2/3 rule used to ratify supplements

[mikejonesjr]

You have proof it wasn't a final offer?

I have proof it was.

Hoffa had a meeting with all the Locals to vote on whether or not to send this offer to us to vote on. This is a known fact.

Per Article XXII Section 2(d) of the IBT Constitution, this only needs to happen if the Negotiating Committee believes that this was a final offer from the Company, irregardless of their intentions.

That doesn't mean it was a final offer. It was a final first offer. If you think that had we reached 2/3 and an actual no vote, that UPS wouldn't go back to the table to negotiate then you must have been born yesterday. Also it's hilarious you called that proof

 

[Bubblehead]

That doesn't mean it was a final offer. It was a final first offer. If you think that had we reached 2/3 and an actual no vote, that UPS wouldn't go back to the table to negotiate then you must have been born yesterday. Also it's hilarious you called that proof

Mike, I'm not happy about it either and feel the IBT fell woefully short of being transparent about their intentions (to the level of being deceitful), but it is for sure provided for in Article 12 of the IBT Constitution.

 

[mikejonesjr]

Mike, I'm not happy about it either and feel the IBT fell woefully short of being transparent about their intentions (to the level of being deceitful), but it is for sure provided for in Article 12 of the IBT Constitution.

I'm not disagreeing, it is in the language that they can call it a final offer. I'm just saying I highly doubt that was the case. Nothing we can do about it, but there shouldn't be language that is vague like that to say "final offer" unless UPS comes out saying that before it's voted on.

 

[LagunaBrown]

Now that we can all agree this is over.

 

[Bubblehead]

Now that we can all agree this is over.

Will you crawl back into the tar pit you slithered out of if we agree???

 

[Rick Ross]

just a thought, wouldn't the board of directors needs to approve a final contract offer? I have attached a link to the bylaws but I have no time to go through anything today. I'm guessing the minutes are posted somewhere online as well.

if in fact the board of directors would need to approve a final contract offer, it would seem we have a case for the union not representing all of its employees. I know a bunch of you will say the two thirds rule is in effect, I personally believe that rule was enacted without proper cause.

http://www.investors.ups.com/governance/governance-documents

 

[mikejonesjr]

just a thought, wouldn't the board of directors needs to approve a final contract offer? I have attached a link to the bylaws but I have no time to go through anything today. I'm guessing the minutes are posted somewhere online as well.

if in fact the board of directors would need to approve a final contract offer, it would seem we have a case for the union not representing all of its employees. I know a bunch of you will say the two thirds rule is in effect, I personally believe that rule was enacted without proper cause.

Governance Documents | UPS

Why even say we need a "final offer" if they can just call anything they want a final offer. Might as well just say it applies to any offer. We wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Bubblehead]

just a thought, wouldn't the board of directors needs to approve a final contract offer? I have attached a link to the bylaws but I have no time to go through anything today. I'm guessing the minutes are posted somewhere online as well.

if in fact the board of directors would need to approve a final contract offer, it would seem we have a case for the union not representing all of its employees. I know a bunch of you will say the two thirds rule is in effect, I personally believe that rule was enacted without proper cause.

Governance Documents | UPS

Why even say we need a "final offer" if they can just call anything they want a final offer. Might as well just say it applies to any offer. We wouldn't know the difference.

Article 12

Area, Multi-Area, Multi-Employer, National, Company-wide or Industry-wide Contracts
Section 2(a). If a majority of the affiliated Local Unions vote to participate in area, multi-area, national, multi-employer, company-wide, or industry-wide nego- tiations for an area, multi-area, national, multi-employ- er, company-wide, or industry-wide agreement (here- inafter “master agreement”), all involved affiliated Local Unions shall comprise a multi-union unit, be bound by such vote, must participate in such master agreement bargaining and shall be bound by the agreement approved as provided below. Upon completion of nego- tiations by any committee designated as hereinafter set forth to engage in negotiations of a master agreement, such agreement shall be submitted to the membership involved in such negotiations for their approval or rejection as the final offer in accordance with Section 2(d) herein.


I know it sucks.
I know we were deceived through ommission.
I am angry and dissapointed too.

....yet I still can't figure out where we are losing you guys?

 

[LagunaBrown]

Will you crawl back into the tar pit you slithered out of if we agree???

Such negativity, if I don’t will you use your supreme internet power to delete that video too?

 

[LagunaBrown]

Article 12

Area, Multi-Area, Multi-Employer, National, Company-wide or Industry-wide Contracts
Section 2(a). If a majority of the affiliated Local Unions vote to participate in area, multi-area, national, multi-employer, company-wide, or industry-wide nego- tiations for an area, multi-area, national, multi-employ- er, company-wide, or industry-wide agreement (here- inafter “master agreement”), all involved affiliated Local Unions shall comprise a multi-union unit, be bound by such vote, must participate in such master agreement bargaining and shall be bound by the agreement approved as provided below. Upon completion of nego- tiations by any committee designated as hereinafter set forth to engage in negotiations of a master agreement, such agreement shall be submitted to the membership involved in such negotiations for their approval or rejection as the final offer in accordance with Section 2(d) herein.


I know it sucks.
I know we were deceived through ommission.
I am angry and dissapointed too.

....yet I still can't figure out where we are losing you guys?

Call TDU quick! Lawyer up!

 

[Mugarolla]

That doesn't mean it was a final offer. It was a final first offer. If you think that had we reached 2/3 and an actual no vote, that UPS wouldn't go back to the table to negotiate then you must have been born yesterday. Also it's hilarious you called that proof

Don't know what to tell you. Looks like the Negotiating Committee disagrees with you since it was sent to the Locals for a vote on whether or not to send it to us for a vote, per Section 2(d),

Section 2(b), with a majority vote to accept or reject, does not call for the Locals to approve an offer.

And sorry, but I'll believe the Negotiating Committee before I believe a forum stranger.

Article XXII Section 2(d)

When in the judgment of the negotiating committee the involved employer has made a final offer of settlement, such negotiating committee shall have the authority, with the approval of the General Executive Board, to conduct agreement ratification votes and strike votes on such area, multi-area, multi-employer, national, company-wide, industry-wide, or Local Union basis as the committee shall determine, except that no such final offer shall be considered to be a contract offer subject to ratification by the membership until it has been reviewed by the Local Unions which are the bargaining representatives of the involved members. In the event a strike is authorized, the said committee shall have the authority, with the approval of the General Executive Board, to direct that the strike be conducted on such area, multi area, multi-employer, national, company-wide, industry wide, Local Union, or such other selective basis as the committee shall determine. Results of ratification or rejection votes with respect to master agreements shall be determined by all involved voting members on a cumulative basis of all votes cast as follows:

 

[Mugarolla]

That doesn't mean it was a final offer. It was a final first offer

So you are agreeing that this was a final offer.

See the IBT Constitution for voting rules. Section 2 (d).

On a side note, how many final offers constitute the last final offer?

3....10.....100?

Isn't final, well final?

 

[mikejonesjr]

So you are agreeing that this was a final offer.

See the IBT Constitution for voting rules. Section 2 (d).

On a side note, how many final offers constitute the last final offer?

3....10.....100?

Isn't final, well final?

I don't know how many offers constitutes a final offer. But I'm sure a first offer and a final offer aren't the same thing

 

[Benben]

Hoffa had a meeting with all the Locals to vote on whether or not to send this offer to us to vote on. This is a known fact.

Not true, just called my BA and he said our local did not meet with Hoffa.

Nice try though, facts be damned and all huh?

 

[Inthegame]

Not true, just called my BA and he said our local did not meet with Hoffa.

Nice try though, facts be damned and all huh?

All locals with UPS members were invited to the two man mtg.

 

[Mugarolla]

Not true, just called my BA and he said our local did not meet with Hoffa.

Nice try though, facts be damned and all huh?

Then I guess your Local refused to participate in the 2 man meeting.

They were asked to, and should have.

Your facts are damned.

 

[Mugarolla]

I don't know how many offers constitutes a final offer. But I'm sure a first offer and a final offer aren't the same thing

The first offer was last November.

The Constitution doesn't differentiate between first final, last final, best final,

They negotiated until UPS would not budge on anything else.

It was their final offer.

Does not mean that if it was turned down that there wouldn't be another, but at the time, it was a final offer.

 

[Rick Ross]

I know it sucks.
I know we were deceived through ommission.
I am angry and dissapointed too.

....yet I still can't figure out where we are losing you guys?

I understand the contract has been pushed through and the deal is done.

My own union used, possibly, millions of dollars from NO voters to swing the vote away from the 2/3's we needed to send it back. To me this seems not only immoral buy also illegal.

Does no one else have an issue with the fact our union used mailings to try and scare membership and sway votes towards YES? These are the same tactics companies use when they don't want a union to organize their workplace.

I simply posted a thought and link hoping someone could run with it. I would love to see DT, JH and anyone else involved with this fiasco investigated for malfeasance.

 

[johnny_hotdog]

One thing that doesn’t sit right with me about this final offer discrepancy. Reading the constitution that has been posted makes it appear as though any offer voted on is a final offer. One big problem with that though. Frieght voted there’s down. Wouldn’t it be a final offer as well. According to the constitution they should be on strike. Maybe I am missing something but I believe the constitution is the same for both of us.

 

[LagunaBrown]

One thing that doesn’t sit right with me about this final offer discrepancy. Reading the constitution that has been posted makes it appear as though any offer voted on is a final offer. One big problem with that though. Frieght voted there’s down. Wouldn’t it be a final offer as well. According to the constitution they should be on strike. Maybe I am missing something but I believe the constitution is the same for both of us.

Lawyer up.