Changes to the 2/3 rule to be voted on

[zubenelgenubi]

They could have definitely gotten better language.

Everyone wants more money and I understand that but language is key

I was ok with the economic issues that effected me, part timers not so much. And might have been ok with 22.4 with better language, as you said.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

I was ok with the economic issues that effected me, part timers not so much. And might have been ok with 22.4 with better language, as you said.

That no 9.5 or 8-hour language really sucks for the 22.4 drivers

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

If you read the 2/3 rule in the IBT constitution, you will see that if the contract is turned down by a simple majority of more than 50% of eligible voters, or by 2/3 of less than 50% of eligible voters, a strike is automatically authorized.

Article 12 section 2

"all votes cast as follows:
(1) If at least one half of the members eligible to vote cast valid ballots then a cumulative majority of those voting in favor of the fnal offer shall result in acceptance of such offer; and a cumulative ma‑ jority of those voting against acceptance of the friend‑ nal offer shall authorize a strike without any addi‑ tional vote being necessary for such strike authorization. A tie vote shall be resolved as pro‑ vided in Section 1(b)(l) of this Article�
(2) If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a twothirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such fnal offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the fnal offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating com‑ mittee to accept such fnal offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it"

Strike authorization votes can be called earlier in the process to give the union more leverage in negotiations. If a strike wasn't already authorized prior to the ratification vote, they would need the threat of a strike to get the company back to the table. Last contract, UPS stated publicly they were willing to continue negotiations, and even with a previously authorized strike, Teamsters ratified anyway.

I stand corrected, I read through all of that in 2018 and didn't remember it being worded that way.

After re-reading your post I see your point now. It will be very interesting to see what kind of language changes are proposed, if we even get to hear any of them.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I stand corrected, I read through all of that in 2018 and didn't remember it being worded that way.

After re-reading your post I see your point now. It will be very interesting to see what kind of language changes are proposed, if we even get to hear any of them.

My understanding is that the convention will be virtual. Don't know if people will be able to listen in, doubt it. I'll keep an ear out for the proposed changes.

 

[Integrity]

It was brought up at a recent local meeting that during the next convention they will be voting to change the 2/3 rule in the IBT constitution. Please talk to your delegates and make sure they know how you feel about the matter.

I personally am not sure how I feel yet about changing the 2/3 vote rule in Article 12 of the IBT Constitution.

There is obviously a history where the IBT has used the 2/3 majority vote over the years. It is my understanding that the 2/3 majority vote was used to ratify contracts in the past and changing the rule to a simple majority if at least one half the eligible members vote was a previous change made at a previous IBT Convention while maintaining the 2/3 majority vote requirement when less than one half the eligible membership cast ballots.

I have to believe there was some wisdom for this.

It is not uncommon for 2/3 majority to be required when significant rights of a membership hangs in the balance of a decision. It seems like ratification of a union contract would qualify as being very significant.

I understand the dissonance some may have with the ratification of the Teamsters/UPS CBA.

I can't help but question, if apathy of membership, measured by failure to vote, is the root of the problem, even if it is a decades old problem, is allowing a minority of the membership take unrepresentative action without even the minimal protection of requiring at least 2/3 majority vote to move significant actions forward or in this case prevent a significant action from moving forward, as many seemed to have hoped, going to help resolve the apathy within the eligible voting membership of the UPS Teamster.

I just don't know???

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I personally am not sure how I feel yet about changing the 2/3 vote rule in Article 12 of the IBT Constitution.

There is obviously a history where the IBT has used the 2/3 majority vote over the years. It is my understanding that the 2/3 majority vote was used to ratify contracts in the past and changing the rule to a simple majority if at least one half the eligible members vote was a previous change made at a previous IBT Convention while maintaining the 2/3 majority vote requirement when less than one half the eligible membership cast ballots.

I have to believe there was some wisdom for this.

It is not uncommon for 2/3 majority to be required when significant rights of a membership hangs in the balance of a decision. It seems like ratification of a union contract would qualify as being very significant.

I understand the dissonance some may have with the ratification of the Teamsters/UPS CBA.

I can't help but question, if apathy of membership, measured by failure to vote, is the root of the problem, even if it is a decades old problem, is allowing a minority of the membership take unrepresentative action without even the minimal protection of requiring at least 2/3 majority vote to move significant actions forward or in this case prevent a significant action from moving forward, as many seemed to have hoped, going to help resolve the apathy within the eligible voting membership of the UPS Teamster.

I just don't know???

I think there are a few issues with the union/ups situation that makes that rule unrealistic. The biggest being the size and turn over within the part time ranks. Any part timer who's been there less than a year doesn't have much skin in the game, especially if they don't plan to stay long. Why should their eligibility and refusal to vote dilute the votes of those who do vote? I don't know the data, but I suspect that if short time part timers were not counted as eligible votes for the purposes of the 2/3 rule, we may have had over 50% voter turnout.

I agree that the 2/3 rule has a purpose, which is probably more evident in smaller shops. Perhaps it can be scaled somewhat to differentiate between large national contracts and smaller bargaining units.

 

[DELACROIX]

I personally am not sure how I feel yet about changing the 2/3 vote rule in Article 12 of the IBT Constitution.

There is obviously a history where the IBT has used the 2/3 majority vote over the years. It is my understanding that the 2/3 majority vote was used to ratify contracts in the past and changing the rule to a simple majority if at least one half the eligible members vote was a previous change made at a previous IBT Convention while maintaining the 2/3 majority vote requirement when less than one half the eligible membership cast ballots.

I have to believe there was some wisdom for this.

It is not uncommon for 2/3 majority to be required when significant rights of a membership hangs in the balance of a decision. It seems like ratification of a union contract would qualify as being very significant.

I understand the dissonance some may have with the ratification of the Teamsters/UPS CBA.

I can't help but question, if apathy of membership, measured by failure to vote, is the root of the problem, even if it is a decades old problem, is allowing a minority of the membership take unrepresentative action without even the minimal protection of requiring at least 2/3 majority vote to move significant actions forward or in this case prevent a significant action from moving forward, as many seemed to have hoped, going to help resolve the apathy within the eligible voting membership of the UPS Teamster.

I just don't know???

If there was more of a risk, maybe possible it would motivate these kids to vote. As long as we have a transient part time work force the less likely that over 50% voter participation will ever occur. The current leadership knew this way before the contract vote, that strike vote participation before the vote gave them the signal to force the ratification.

 

[PT Car Washer]

I think there are a few issues with the union/ups situation that makes that rule unrealistic. The biggest being the size and turn over within the part time ranks. Any part timer who's been there less than a year doesn't have much skin in the game, especially if they don't plan to stay long. Why should their eligibility and refusal to vote dilute the votes of those who do vote? I don't know the data, but I suspect that if short time part timers were not counted as eligible votes for the purposes of the 2/3 rule, we may have had over 50% voter turnout.

I agree that the 2/3 rule has a purpose, which is probably more evident in smaller shops. Perhaps it can be scaled somewhat to differentiate between large national contracts and smaller bargaining units.

You would have thought the IBT and FT members would have considered this when they voted to allow UPS to hire permanent PT Union members. Maybe next contract the members can vote on eliminating all or most PT jobs and converting them to FT jobs.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You would have thought the IBT and FT members would have considered this when they voted to allow UPS to hire permanent PT Union members. Maybe next contract the members can vote on eliminating all or most PT jobs and converting them to FT jobs.

I wasn't there, so can't say. I do know that hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Inthegame]

I think there are a few issues with the union/ups situation that makes that rule unrealistic. The biggest being the size and turn over within the part time ranks. Any part timer who's been there less than a year doesn't have much skin in the game, especially if they don't plan to stay long. Why should their eligibility and refusal to vote dilute the votes of those who do vote? I don't know the data, but I suspect that if short time part timers were not counted as eligible votes for the purposes of the 2/3 rule, we may have had over 50% voter turnout.

I agree that the 2/3 rule has a purpose, which is probably more evident in smaller shops. Perhaps it can be scaled somewhat to differentiate between large national contracts and smaller bargaining units.

There is a fair amount of wisdom in this post.

Did you run for delegate?

 

[Karma...]

the reality is that the pt-turn over funds the ft benefits including health and pensions...if there were no pt people the benefits would suffer.....what might be considered is a voting scale where ft people get a full vote and pt people get a half vote.......even more to the point perhaps a sliding scale where feeder drivers get get a more weighted vote.....

 

[zubenelgenubi]

There is a fair amount of wisdom in this post.

Did you run for delegate?

They asked a while back, I didn't actually want to go to the convention when it was planned to be in person, not a fan of crowds. I've talked with most of our delegates, so they know what I think of the situation.

 

[Inthegame]

the reality is that the pt-turn over funds the ft benefits including health and pensions...if there were no pt people the benefits would suffer.....what might be considered is a voting scale where ft people get a full vote and pt people get a half vote.......even more to the point perhaps a sliding scale where feeder drivers get get a more weighted vote.....

Few regions/locals have PT's in either their H&W or Pension plans so your theory is off. In fact, making all part time positions full time would indeed help bolster some struggling Pensions and H&W.

the reality is that the pt-turn over funds the ft benefits including health and pensions...if there were no pt people the benefits would suffer.....what might be considered is a voting scale where ft people get a full vote and pt people get a half vote.......even more to the point perhaps a sliding scale where feeder drivers get get a more weighted vote.....

Feeder drivers get a more "weighted" vote? Hmmm...do you suggest their vote be proportionate to their waistline?
I have a Pkg driver counter proposal...make the weight of the vote scaled to exerted daily effort.

 

[Inthegame]

They asked a while back, I didn't actually want to go to the convention when it was planned to be in person, not a fan of crowds. I've talked with most of our delegates, so they know what I think of the situation.

Good. I think a reasonable solution can be forged if they can somehow get past petty politics, which may be possible with a virtual convention.
Anyway, Las Vegas in late June is about the last place a human should be.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Anyway, Las Vegas in late June is about the last place a human should be.

Like getting off the plane, and it's 110 degrees.

But.... "it's a dry heat".


Yeah, that is still hot.

 

[browned out]

50% voter participation is not likely to ever occur again at UPS. The IBT and UPS are fully aware of this. It effectively has resulted in a Company Controlled Union that has disenfranchised it's own members.

The 2018 CBA was able to be forced thru because of a non voting group of part time transient workers making ~15 k a year. It is abhorrent that these non voters control the futures of career employees making $80k++ per year. The garbage language in regards to 22.4 will be difficult to reverse.

The IBT constitution needs to be changed.

 

[Integrity]

50% voter participation is not likely to ever occur again at UPS. The IBT and UPS are fully aware of this. It effectively has resulted in a Company Controlled Union that has disenfranchised it's own members.

The 2018 CBA was able to be forced thru because of a non voting group of part time transient workers making ~15 k a year. It is abhorrent that these non voters control the futures of career employees making $80k++ per year. The garbage language in regards to 22.4 will be difficult to reverse.

The IBT constitution needs to be changed. A work group that I am affiliated with is 100% full-time employees. This work group had less than 50% turnout in the contract vote.

A work group that I am affiliated with is 100% full-time employees. This work group had less than 50% participation in the contract vote.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

50% voter participation is not likely to ever occur again at UPS. The IBT and UPS are fully aware of this. It effectively has resulted in a Company Controlled Union that has disenfranchised it's own members.

The 2018 CBA was able to be forced thru because of a non voting group of part time transient workers making ~15 k a year. It is abhorrent that these non voters control the futures of career employees making $80k++ per year. The garbage language in regards to 22.4 will be difficult to reverse.

The IBT constitution needs to be changed.

Make sure to tell your delegates how you feel. They will be the ones who vote to change the Constitution.