But you're OK with No voters responding to another No voter like this...
or this to a guy that is respectfully pointing out the language?
Hmmm
Blame the non-voters?
- Thread starter zubenelgenubi
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Article 45 of the agreement they were renegotiating:
Section 2.
Where no such cancellation or termination notice is served and the parties desire to continue said Agreement but also desire to negotiate changes or revisions in this Agreement, either party may serve
upon the other a notice at least sixty (60) days prior to July 31, 2013 2018 or July 31st of any subsequent contract year, advising that such party desires to revise or change terms or conditions o fsuch Agreement.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
He said everyone who didn't vote would have voted yes. That is not "respectfully pointing out the language". It's just making stuff up.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings my guy.
Last edited:
Well I didn't say that but I understand that bug is so far up your ass you can't think straight.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Ok.
The guy I was responding to said that. You quoted me and tried to twist my words.
You're salty bro lulz.
Old and salty. Thanks for noticing.
CoffeeStainedUniform
Well-Known Member
I said "Non voters would have been an overwhelmingly 'yes' vote..." Not every vote, but a majority. I did state why I believe that to be true in a later post.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Yes I know.
And I disagreed and made a joke about you being psychic. It's all good.
The guy said I was attacking you for "respectfully pointing out contract language". Which wasn't even what we were talking about.
Don't worry about it man, he's probably a few years away from full blown dementia, he really needs his pension money while he can still remember having it.
CoffeeStainedUniform
Well-Known Member
Sounds good
No the guy didn't say that. Just another miss, but you could move to Vegas with that comic wit.
Check your posts, you were responding to Mug, not Coffee.
Hey maybe that's why you were confused...mug-coffee...that's a freebie you can use in your stand up.
BTW, if I'm nearing dementia, your posts would indicate you're in it full blown.
I liked it better when you were coherent.
Here's another freebie...I'm not the enemy you seek. This contract and the process used to implement it sucks.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
You're confused old man.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
In a recent PM I had with a moderator of this forum, I stated it would shock me
if more than 50% voted on the contract. I was right.
The members need to take hard look in the mirror, and focus on where the blame
actually lies. Going to the bargaining table with only 23% of the members voting
for strike authorization.... is not like having a strong "pimp hand".... and
obviously handicapped the negotiation team.
It's time to face facts and move on.
All this "post" voting speculation, is starting to sound like a 2 year old throwing
a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.... and can't understand why.
This is precisely why, I wouldn't offer an opinion on whether I supported or
decried the proposed language. If Vegas had put odds on this.... I would have won.
The empirical data from previous contracts and elections proved me right.
UPS members don't vote.
-Bug-
MyTripisCut
Never bought my own handtruck
The sad thing is, I have had co workers state that they will never vote again. They feel it doesn’t matter. A whole lot of work to be done to strengthen this Union, I can’t wait.
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Probably, the same ones that won't sign the 9.5 list and complain about overtime.
It's going to take the members to make the changes they want.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Future
Victory Ride
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
I believe that only applies to existing contracts that are in effect.
We are still on the old contract, the new one has not been implemented yet.
And that clause still needs both parties willing.
I am also still waiting for your take on why Hoffa had the Locals vote on whether or not to accept this TA.
That is only done, per the IBT Constitution, if it is a final offer under Section 2(d).
It is not done under Section 2(b), the section that you keep saying that this vote fell under.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
That language is from the existing contract....
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
You are correct.
The existing agreement, set to expire August 1, 2018, was reopened and renegotiated, per the contract and the IBT Constitution.
Contract
Section 2.
Where no such cancellation or termination notice is served and the parties desire to continue said Agreement but also desire to negotiate changes or revisions in this Agreement, either party may serve upon the other a notice at least sixty (60) days prior to July 31, 2018 or July 31st of any subsequent contract year, advising that such party desires to revise or change terms or conditions of such Agreement.
IBT Constitution
When a master agreement negotiated under the provisions of this Article provides for a reopener and renegotiation, or is voluntarily reopened during its stated term, the above voting procedure shall apply to ratification of the new terms, if any, and Section 2(d) shall apply to strike votes.
We already had a strike vote, so we don't need to apply the vote results to a strike vote. If we didn't already give Hoffa permission to strike, these vote results, per Section 2(d), would require a 2/3 majority to reject the offer and to authorize a strike.
A TA was reached and the offer was sent to us to vote on. The issue at large is whether this was a final offer or not by UPS.
Section 2(a) of the IBT Constitution says any offer sent to us is a final offer.
Upon completion of negotiations 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.
Section 2(b) just calls for a majority to accept the offer, but does say a word about rejecting the offer.
If a majority of the votes cast by the involved membership approve such agreement, it shall become binding and effective upon all Local Unions involved and their members.
Section 2(d) outlines the voting procedure if the NNC believes UPS has made a final offer.
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.
Wait a minute....didn't Section 2(a) say any offer sent to us was a final offer?
I believe this Section means that this was a final offer sent to us from the IB, not necessarily a final offer from UPS. There was no other offer "waiting in the wings" to vote on should this one be rejected.
So, is this a final offer from UPS or not? Do we apply Section 2(b) or Section 2(d). Neither UPS nor the IBT said anything about it. One way or another.
Did the NNC believe that this was a final offer from UPS? If they did, they would need to have it reviewed by all Locals involved before sending it to us to vote on.
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.
Again, they did not need to apply the voting result to a strike vote because the IBT already had our vote to strike.
What did the NNC, and the IBT, do with the current offer?
They held a 2 man meeting with all the Locals to determine whether or not to send the TA to us for ratification. This does not happen under Section 2(b), no clause in Section 2(b) for this to take place, if it is not a final offer by UPS. Or if the NNC believes that it is not a final offer by UPS.
This only happens if the NNC believes that this is a final offer by UPS, and Section 2(d) determines the rules of the vote count.
We needed 2/3 to reject, since less than half voted it and to authorize a strike, although the IBT already had our strike authorization, meaning they could have struck at any time without this vote count.
A majority passes the offer, a 2/3 majority rejects the offer since less than half voted.
OK. UPS made a statement that they were willing to talk to the Union once the result was announced. This does not mean that at the time, the NNC believed it was not their final offer.
Should Hoffa have accepted that invite? Well, there were no guarantees, and according to Section 2(d) of the IBT Constitution, the contract that was approved by the NNC, International and super majority of all Locals, was not rejected, so it passed.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Tldr.
It wasn't a final offer. It wasn't a strike vote. If a majority doesn't pass it, negotiations continue.
Hoffa is CHOOSING to ratify the tentative agreement. He has that authority. He is LYING when he says he doesn't have a choice. He does.
Any Teamster representative who isn't pushing him to keep negotiating needs to be voted out.
