Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Contract Boogieman
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Superteeth2478" data-source="post: 3692426" data-attributes="member: 73024"><p>You know what's funny? I got my information straight from the Teamsters.org website (the tentative master agreement) and was able to produce my own counterpoints to the language without any help from a "vote no" page from anyone. It wasn't even hard. Much of what can be used to counter the argument that all this new language is "strong" language can be taken straight from what the IBT says the membership wanted. </p><p></p><p>For instance, the IBT claims the membership wanted less overtime. That can't be denied (a lot of drivers are sick of excessive overtime). That said, how does creating a lower-paid class of drivers that is explicitly stated to not have 9.5 protection fix the excessive overtime problem? It just passes it on to someone else. That's silly. That's not strong language, only a <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> would think that passing the problem on to someone on an unfavorable work schedule that is paid less to be on that unfavorable work schedule thinks that fixes the problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Superteeth2478, post: 3692426, member: 73024"] You know what's funny? I got my information straight from the Teamsters.org website (the tentative master agreement) and was able to produce my own counterpoints to the language without any help from a "vote no" page from anyone. It wasn't even hard. Much of what can be used to counter the argument that all this new language is "strong" language can be taken straight from what the IBT says the membership wanted. For instance, the IBT claims the membership wanted less overtime. That can't be denied (a lot of drivers are sick of excessive overtime). That said, how does creating a lower-paid class of drivers that is explicitly stated to not have 9.5 protection fix the excessive overtime problem? It just passes it on to someone else. That's silly. That's not strong language, only a :censored: would think that passing the problem on to someone on an unfavorable work schedule that is paid less to be on that unfavorable work schedule thinks that fixes the problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Contract Boogieman
Top