22.4 Lay-off—Need some understanding

The eventually of Saturday and Sunday delivery was going to happen.

Members had the opportunity to dictate the terms.


Who.... dropped the ball ?
5kX5enO6iOoo0.gif
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Alright guys, they’ve officially laid off 29 preloaders and now some 22.4 drivers in SoCal. I’m at the cutoff and was laid off. I am a 22.4 driver. Issues:

1) The way I read the contract, we'll get paid our 22.4 rate for inside work. Is this true?

2) They are borrowing 22.4 drivers from other centers despite the fact that I have center seniority- this is wrong, right?

3) These are not district wide and I would like to work elsewhere— is this allowed?

I am a driver in the SoCal region, Western Rider, local 396 Supplement


You never answered my question. Has every cover driver been sent back into the building?
 

dudebro

Well-Known Member
That's some "out of the box" thinking.... but, yes.

That's why even paper ballots for Local election's are completely anonymous.

Is asking members to participate in the vote directly (while remaining neutral on HOW) really illegal for a Steward?

Because I remember being told as a manager to ask every Teamster to vote a few contracts ago so long as I counseled the employee to vote their conscience and not recommend yes or no.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Stewards should make drivers and preloaders show proof they voted...hold everyone accountable or single them out.

Great another reason for people to say the union is corrupt. People that didn't like the contract or locals stance would say stewards were threatening or bullying members for voting a certain way.
 

Bob11B

Well-Known Member
Great another reason for people to say the union is corrupt. People that didn't like the contract or locals stance would say stewards were threatening or bullying members for voting a certain way.
Did I say to tel them how to vote? A simple screenshot that they voted bc people are lazy and need to be held accountable.
 

...

Nah
The union needs to reach out to the part timers. Probably most drivers know who their BA but I seriously doubt most of the part timers do

I used to work in a large hub. Although I wasn't a steward, I did everything I could to get people involved, and yes, to vote. It's a lost cause. The part-timers only care about wages and health insurance...and even the wages are negotiable to many of them. An "added bonus," if you will...
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
I used to work in a large hub. Although I wasn't a steward, I did everything I could to get people involved, and yes, to vote. It's a lost cause. The part-timers only care about wages and health insurance...and even the wages are negotiable to many of them. An "added bonus," if you will...

I've donated a lot of time passing out info and talking to members at many buildings myself. It does get frustrating how many people do not care. It always amazes me how many members are uninformed and couldn't care less. Even FTers.
 

...

Nah
I've donated a lot of time passing out info and talking to members at many buildings myself. It does get frustrating how many people do not care. It always amazes me how many members are uninformed and couldn't care less. Even FTers.

If I had a pair of UPS socks for every time I've heard "I don't want a target on my back, I just want to go home." I'd never have to buy any with my own money.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
It would still be majority rules if voter turnout was high. Defaulting to a YES vote if a threshold isn't met is voter suppression. Those voters that ACTUALLY voted anyway.

If the majority of members stay home (or can’t find 30 seconds to vote on their smart devices) then they shouldn’t count. But as it stands....you can decide a contract vote by not voting at all. That doesn’t make sense no matter how it’s explained.

The union will never allow a minority of the membership to overrule them, or to dictate to them what a contract should be, or should not be.

If they're going to be overruled, it's going to be by the majority of the membership, not just a majority of the voting membership.

And they really don't even want this to happen, but they have no choice. It used to be that we needed a two-thirds majority to turn a contract down.

Now, at least we have a straight majority vote, except that the union kept in a safe guard that only the majority rules if more than half the membership voted.
 
Top