Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Superteeth2478" data-source="post: 3980316" data-attributes="member: 73024">Well Mr. BUG, where are you to speak on the rumor that haw haw Hawfa and Traitor intend to impose the local agreements that were rejected by the membership of two locals, to the tune of 88% and 96% NO votes? Admittedly it is still a rumor coming from your arch-enemy TDU, but they don&#039;t really have an incentive to claim that something that serious is going to happen only to shoot themselves in the foot and lose credibility by being completely wrong.Last time supplemental agreements were imposed because the voters were allegedly having issues with NMA language that resulted in them voting down their supplemental agreements (which is really nonsense anyways because that is what supplemental agreements are for, to address weaknesses in the NMA language, similar to how the federal government delegates the power to states to create laws that oftentimes provide the citizens of those states with more rights than those afforded them by federal law).This time it&#039;s because of &quot;unattainable demands&quot;. Really, that&#039;s the only thing that has me thinking that it&#039;s POSSIBLE that TDU is full of crap, only because it&#039;s hard for me to believe that Hawfa and Traitor are so stupid that they can claim the demands of Local 243 are &quot;unattainable&quot; when better provisions were on the table prior to the membership rejecting them the first time around. That&#039;s as close to proof as you could possibly get for collusion, and if someone in that local DOESN&#039;T file board charges on that basis I weep for the membership of that local and for the future of the Teamsters as a whole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Superteeth2478, post: 3980316, member: 73024"] Well Mr. BUG, where are you to speak on the rumor that haw haw Hawfa and Traitor intend to impose the local agreements that were rejected by the membership of two locals, to the tune of 88% and 96% NO votes? Admittedly it is still a rumor coming from your arch-enemy TDU, but they don't really have an incentive to claim that something that serious is going to happen only to shoot themselves in the foot and lose credibility by being completely wrong. Last time supplemental agreements were imposed because the voters were allegedly having issues with NMA language that resulted in them voting down their supplemental agreements (which is really nonsense anyways because that is what supplemental agreements are for, to address weaknesses in the NMA language, similar to how the federal government delegates the power to states to create laws that oftentimes provide the citizens of those states with more rights than those afforded them by federal law). This time it's because of "unattainable demands". Really, that's the only thing that has me thinking that it's POSSIBLE that TDU is full of crap, only because it's hard for me to believe that Hawfa and Traitor are so stupid that they can claim the demands of Local 243 are "unattainable" when better provisions were on the table prior to the membership rejecting them the first time around. That's as close to proof as you could possibly get for collusion, and if someone in that local DOESN'T file board charges on that basis I weep for the membership of that local and for the future of the Teamsters as a whole. [/QUOTE]

Verification