396 meeting Sunday June 2, 2013

[Anonymous 10]

Any chance they take proposed enhancements away on Nov1'st?

No

 

[Catatonic]

I used to like some of the crap he spewed but now I've realized he has some real issues and agendas. I think his agenda is being out for his political aspirations.

It appears he would make a good Secretary of Something!

 

[realbrown1]

I'm glad people are on to this TOS of crap.

Yep, TOS is the man. Says it like it is. Unlike the OG Cheerleading squad.

 

[stink219]

I'm glad people are on to this TOS of crap.

Yep, TOS is the man. Says it like it is. Unlike the OG Cheerleading squad.

What does TOS do at UPS?

 

[rpoz11]

396 meeting this Sunday

Sometimes I'm confused.
We all want our work environment to be strong and always improve.
When I was hired, the definition of a Union meant strength.
Strength in numbers.
Strength by numbers.
What I am continually seeing is my Stewards, my BA's, my Locals President telling us right now that everything is going to be OK.
Vote this proposal in.
They say its a good thing.
Just listen to us.
Then.....
I trust my instincts and listen to them.
It says question them right now as they are telling us to accept this.
My instincts tell me I should stand up to my Leadership and ask them to take my place.
Is this what my Union has become?
Am I supposed to stand up, call them on this whole thing, and say HELL NO?
Are we, the current Union dues paying members, suppose to stand up and ignore the sell we are being given?
Are we the members responsible for our own outcome?

What the Hell is happening here???

TOS, keep bringing it

 

[realbrown1]

Sometimes I'm confused.
We all want our work environment to be strong and always improve.
When I was hired, the definition of a Union meant strength.
Strength in numbers.
Strength by numbers.
What I am continually seeing is my Stewards, my BA's, my Locals President telling us right now that everything is going to be OK.
Vote this proposal in.
They say its a good thing.
Just listen to us.
Then.....
I trust my instincts and listen to them.
It says question them right now as they are telling us to accept this.
My instincts tell me I should stand up to my Leadership and ask them to take my place.
Is this what my Union has become?
Am I supposed to stand up, call them on this whole thing, and say HELL NO?
Are we, the current Union dues paying members, suppose to stand up and ignore the sell we are being given?
Are we the members responsible for our own outcome?

What the Hell is happening here???

TOS, keep bringing it

You sound like me, 4 years ago. I stopped blindly following. I started asking questions.

 

[The Other Side]

vc

While the duty of trustees is fiduciary, to delude oneself into thinking these trustees act "independently" of their respective appointive bodies is ridiculous.

I am not sure if you understand the term "TRUSTEE". This is a position that is to be above "influence", trusted, trusting, TRUSTEE. They DO NOT consult with ANYONE of ANY body. That would be a conflict of interest to the TRUSTEE. For you to believe that they would take "outside" considerations into account before making a Monetary decision is just silly.


If the trustees start acting too independently, they'll be replaced or retired.

Trustees get replaced all the time. Their terms end and some dont want to be on the boards any longer. What you are suggesting, is that they are merely "puppets" that do the bidding of the bodies that employ them outside the board. This is just ridiculous.


Their fiduciary duty requires them to make decisions based on participant benefit and fund needs.

You are correct. The FUND comes first. The bottom line must be protected before peoples "feelings". This "enhancement" only affects the 10 locals in the west and local 177. But , ask yourself why? Why not upgrade the entire country to the IDENTICAL Plan? Why not have every employee on equal footing? But the answer is simple. Its going to change. They wont keep the enhancements longer than absolutely necessary. As to this end, I say, they keep them until all the elections in the west are over for the next term. For us in 396, that will be next year.



To assume changes would be made to a group under contract assumes the administrator didn't request or receive adequate funding in negotiations.

WHAT?


The language you fear in the MOU is standard boilerplate language present in every plan, including the current UPS plan. "That one little sentence in the MOU that clears them to change benefit levels at any time tells you that they are preparing to do just that"

WHAT do you think this means?



Here's where you're way off the track. Vote No if you want but don't make up stories to scare.

Scare? What i presented was a Hypothesis. One based on language and history. You call it a story, I call it giving it considerable thought. Why would they only enhance the west and local 177?
Only the western officers are in jeopardy over this contract. The international knows that the members in the west are going to be really pissed off about this contract and that places ALL western principle officers at risk. The process is then "rigged" to offer cover to those officers. a temporary enhancement that makes the C6 plan a little more digestable until the western officers can get though elections.

THEN, once the elections are over and the smoke clears, the trustees of the CSH&W will meet and vote to change the employee benefit levels for the west and local 177. This is "MY" hypothesis based upon my experience and history with the TEAMSTERS . Brother Andy M, the CHAIR of the Southwest Region agrees with me. Brother Marshall agrees that the language in the MOU granting universal rights to the CSH&W is "dangerous" and they could "possibly" make changes that "WE" would have no control over.

EVEN Brother Marshall could NOT guarantee that benefit levels would not change over the life of the contract, as that IS NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CONTRACT.

Don't mix opinion with fact.

Here's a FACT. NOTHING in this agreement confirms that the transition to the C6 health plan will remain the same over the life of the contract. Instead, it provides the opposite. YOU can go ahead and vote YES. Approve this contract. Then, when the plan changes and people start complaining, YOU can accept responsibility for it.

 

[rpoz11]

So, what happened with Andy M today?

 

[Evil]

I heard he served the same kool-aid he served at 396 last week.

 

[rpoz11]

396 meeting this Sunday

TOS, I am being told that your account and recollection of the contract meeting at 396 was very accurate.
In fact, Andy M didn't like this being posted.
Clean out your PM box.
Keep up your good work

 

[The Other Side]

TOS, I am being told that your account and recollection of the contract meeting at 396 was very accurate.
In fact, Andy M didn't like this being posted.
Clean out your PM box.
Keep up your good work

I imagine he is not happy about it, but the truth is the truth. He himself said many times over and over "i dont care if the company hears this..." as he went on and on with his explanations.

In fact, he made it a point to said it loudly, "I dont care if the company finds out that I said this, but, File a supervisor working grievance and we will get you paid, and with the money, you can pay the deductibles and co-pays"...

NOOOOW, he wants to get upset that it was posted on a public forum?

He better do more than just get upset. He'd better listen to the members as we are about to speak louder than he could possibly want to hear.

Peace

TOS

 

[Inthegame]

Originally Posted by Inthegame

While the duty of trustees is fiduciary, to delude oneself into thinking these trustees act "independently" of their respective appointive bodies is ridiculous.

I am not sure if you understand the term "TRUSTEE". This is a position that is to be above "influence", trusted, trusting, TRUSTEE. They DO NOT consult with ANYONE of ANY body. That would be a conflict of interest to the TRUSTEE. For you to believe that they would take "outside" considerations into account before making a Monetary decision is just silly.

If the trustees start acting too independently, they'll be replaced or retired.
Trustees get replaced all the time. Their terms end and some dont want to be on the boards any longer. What you are suggesting, is that they are merely "puppets" that do the bidding of the bodies that employ them outside the board. This is just ridiculous.

Their fiduciary duty requires them to make decisions based on participant benefit and fund needs.

You are correct. The FUND comes first. The bottom line must be protected before peoples "feelings". This "enhancement" only affects the 10 locals in the west and local 177. But , ask yourself why? Why not upgrade the entire country to the IDENTICAL Plan? Why not have every employee on equal footing? But the answer is simple. Its going to change. They wont keep the enhancements longer than absolutely necessary. As to this end, I say, they keep them until all the elections in the west are over for the next term. For us in 396, that will be next year.


To assume changes would be made to a group under contract assumes the administrator didn't request or receive adequate funding in negotiations.

WHAT?

The language you fear in the MOU is standard boilerplate language present in every plan, including the current UPS plan. "That one little sentence in the MOU that clears them to change benefit levels at any time tells you that they are preparing to do just that"
WHAT do you think this means?


Here's where you're way off the track. Vote No if you want but don't make up stories to scare.

Scare? What i presented was a Hypothesis. One based on language and history. You call it a story, I call it giving it considerable thought. Why would they only enhance the west and local 177?
Only the western officers are in jeopardy over this contract. The international knows that the members in the west are going to be really pissed off about this contract and that places ALL western principle officers at risk. The process is then "rigged" to offer cover to those officers. a temporary enhancement that makes the C6 plan a little more digestable until the western officers can get though elections.

THEN, once the elections are over and the smoke clears, the trustees of the CSH&W will meet and vote to change the employee benefit levels for the west and local 177. This is "MY" hypothesis based upon my experience and history with the TEAMSTERS . Brother Andy M, the CHAIR of the Southwest Region agrees with me. Brother Marshall agrees that the language in the MOU granting universal rights to the CSH&W is "dangerous" and they could "possibly" make changes that "WE" would have no control over.

EVEN Brother Marshall could NOT guarantee that benefit levels would not change over the life of the contract, as that IS NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CONTRACT.

Don't mix opinion with fact.

Here's a FACT. NOTHING in this agreement confirms that the transition to the C6 health plan will remain the same over the life of the contract. Instead, it provides the opposite. YOU can go ahead and vote YES. Approve this contract. Then, when the plan changes and people start complaining, YOU can accept responsibility for it.

​

​

You're in rare form today. Odd, yesterday my post was not worth your response but somehow you've manage to write another volume of conflicting rebuttal. Reread your response and explain again how I'm silly suggesting outside influences don't affect trustee action. Or how ridiculous is it to consider trustees would do the bidding of their employers? Your entire concocted "hypothesis" demands the trustees are in on this whole dreamed up charade!
THEN, once the elections are over and the smoke clears, the trustees of the CSH&W will meet and vote to change the employee benefit levels for the west and local 177. TOS, you're rebutting yourself. Thanks but I don't need your help making points.

 

[The Other Side]

You're in rare form today. Odd, yesterday my post was not worth your response but somehow you've manage to write another volume of conflicting rebuttal. Reread your response and explain again how I'm silly suggesting outside influences don't affect trustee action. Or how ridiculous is it to consider trustees would do the bidding of their employers? Your entire concocted "hypothesis" demands the trustees are in on this whole dreamed up charade!
THEN, once the elections are over and the smoke clears, the trustees of the CSH&W will meet and vote to change the employee benefit levels for the west and local 177. TOS, you're rebutting yourself. Thanks but I don't need your help making points.

What is it about simple explanations that escape you? A Trustee is forced to manage money. They are not there to establish policy outside the board room. ON the other hand, this "enhancement" only effects the 10 locals in the west and one local outside ( local 177). The board would have to agree to this, but we dont know and will not know what was discussed by the board. They may have suggested it themselves to the Teamsters and company.

This we will never know.

This places more importance on the actual verbage in the MOU versus some lame talk on the shop floor by local officials.

Wouldnt you rather see a defined sentence locking in the benefits for the life of the contract? Or is the word of a business agent good enough for you?

peace

TOS

 

[LagunaBrown]

396 meeting this Sunday

Brother Marshall was very informative and I made my decision. The same brother that got kicked out of your meeting tried to argue with Andy M about the contract. Lol! WTF? Andy M is negotiating our contracts and this TDU goofball thinks he knows the contract better???? I'll take my chances with a yes vote rather than some unqualified jerk-off with the communication skills of a donkey fist pumping a no vote. There is a reason nobody sat next to that clown and he left early. I am from another local and don't mess with a 396 thread but I couldn't resist that one. I will save my no vote for the IBT election if the West doesn't get done but personally I trust the West leaders to carve out a plan.

 

[The Other Side]

Brother Marshall was very informative and I made my decision. The same brother that got kicked out of your meeting tried to argue with Andy M about the contract. Lol! WTF? Andy M is negotiating our contracts and this TDU goofball thinks he knows the contract better???? I'll take my chances with a yes vote rather than some unqualified jerk-off with the communication skills of a donkey fist pumping a no vote. There is a reason nobody sat next to that clown and he left early. I am from another local and don't mess with a 396 thread but I couldn't resist that one. I will save my no vote for the IBT election if the West doesn't get done but personally I trust the West leaders to carve out a plan.

As long as you gave it your best thought process, then I applaud your decision. Not sure of the guy, he was from 952, older gentleman holding a copy of the contract. He was talking about the pension contributions and nickels and dimes, he was wrong on the issues at our meeting, but he wasnt out of line ( imo ).

Everyone has to be comfortable with their decisions, and if you are good with yours, then I have no problems with it.

Out of curiosity, did Brother Marshall advise the group to "file a sup working grievance" to cover medical expenses?

Just wondering if he dropped that line.

Peace

TOS

 

[fastlearner]

Brother Marshall was very informative and I made my decision. The same brother that got kicked out of your meeting tried to argue with Andy M about the contract. Lol! WTF? Andy M is negotiating our contracts and this TDU goofball thinks he knows the contract better???? I'll take my chances with a yes vote rather than some unqualified jerk-off with the communication skills of a donkey fist pumping a no vote. There is a reason nobody sat next to that clown and he left early. I am from another local and don't mess with a 396 thread but I couldn't resist that one. I will save my no vote for the IBT election if the West doesn't get done but personally I trust the West leaders to carve out a plan.

What are you saying? You and Andy M are qualified ****88? I accept you opinion. Thank you. From now on I will refer to you as ******** and Andy M as ********

 

[realbrown1]

Brother Marshall was very informative and I made my decision. The same brother that got kicked out of your meeting tried to argue with Andy M about the contract. Lol! WTF? Andy M is negotiating our contracts and this TDU goofball thinks he knows the contract better???? I'll take my chances with a yes vote rather than some unqualified jerk-off with the communication skills of a donkey fist pumping a no vote. There is a reason nobody sat next to that clown and he left early. I am from another local and don't mess with a 396 thread but I couldn't resist that one. I will save my no vote for the IBT election if the West doesn't get done but personally I trust the West leaders to carve out a plan.

What a shocker. Who would have thought after all this time that you would be voting YES? Certainly not me. Oh that's right, I said it 2 days ago.

 

[stink219]

Brother Marshall was very informative and I made my decision. The same brother that got kicked out of your meeting tried to argue with Andy M about the contract. Lol! WTF? Andy M is negotiating our contracts and this TDU goofball thinks he knows the contract better???? I'll take my chances with a yes vote rather than some unqualified jerk-off with the communication skills of a donkey fist pumping a no vote. There is a reason nobody sat next to that clown and he left early. I am from another local and don't mess with a 396 thread but I couldn't resist that one. I will save my no vote for the IBT election if the West doesn't get done but personally I trust the West leaders to carve out a plan.

What a shocker. Who would have thought after all this time that you would be voting YES? Certainly not me. Oh that's right, I said it 2 days ago.

Are you on his case for projecting his vote? Seems the NO voters are trying to strong arm the YES voters.

 

[LagunaBrown]

As long as you gave it your best thought process, then I applaud your decision. Not sure of the guy, he was from 952, older gentleman holding a copy of the contract. He was talking about the pension contributions and nickels and dimes, he was wrong on the issues at our meeting, but he wasnt out of line ( imo ).

Everyone has to be comfortable with their decisions, and if you are good with yours, then I have no problems with it.

Out of curiosity, did Brother Marshall advise the group to "file a sup working grievance" to cover medical expenses?

Just wondering if he dropped that line.

Peace

TOS

I appreciate it cause I really have put a lot of time into this and fully understand anyone that wants to vote no as well. I'm not gonna hate on them if they do like some other brother or sisters will. As far as the filing to recoup cost he did mention it. At first I was a upset that it was an option just as you were but then as an afterthought I think its a way of getting members to step up and enforce the contract, send a message to ups through their pocket books and also help members with cost. We all know UPS managers get away with too many contract infractions that members allow cause they don't want a target on their back. If you are that passionate about our language and but too scared to file a grievance that is a problem. Members do need to get more involved and stewards need to show them the process works as well as that retaliation is unacceptable.
The sad thing is I doubt anyone will step up and the same old names will be the ones filing as always. Like you said before their is a lot of apathy. Although sometimes they hold off on trying to pay sup working grievances they are contractually obligated to pay and at our local it is a big help in proving we need more jobs.

 

[The Other Side]

I appreciate it cause I really have put a lot of time into this and fully understand anyone that wants to vote no as well. I'm not gonna hate on them if they do like some other brother or sisters will. As far as the filing to recoup cost he did mention it. At first I was a upset that it was an option just as you were but then as an afterthought I think its a way of getting members to step up and enforce the contract, send a message to ups through their pocket books and also help members with cost. We all know UPS managers get away with too many contract infractions that members allow cause they don't want a target on their back. If you are that passionate about our language and but too scared to file a grievance that is a problem. Members do need to get more involved and stewards need to show them the process works as well as that retaliation is unacceptable.
The sad thing is I doubt anyone will step up and the same old names will be the ones filing as always. Like you said before their is a lot of apathy. Although sometimes they hold off on trying to pay sup working grievances they are contractually obligated to pay and at our local it is a big help in proving we need more jobs.

I appreciate your honesty and fair debate. I cannot hate on you because you have presented a reasonable debate and demonstrated that you have given an honest look at the issues. Yes, we disagree, but we are both comfortable with our decisions and that is what is important.

In local 396, they have been WEAK at recovering sup working cases and its been over a year since they actually recouped any monies for sup working cases. At best, they can recover petty cases involving less than 5 hours, but in larger violations, they cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

For example. Two christmases ago, one center had not only supervisors working, but the center manager was delivering along with one loss prevention supervisor plus the company safety officer. Yes, they were all in package cars and working over 8 hours a day. Now, back in november, the company had us stewards in a meeting discussing xmas plans. Being that i have already experienced the some of the worst planned xmas's in years, this one posed the same shortfalls. They were told about the potentials for problems and we were ignored.

As peak week approached, volume had already been heavier than planned. When i say planned, that means "GUESSED". The company was short on trucks and drivers. They did not hire xmas drivers and we already used up our cover and air drivers. They failed to train a reasonable workforce to handle the volume and then decided to subsidize the workforce with supervisors. For two weeks, managers and supervisors worked daily.

A grievance was filed on ALL company persons working and a meeting was held. OF course, as usual, the local was unable to handle the case and it was referred to panel. First panel, postponed. Second panel, deadlock, third panel, decision to side with the company because of "unforseen" volume changes. ( even though todays software can accurately predict volume a week in advance)

The irony here brother Brown?

Andy M was the chair of that panel and voted with the company. The claim was denied.

And now today, he wants us to file a sup working grievance? Thats laughable at best.

Showing the company that we can file grievances no longer scares them, as they know they have the upper hand in the panel system. This isnt the old days, its the new way of handling cases, deadlock them for months, then side with the company. It all has to do with the local representation of course, and currently, we are poorly represented.

I hope that those that are willing to give up their current healthcare willing, are able to deal with the consequences down the road when they surface.

Peace

TOS