10, 2008

-By Warner Todd Huston

Pretending they are interested in “clean air,” the kindly union bought folks in the Mayor’s office in Los Angeles signed a new law that makes independent trucking basically illegal in the ports of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed the law on the 26th that requires independent truckers to join trucking companies, and, therefore, the unions.

The law requires independent truck drivers servicing the port to become employees of trucking companies, and bans independent contractors. Both Villaraigosa and port authorities argue that independent, low-income drivers will not be able to afford the new $100,000 trucks that meet the port’s strict low-emissions requirements.

And, of course, this makes sure every trucker is forced to join a union just to have a job, since their privately owner business have just been made illegal.

That requirement was backed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which believes the provision will make it easier to organize truckers. But it’s opposed by the American Trucking Assn., which has vowed to file a lawsuit to block that part of the plan.

“This isn’t about clean air,’’ Curtis Whalen of the trucking association said of the pending legal action. “It’s about control of a deregulated industry and LA’s a pro-Teamster point of view.’’

Exactly right. We have arrived at a day when the fake worries about global warming and the environment can be used to destroy businesses and force them into becoming vassals of the state and the minions of corrupt union thugs.

We are witnessing the death of the private sector, slow but sure.

» Filed Under Economy, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Union Mafias/Thugs

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “L.A. Outlaws Non-Union Truckers”

T F Stern on July 10th, 2008 9:15 am

Like the little man sitting at the end of the counter in the movie, The Birds; “It’s the end of the world!”

The 9th “Circus” will uphold this one too.
UnionStrong on July 10th, 2008 11:00 am

I looked into this a bit more than Mr. Huston covers in his piece. While it is true that the port drivers will need to be directly employed by a trucking company, it doesn’t mean that they will be “forced” to join a union.

I’m a UPS driver, and yes, Teamster, and have met some of these poor, sorry souls that haul port containers for a living. In my experience, they are guys, usually immigrants (legal or otherwise), who have gotten in over their heads by mortgaging their lives for a truck they can’t afford to pay for or maintain on the lousy pay these big companies offer.

With diesel costs rising it is nearly impossible for any of these drivers to make a real living or maintain a truck that will be safe to operate on our highways.

I don’t really have a problem with these guys, as long as they are here legally, being employed by trucking companies that will put safer trucks on the road, and frankly create some more decent jobs for guys with CDLs. God knows we already have a problem with attacting new blood into the trucking industry.

If we get some more jobs for professional drivers that actually pay a livable wage we wouldn’t have to put up with these foreign drivers that are brought in from India on work visas, who will work for peanuts because they know they can just take the money back to their country where it is worth more. Not to mention they are taking away American jobs.

Hell, if playing the environmental card creates more jobs, I have no issue with the way they got there, I like the result.

There is nothing in this law that says these drivers have to join the Teamsters after they are employed by a company. I’m sure the union will try to organize them, but that doesn’t mean they have to vote them in. I’m biased of course, because the Teamsters have done a great job for me and 200k+ other UPS drivers nationwide. I make a damn good wage and have benefits and a pension.

Last time I checked my stock in UPS was doing pretty well too. So Mr. Huston’s claim that this will just allow unions to destroy companies doesn’t really fly with me. UPS is the perfect example of a company that is profitable and union. Go figure.

I live in VA which is a right-to-work state, and while there are a few free riders in our barn, 98 percent of us pay our dues and appreciate the job the union does representing our interests. I think in the end this will be great for all those port drivers.

Just my opinion though…so take it or leave it.
Rhymes With Right on July 10th, 2008 4:26 pm

Now wait one minute here.

Does the Port engage in interstate commerce? Are the goods brought through it part of the stream of interstate commerce? Are any of those truckers coming from out of state — or are their vehicles registered in other states?

If so, it strikes me that Los Angeles may be violating the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.