How the Teamsters Cost 30,000 People Their Jobs
UPS, Yellow Corporation, and Boeing all gave into union demands. Massive layoffs followed.

Progressives love unions.
Not only do unions protect workers, they say, unions gave us the weekend and the middle class.
I say, capitalism created the middle class. Employers, competing for better workers, gave us the weekend.
But whatever you think about capitalism, few people question the claim that unions help workers.
But I will. It's the focus of my new video.
A couple years ago, the Teamsters demanded more pay from UPS. It seemed like UPS could easily afford it. The company made almost $13 billion in 2021.
UPS used some of that money to hire more union workers. Then it offered them raises.
But Teamster boss Sean O'Brien wanted more. He threatened a strike.
UPS gave in.
MSNBC called that "collective bargaining at its finest"!
Today, full-time drivers make $170,000 a year.
Good for them—for those who still have jobs.
But paying for the new Teamster contract meant UPS wasn't as competitive as before. It raised some prices and lost business to other shippers.
Profit dropped.
In 2024, UPS laid off 12,000 workers. The next year, 20,000.
It wasn't just the wage hikes; it's also the work rules.
The Teamsters agreement includes hundreds of pages—limits on subcontracting, bans on employees working long hours, etc….many of which made it hard for a company to adapt and cut costs.
"These headline-grabbing union deals are delivering short-run sugar highs with long-run hangovers," says Mercatus Center economist Liya Palagashvili. "UPS is just one example of this."
Another was Yellow Corp—once one of the largest freight carriers in America.
Then the Teamsters threatened to strike, demanding faster payments of health care and pension benefits.
The company warned that a strike could bankrupt it.
But O'Brien kept pushing, saying, "The company has two more days to fulfill its obligations, or we will strike. Teamsters at Yellow are furious and ready to act!"
Yellow gave in. The strike was averted.
Days later, the trucking company shut down for good.
Thirty thousand people lost their jobs.
Asked if he felt responsible for the lost jobs, O'Brien said, "No, not at all…they were so mismanaged."
"That's true," says Palagashvili. "[Yellow Corp] was having a lot of financial issues. But if you're on the verge of collapse, the last thing you need is a Teamsters Labor Union contract that says you have to increase labor costs. Yellow is basically covered in gasoline, and Sean O'Brien comes and lights the match."
Meanwhile, union leadership help themselves. The Teamsters now brag that it has $1 billion in assets. Sean O'Brien pays himself more than $430,000 per year.
The same year Yellow went bankrupt, United Auto Workers went on strike against Stellantis, the company that owns Chrysler. Stellantis gave in, giving the UAW a pay raise and promising to open a new plant.
But then Stellantis started laying off workers: 1,340 during the strike and 2,450 more the next year.
In 2024, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers walked off the job demanding better pay from Boeing. Boeing gave in.
One month later, Boeing announced a 10 percent work force cut.
When I grew up, Midwestern states were called the "Steel Belt." Now they're called the "Rust Belt."
The media blame "Free trade!" and "Globalization!" On social media, people say, "Foreigners took our jobs."
But Palagashvili says, "It wasn't trade that killed the Rust Belt. It was labor unions. Unions in the Rust Belt were striking. Companies said, 'Higher labor costs, tons of strikes, productivity isn't going up, we're going to relocate,' and they did."
Unions help some workers. But they hurt many more.
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Unions only help themselves.
Teamsters destroyed a number of trucking companies and this started decades ago. Remember St. Johnsbury Trucking? CF? Carolina Freight? Overnight?
And that is all defended to the death on here because it is "FREEDOM".
You can talk about workers but if you are too naive or stupid to see what was evident even in high school, that many people enlist moral arguments for immoral purposes, then you deserve to be a Libertarian. If that many lost their jobs and there were no unions even a stone would shout about it. But not on here. "Oh, they have unions, and unions are for workers, so duh this must have been inevitable , you know like well duh THe Fountainhead and John Galt like you know.
Could you write an appendix to your post so that others might understand it?
Insofar as workers are free to organize unions, they are personally responsible for any downside their united actions cause. Insofar as government laws and regulations force employers to recognize, accommodate and negotiate with unions, then unconstitutional government laws and regulations are at least partly responsible for the intended and unintended consequences. Employers caving in may be craven, but it cannot be said that employers are responsible in any way for the lost jobs and lost productivity and, eventually, lost business enterprises that labor unions backed by official power cause.
Trump likes unions. That means the entire article is anti-Trump and makes Stossel a Marxist. Don't worry though. I'm sure Trump will come to the rescue and unilaterally enact protective import taxes on the competition, which will allow the companies to raise prices and pay the union workers what they deserve.
TTTTRRRRUUUUMMMMMPPPPP!
Oooh, ooh, I know which grey box this is now
Said no one besides you.
But certainly that can't be said about the USW. Under them we've seen USA domestic production dominate the world and now that they teamed up with Trump and kept themselves in power, I'm sure they can dominate the solar system, galaxy even.
Years ago, unions provided much needed protection for exploited workers. Now they are simply a vehicle for legal extortion.
Are you sure about that first part? Or is that the revisionist history that the victors wrote?
Every "union-won benefit" already existed for some workers before the union demanded it for everyone. The difference was that previously, the market dictated compensation, whereas the union fought for legislative compulsion. We see this every time some left-wing political figure touts the proud history of unions: "They fought for this law! They fought for that law!" Laws? What happened to negotiating with employers?
No, the entire history of unions is political activism, and that's why they remain so sacred to their party.
Gosh! So, you're saying that gordo53 taking five percent of the narrative out of context and ignoring ninety-five percent of the social trend at the time that undermines the socialist narrative leads to false and misleading conclusions? Who could ever have guessed?
If capitalism created the middle class, how come there was no middle class before unions?
Another weak fact free rant by Stossel.
Oh, BTW why is UPS organized by the Teamsters?
Look it up
The founder invited them
Try talking to your UPS driver.
They make excellent wages with a real pension.
They compete with USPS and Fedex dollar for dollar on shipping costs
Evil unions my foot
Not even a union fan, but you need to do better
"how come there was no middle class before unions?"
LMAO.... Exactly how propaganda loaded does have to be to buy that BS?
Might be nice to actually have an argument rather than BS
your idiot king wants to return us to a time when the .1 percent can dictate wages and laws.
Like it or not unions provided an important check on unbridled avarice.
Try having an actual response, not trying to get a laugh from your fellow basement dwellers.
Lessee, when was the era of largest economic growth in the US?
how about the era of highest union membership.
All those horrrrible union contracts?
American executives negotiated and signed all of them
The average American is not better off when Elon and Jeff have all the money
So, you have citations for the collusion by the .1 percent you claim?
If I thought it would actually bypass the bias barriers you have erected, I would point out that correlation does not prove causation. Just because unions happened about the same time as industrialization and the rise of the middle class does not imply that unions caused the middle class. Industrialization caused the middle class AND unionization. You could even look it up: key words "confounding variables."
A unionized grocery store just shut down in my town. Doesn't affect me. I shop at non-union stores. I'd rather see my food dollars go to workers rather than union bosses.
Look at what happened to Eastern Airlines. The Machinist's Union merged with the Baggage Handlers Union. You had Baggage Handlers with 20 years making the same as Mechanics with 20 years. About a year before the merger, Eastern went to a color coded system for baggage because many of it's handlers couldn't read the existing tags.
A personal favorite was an aircraft maintaince company in Alabama. They went on strike and the Union told the lower time employees that they had to put in so many hours on the picket line to get financial help from the Union. When the strike was resolved, the lower time members were laid off because of the lack of work.
I have an uncle who used to work for United. There was a stretch where the unions where the company was trying to get the union workers to take a pay cut to prevent a bankruptcy, and the unions all printed t-shirts for their members that said "full pay till the last day".
Then someone at the unions figured out what they should have known from the beginning, which is that their pension funds were the majority shareholder in the company, and that putting the company into Chapter anything would wipe out $Billions from those pension funds overnight.
I don't know if they ever figured out that being the majority shareholder meant that the unions were essentially on both sides of the negotiating table and that fostering a contentious relationship between "labor" and "management" is abject lunacy in that particular situation.
Or there's the example of the US-based VW plants, where the company has a representative for the workers participating collaboratively in the top-level decision making at German factories, and thought that maybe UAW could serve that function in the US, so they actually encouraged the workers to hold an organization vote. It wasn't until someone in their legal department explained what the paradigm of company-union relations under the Wagner Act is and they switched to opposing the presence of the union in their plants here.
Collectivists destroy everything!
Old news with a mountain of historical evidence behind it.
But, but, but ... The leftard-people will just keep believing that TAKING from others by intimidation-factors (Gang-pressure / Gov-Guns) will work this time!
They are Demand-Side only oriented with NO Supply-side consideration. The conquer and consume mentality. The "Collectivists that destroy everything" because that is exactly what Demand-Side only *is*.
The only Supply-side recognition they'll ever entertain is a purely-biased HATRED of the supply in some fraudulent attempt to cover-up/justify their proposed criminal-act to conquer and consume it.
To be fair, corporations are also gangs. Insofar as the corporation gang is allowed to negotiate with the employee gang to their mutual advantage - or not - then market forces can prevail. To the extent that the law requires the corporate gang to recognize, accommodate and negotiate with the union gang, then market forces cannot prevail and all that is left is a struggle for power. Also - to be fair - corporations also are protected by government law from market force liabilities and torts that they may cause.
Only if there is collusion.
And, who's left out of this equation? The rest of us.
Two foxes and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
The irony is that, when it comes to labor economics, Unions are very much supply-side. They believe that anyone who's ever showed up for two consecutive days of work is entitled to a weekly paycheck for the rest of their life, and it's only because of "greedy shareholders" that companies that lose money on a consistent basis generally go out of business.
They think that the consumers of products create wealth for the manufacturers (apparently smartphones took until the 21st century to get invented only because nobody would have wanted such a device in any previous decade), but they reject the idea that employers play any kind of role in creating jobs.
The Teamsters is one of the most corrupt if not, the most corrupt union in the country. They were so corrupt back in the 1970s they were taken over by the Feds.
Then Jimmy Hoffa became part of the foundation for the Rennaissance Center in Detroit.
Funny that Republican MAGA is now the pro-Union party, headed by an orange rust-belt RINO.