So you acknowledge that James P. Hoffa is a sellout? Because he sure as hell isn't a real president. And you damn well know that Jimmy Hoffa wouldn't agree with what his son is doing. That's not compromise. That's flat out ignoring the members' wishes. His father wouldn't want that, and you know it.
I hope Big Union Man....doesn't see this. Lol."Big Union Man" did see that. "Big Union Man" quite literally thinks that Hawfa and his "leadership" can do no wrong. "Big Union Man" thinks it's okay for Hawfa and his leadership to circumvent the "worrisome" issue of actually having to negotiate a fair contract for the membership that pays his way (and actually voted him into office several times) by making up another bullreason to throw into a General Executive Board resolution to impose the supplementals that were voted down almost unanimously. "Big Union Man" is irrelevant.
He's going to act like he didn't, anyways. Like most of the posts where I challenge him and he has no way to refute what I said or back up what he said. Class act, BUG.
He was the Pete Rose of the Teamsters.
Like I said in another post a couple of posts ago, I used to post here as turdburglar. Join date of 2012. Even so, you've still ignored many of my challenges as Superteeth2478.
nothing he can tell you aside from the contract being forced
Doesn’t matter, you answer posts that call out our Union with ambiguous quotes with underlying support for all decisions made as the right thing for the members. Or you just blatantly call out members as not doing enough to engage in the Union, as if everyone should be down at the hall everyday instead of performing their FT Union job.
You know what's funny? In the past, I would actually go out of my way to prove my point by going back and quoting all the posts I've directed at you that you either ignored entirely or sidetracked without directly addressing my argument/counterargument. Now...well, you're irrelevant, like I said a little while ago. While I'm sure my opinion of your relevance matters nothing to you, anyone can see that your political affiliations truly do cloud your ability to think logically. You can't even criticize blatant violations of the IBT Constitution when they're done by Hawfa and his Old Guard. So I'm not going to bother with proving my point to you.
See what I mean? I'm sure that TONS more members, veterans and newbies alike, see right through you BUG. I'm not the only one. You're just a puppet for Hawfa.
It's not even accurate to say they were trying to "fight" 22.4 language. They were trying to get clarification on how 22.4 positions would affect current RPCDs. The whole point of supplemental language is to address shortcomings in the NMA, anyways. Better provisions in supplemental agreements always apply unless there is language in the NMA that allows it to supersede supplemental language. What's the point of supplemental agreements if they don't have better language, then?
If that's true, I called it (sort of). It's a political play. Hall will become the hero after adding some
ty language that's preferable to the crap being shoved up their asses and UPS will "reluctantly" agree to it.Regional specific issues. COL raises. Local labor laws, etc.
The membership thought that was a relevant issue. They wanted that clarification. It's the local's job to address the needs of the membership. It's a very legitimate concern. There are plenty of topics that the NMA doesn't speak on except for in a general manner.
Are you kidding? Just the most recent one is where you post a picture of James R. Hoffa's quote (which is irrelevant in this situation, and NOT what James R. Hoffa had in mind when saying it) in response to supplementals being jammed up the voting membership's asses...more and more evidence is pointing to that rumor being true, and that's all you have to say about it? As if this is a "time for agreement"? As if UPS being at it's most profitable point in history and having offered a WORSE agreement to be put to the vote is something that the membership should look at and say "This is a time for compromise, a time for agreement?"
