Lay the Blame Where it Belongs.....The Members.
- Thread starter olroadbeech
- Start date
MyTripisCut
Never bought my own handtruck
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
What exactly has been done ?
The IBT followed the constitution, and the supplements that exceeded the 50%
threshold are going back and are going to be further negotiated and re-voted.
-Bug-
JustDeliverIt
Well-Known Member
As it has been explained before but the yes crowd/Hoffa supporters keep ignoring. In 2013, all failed supplemental agreements were renegotiated at least once. Even though they fell below the 50%+1 and 2/3 standard. This time it was "interpreted" to have to be ratified. IBT leadership choose a different course although most reasonable people, with UPS included by the way, believed it would go back to the table.
The IBT deciding this course of action is why we will probably, in my opinion, be lucky to have 30% voter turnout from this point on.
You ask what has been done, here it is explained for the 1000th time. Now you can point to teamsters not showing up to vote and them following the Constitution and blah, blah, blah
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Do you know what is different this time ?
(wait for it)
Sean was dismissed from his position as pkg Director, and announced his
candidacy for IBT General President with flip-flop-Fred.
Talk about leaving the reservation.... that's was a bad political move.
Let alone.... 3 members of the National committee being dismissed because
they couldn't follow 1 simple rule, and had to run their mouth on social media.
Hoffa has been the General President for 20 years.... for a reason.
He's not dumb.
-Bug-
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
What if the rule applied but the cba was rejected instead of ratified by the ibt?
Our ba said he no longer supports Hoffa. How many others feel the same way and cowardly kept their mouth shut during the meetings?
If (many) members would've been able to have kept SO as the lead position (having had confidence in his leadership) do you think the perceived negative changes would have occurred?
We won't know until 2023 but there will be a lot of disconnected members by then.
Our ba said he no longer supports Hoffa. How many others feel the same way and cowardly kept their mouth shut during the meetings?
If (many) members would've been able to have kept SO as the lead position (having had confidence in his leadership) do you think the perceived negative changes would have occurred?
We won't know until 2023 but there will be a lot of disconnected members by then.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt anything will change by then.
The 50+1, 2/3 language will still be in effect and the company had 5 more years to show their inclination to "run roughshod" (google it)over the membership.
If the 50+1, 2/3 language is so democratic, pristine and exemplary why isn't it written into the election rules for our state/national government officials?
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
I take that with a grain of salt.
Some BA's are politicians, and talk out of both sides of their mouth.
They know their "audience".
Unfortunately, the members don't have a choice in the matter.
Sean made a bad (emotional) move.
That, in all likelihood.... exacerbated the problem.
You have to be "on your game" to play politics at the International level.
And we really don't know, what's going on behind closed doors.
Think about it.
-Bug-
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
"He's not dumb" is correct. Plus there's a lot of good officers that truly represent the membership, engaged or not.
But there's a lot of variables involved in membership activity from the local level up and whether they're "informed" on the issues or not makes a difference in voting percentages and solidarity.
Our ba printed and brought half the language changes to the contract meeting. Half. Was that a coincidence? IDK but the very next day he took only half the language changes to the next meeting (in another town) at another ups building in our local.
Coincidence again?
You tell me. Trust or lack thereof is built at the local level.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
I dont think what JH has done over the last 20 yrs is all bad. There's a lot of inside info I'm not privy to. I concede that honestly.I take that with a grain of salt.
Some BA's are politicians, and talk out of both sides of their mouth.
They know their "audience".
Unfortunately, the members don't have a choice in the matter.
Sean made a bad (emotional) move.
That, in all likelihood.... exacerbated the problem.
You have to be "on your game" to play politics at the International level.
And we really don't know, what's going on behind closed doors.
Think about it.
-Bug-
You cant make everyone happy.
History (hindsight) is close to 20/20.
JustDeliverIt
Well-Known Member
I agree, Sean announcing his run was not good timing IMO. Committee members being dismissed is a double edge sword. People are more informed these days and want information. I can understand why it was being put out there, not saying it was right or wrong. Can also see why unfinished language should not be highlighted until it is done. And I never said Hoffa was dumb, just don't agree with the decision to move against the majority vote.
While I agree that these things did happen, it still doesn't explain why it was imposed. People disagree politically all the time and announce their desire to change things/run for office. When Sean announced it did the negotiations on the contract stop?
When people were removed from the committee did negotiations come to a halt?
No, they negotiated like they always have. Then it was presented to the members for a vote like it always. Despite these bumps along the way, the results were all the same. Except this time when it was rejected, the same leadership from 5 years ago decided a different course then what they did with rejected issues from last vote.
Had they forced supplements 5 years ago that didn't meet the criteria last time around, I would completely agree with you and the IBT's implementation here. They would have set the precedent and it should have been a warning to the membership. They didn't. They renegotiated at least once. They did the exact opposite under the same constitution.
These outside factors you point out, while may have dragged out the process or added an element of "side show" to it, didn't affect the results. We still had a contract, we voted and we were ignored.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
And... every time a member logged or called in to vote they were reminded that a "No" vote was lighting the fuse to strike if it was voted down since a minority (23%) of the members voted to authorize a strike.
Threaten members with a (minority) strike vote precipitating a strike but dont use it when the cba is voted down but it's ok to override the members vote result because a minority of them voted against the cba.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
QUOTE="Sickofit, post: 3784541, member: 69842"]And... every time a member logged or called in to vote they were reminded that a "No" vote was lighting the fuse to strike if it was voted down since a minority (23%) of the members voted to authorize a strike.
Threaten members with a (minority) strike vote precipitating a strike but dont use it when the cba is voted down but it's ok to override the members vote result because a minority of them voted against the cba.[/QUOTE]
I really, really think the NLRB would be interested in some of the tactics used by the company and the union to influence votes and then, wait for it.....
use of an obscure 50+1, 2/3 language to override the numbers that clearly indicated a "rigged" result despite there being more NO votes than YES.
Threaten members with a (minority) strike vote precipitating a strike but dont use it when the cba is voted down but it's ok to override the members vote result because a minority of them voted against the cba.[/QUOTE]
I really, really think the NLRB would be interested in some of the tactics used by the company and the union to influence votes and then, wait for it.....
use of an obscure 50+1, 2/3 language to override the numbers that clearly indicated a "rigged" result despite there being more NO votes than YES.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
I'm confused....
Where did this happen ?
It certainly wasn't BallotPoint.
What would be the NLRB violation ?
It's not "obscure" constitutional language.
Either 1987 or 1991.... depending on who's talking.
-Bug-
Time for change
Well-Known Member
Yea because we had a strike authorization vote when we knew nothing about the contract, and now that vote is being used against the members too. Why would someone vote to authorize a strike on a contract they know absolutely nothing about? Just because they trust Teamster leadership? Lol!!! Trust and Teamsters isn’t something that goes together, ever. You’re disgraceful, BUG.I take that with a grain of salt.
Some BA's are politicians, and talk out of both sides of their mouth.
They know their "audience".
Unfortunately, the members don't have a choice in the matter.
Sean made a bad (emotional) move.
That, in all likelihood.... exacerbated the problem.
You have to be "on your game" to play politics at the International level.
And we really don't know, what's going on behind closed doors.
Think about it.
-Bug-
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
This was record turnout.
The problem is the army of revolving temps we've hired to load and unload.
The problem is the army of revolving temps we've hired to load and unload.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
When a member called in to vote using their personal pin. The recorded message told me that if the cba was voted down we had already authorized a strike and a work stoppage would be probable. Something to that effect...not verbatum.
Other members I work with said the statement popped up when you logged in to vote on line as well.
I was a little concerned that the warning would scare (weaker) members out of voting after they heard this prior to casting.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
What is really disgraceful....
Is the company, continues to punk the non-voting members.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
I wish that I wouldve recorded it. Maybe it's still available online for those who got the message?
I called in. The strike warning was blatant. Unfortunately, the 51%/2 third message must have been in braille in my packet and I missed it.
I called in. The strike warning was blatant. Unfortunately, the 51%/2 third message must have been in braille in my packet and I missed it.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I totally get why so many people didn't take the time to vote. Ya know..... with the voting process being so tedious and time consuming and all.
Similar threads
