Hoffa Jr's and Dennis Taylor's hidden agenda revealed!

[Vacation]

Strike authorization was just over 50 thousand. That is pitiful. You wanted it and you got it. That’s the might of the membership and your weak vote no movement.

Think about this next time you think you and the vote no people are so tough. That is what we had to work with. Now do you see why I think you can go to hell. You have zero understanding of what was at stake and what there is to work with. You and anyone who
Did things for political gain should feel very ashamed. 51,000. That’s scary.

Wow it sounds like you think you did us a favor. You sold us out.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

This contract will benefit me but I voted no because of a 40 year tradition.

Not trying to be disrespectful all your post DO make you sound intelligent but, this contract doesn't benefit any of us. Maybe short term benefit but if you're here for the long haul it doesn't. This is all about breaking the union and if our leaders are going against us and members are opting out, I don't see how people aren't seeing that.

 

[PT Car Washer]

Not trying to be disrespectful all your post DO make you sound intelligent but, this contract doesn't benefit any of us. Maybe short term benefit but if you're here for the long haul it doesn't. This is all about breaking the union and if our leaders are going against us and members are opting out, I don't see how people aren't seeing that.

When I say the contract will benefit me I mean the increased pension and the increase in the hourly pay rate. Most likely this will be my last contract vote so I am looking for stability. Not dragging it out for the next year. I believe a lot of members in my shoes will agree with me.

 

[Karma is a bitch]

If you didn't vote, then your non- vote doesn't count as a yes or no. Of the actual votes that were cast, the majority said NO. The members that didn't vote, don't have any say....

 

[rebel87]

We don't have lot of 5 years union member in our facility. People that have work longer will usually quit between 2-7 years. I says approximately 15 people have 5 years and up out of 320 members per shift.

And, remember, you can't based it off of truck drivers or the $40 an hour an hour.

Honestly, focus on the part where lot of people are ignoring new people that aren't used to union culture, this is the problem that I foreseen. When truck drivers campaign then acts like they feel package handler's pain by sprinkling $15 an hour. This isn't enough. Packager handler should get same amount of attention as truck driver. And, that isn't how I saw it in the election.

Although Tyler made an impact on the election, the views on the YouTube doesn't add enough compared to those who voted and doesn't vote. It isn't like people who are new is going to start looking for video on UPS. And, those that do is trying to learn how does UPS looks when applying for the job. There are few UPS whiners on YouTube that can says what they don't like about UPS.

You have to really ask yourself. Did I spend the time with new member about what it meant to be in the union? I have. They don't know what the contract is and trying to figure out what a "Teamster" is let alone the purpose of the union dues. I tell them it is an insurance to protect you on the job.

From now on, you need to teach the union culture to new people. When you aren't busy and standing around near your truck in the facility, talk to them and tell them what it meant to be in a union.

If they are quitting between 2-7 years they have no business voting on the contract. They could care less what happens at UPS because they wont be working here. Why should they be allowed to vote if they arent employed with UPS in 5 years. If they want to make a career out of UPS they can vote after 5 years of employment. They can also then vote on the next 5-7 contracts.

 

[rebel87]

We pay union dues to be part of the union not just for union representation.

You don't like the results that's fine but to take it out on a group that you have no idea is even the group that screwed you is weak.

I know plenty of high seniority drivers that have never voted. Also many that voted yes because it didnt affect them. Hell every feeder driver I know voted yes because it was going to boost their pension. Should we not allow them to vote also because they are only thinking of themselves?

I dont care how they vote, as long as they vote. If they like the contract then vote yes. The problem is employees not voting. A large majority of people not voting are people that have been employed for less than a couple years. If they want to make a career out of UPS they will have plenty of opportunities to vote down the road.

 

[llamainmypocket]

I like how the answer to the problem is somehow magically to over part timers. You guys crack me up. I hope your pension dissolves into Walmart coupons.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

I like how the answer to the problem is somehow magically to over part timers. You guys crack me up. I hope your pension dissolves into Walmart coupons.

I don't think it is. People are just mad. I agree, when you join a union you need to be united. In this case we got hurt by people not knowing more than not caring. If any of the new hires had it clearly laid out in front of them that this is how it will go down, they would've most likely taken it more seriously. You can't honestly expect them to know that our union leaders would jump at the chance to do this to us... In this way especially.

 

[Benben]

The 50% participation and two-thirds majority thresholds have been in place at least since the 90s. This isn't breaking news. Maybe the business agents and officers of the "vote no" movement should've informed their members about that part of the Constitution. If those same business agents failed to disclose that information what else are they falling short on?

So what you are saying is Dennis Taylor and Hoffa are shoving this up our s and its the BA's fault?

 

[RealPerson]

Taylor Declares Half the Rejected Supplements are Ratified, Too

 

[KOG72]

If you didn't vote, then your non- vote doesn't count as a yes or no. Of the actual votes that were cast, the majority said NO. The members that didn't vote, don't have any say....

Evidently the ones who voted no don’t have any say either

 

[twoweeled]

The fact that 45% members voted is crazy high. I'm shocked it was that high. You can't call anybody lazy for a great turnout just because of a 25 year old loophole that shouldn't exist anymore

It's easy to call members lazy and ignorant for not voting. It's not like they had to drive 1.5 hours on a weekend to vote at the Union Hall. Irresponsible, lazy and ignorant is easy. But this is part of why UPS is ALWAYS 4-5 steps ahead of us. Call management what you want, but they are organized. How much effort did the IBT put into organizing, informing and trying to get max voter turn out?? How much effort? Well, now you know why. Anyone who's surprised by this, hasn't been around long.

 

[rebel87]

Taylor Declares Half the Rejected Supplements are Ratified, Too

Hoffa and Taylor representing UPS and not teamster members is pathetic. Bend over!!

 

[zubenelgenubi]

They didn't sneak it by me???

I've been posting it here for months and asked the Central Region Director, before roughly 80 witnesses at our contract review meeting, if this was a "final offer".

His answer was clearly "I don't know", which he vowed to get us the correct information of any unanswered questions before the meeting started.

@BigUnionGuy also dodged the question here repeatedly, and while it wasn't his duty to answer it here, it certainly was the CRD's when asked at an official contract meeting while chairing the meeting from the podium.

Oddly enough, nobody ever got back with me with the answer as to whether it was a "final offer"....now this.

Was that just an oversight, or was it a tactic???
I'm going with a back pocket tactic.

I give you full credit for bringing it up. I wouldn't have thought to even look into the rules surrounding the negotiation of and voting on contracts. And I blame myself for not looking at the full article, as it clearly states that an agreement is considered a final offer before it is put to a vote. By extension, if an offer is put to a vote, that is the indication that it is a final offer. I think we all assumed if we voted it down, that they would renegotiate and put it back to another vote, but the constitution is clear that that's not how it works. And the responses from basically everyone who should have known better indicate that they didn't understand the rules, or were intentionally trying to create confusion about them.

 

[Time for change]

I give you full credit for bringing it up. I wouldn't have thought to even look into the rules surrounding the negotiation of and voting on contracts. And I blame myself for not looking at the full article, as it clearly states that an agreement is considered a final offer before it is put to a vote. By extension, if an offer is put to a vote, that is the indication that it is a final offer. I think we all assumed if we voted it down, that they would renegotiate and put it back to another vote, but the constitution is clear that that's not how it works. And the responses from basically everyone who should have known better indicate that they didn't understand the rules, or were intentionally trying to create confusion about them.

Wrong! If that’s the case freight should be on strike today since it was a last, best and final offer for them.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Wrong! If that’s the case freight should be on strike today since it was a last, best and final offer for them.

Article 12, section 2 (d) (1) applies to freight, as I believe the majority of eligible members voted, and a majority of them voted it down. It states, in that situation, a strike is authorized without further requirement for a strike authorization vote. Strike authorization doesn't mean a strike will be called, or that it must be called immediately. In both our situation, and in freight's, the Union has the latitude to conduct further negotiations before resorting to a strike.

In article 12 section 2 (d) (2) which applies to small package's situation, it says

"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"

We failed to reject the final offer, but we didn't fail to authorize a strike. Thus the negotiating committee is not required to accept the final offer. The important word is "and". If we had failed to authorize the strike, then they would be required to accept the final offer. I really hope the lawyers are looking into this and straightening everything out, because it seems like no one really knows what the hell is going on.

 

[Time for change]

Article 12, section 2 (d) (1) applies to freight, as I believe the majority of eligible members voted, and a majority of them voted it down. It states, in that situation, a strike is authorized without further requirement for a strike authorization vote. Strike authorization doesn't mean a strike will be called, or that it must be called immediately. In both our situation, and in freight's, the Union has the latitude to conduct further negotiations before resorting to a strike.

In article 12 section 2 (d) (2) which applies to small package's situation, it says

"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"

We failed to reject the final offer, but we didn't fail to authorize a strike. Thus the negotiating committee is not required to accept the final offer. The important word is "and". If we had failed to authorize the strike, then they would be required to accept the final offer. I really hope the lawyers are looking into this and straightening everything out, because it seems like no one really knows what the hell is going on.

But if freight was a final offer as well and they voted it down, how would that not mean strike?? It means they decide what is final offer however it suits them. It’s bs

 

[Bubblehead]

I give you full credit for bringing it up. I wouldn't have thought to even look into the rules surrounding the negotiation of and voting on contracts. And I blame myself for not looking at the full article, as it clearly states that an agreement is considered a final offer before it is put to a vote. By extension, if an offer is put to a vote, that is the indication that it is a final offer. I think we all assumed if we voted it down, that they would renegotiate and put it back to another vote, but the constitution is clear that that's not how it works. And the responses from basically everyone who should have known better indicate that they didn't understand the rules, or were intentionally trying to create confusion about them.

I don't deserve "full credit"???

Had I reread the entire article (instead of fixating on a single subsection) I would have connected the remaining dot....and not had to ask....repeatedly...."is this a final offer"???

....but serious, didn't we deserve a straight answer, from someone???

After all, some of us have packages to deliver as well.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

...but the constitution is clear that that's not how it works.

I disagree.
Fact is, Hoffa has complete authority to interpret the constitutional language.

He is choosing to impose this contract. He claims he has to impose it, and that is a flat out lie.

 

[Wellitjusthappened]

It's easy to call members lazy and ignorant for not voting. It's not like they had to drive 1.5 hours on a weekend to vote at the Union Hall. Irresponsible, lazy and ignorant is easy. But this is part of why UPS is ALWAYS 4-5 steps ahead of us. Call management what you want, but they are organized. How much effort did the IBT put into organizing, informing and trying to get max voter turn out?? How much effort? Well, now you know why. Anyone who's surprised by this, hasn't been around long.

. I’m

It's easy to call members lazy and ignorant for not voting. It's not like they had to drive 1.5 hours on a weekend to vote at the Union Hall. Irresponsible, lazy and ignorant is easy. But this is part of why UPS is ALWAYS 4-5 steps ahead of us. Call management what you want, but they are organized. How much effort did the IBT put into organizing, informing and trying to get max voter turn out?? How much effort? Well, now you know why. Anyone who's surprised by this, hasn't been around long.

None of the part timers are going to vote if their BA is threatening them either