Local 243

[BigUnionGuy]

I'm not offended at your remarks.

I would hope not.

Because, they aren't directed at you.... personally.


It's a general overview, with information that has a proven track record.

People expect immediate gratification. That's never going to happen.


The company will build a case (for discharge).... Why not the member ?

That's how you win.

Targets? We are all targets. So what's new and some have been targets by their own "representation ".

That's a victim mentality.

Fostered.... by nobody management people.


You would like working in my Local.



-Bug-

 

[browned out]

BUG,

Is there another site where the members could access the following info http://teamstersonline.com/ups_panel_agreements/index2010.pdf. ?

Is there?

 

[Frankie's Friend]

I would hope not.

Because, they aren't directed at you.... personally.


It's a general overview, with information that has a proven track record.

People expect immediate gratification. That's never going to happen.


The company will build a case (for discharge).... Why not the member ?

That's how you win.





That's a victim mentality.

Fostered.... by nobody management people.


You would like working in my Local.



-Bug-

On the target issue...

I don't feel like a victim at all and I agree with the mind control (my rendition) issue.

Most people come to work here not really understanding that they will always be to blame for every little thing that goes wrong around them most of the time. The average person thinks it's just a job that pays well with bennies inclusive. When they think they went to the Holiday Inn (orientation) and the next morning they wake up in bootcamp it is a good heads up for what is required until they punch out for the last time. The mind games begin. The majority feel like unconvicted targets.

For example, accidents are avoidable unless proven otherwise. Those kinds of issues breed target mentality and (hopefully) a militant one too.

Welcome to communist China.

I would pay double dues to work in your local or @Inthegame 's.
Our members wouldn't feel like they were rabbits in a barrel.

Or as Putin spoke it to the German Chancelor Ms. Merkel when the refugees were causing havoc for her country....

You are like the woman in the marriage relationship and Russia is like the man.

In other words you are the one getting screwed.
How fitting.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

BUG, Am I missing something or did actually not respond to this? I would like to know how you would handle such an egregious violation of union/member trust if it happened in your local.

@browned out.... I missed it.

But, I will go back to you original post because #99 is jacked up.

How is this not verifiable proof? It is on the court record. It is evidence. Why wasn't the union official removed from office months ago for violating the Teamster Constitution? I don't care if that union official is TDU, TU or loyal to Hoffa.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ginal/1470163490/CP_4_Redacted.pdf?1470163490

The leadership at the top of the Teamsters did not remove this "Rep" who was colluding with UPS Labor Mgmt. in an obvious attempt to get a member discharged. This type of inaction is what is very disturbing. Hoffa/Hall either condone, endorse, turn a blind eye, or direct this type of behavior to protect their loyalists.

This is not a slap on the wrist offense. It is a severe violation of the Teamster Constitution.

Don't view this as a TDU/Teamster United vs. Hoffa issue.

If the officials name on the email was Fred Z.; There would be no viable excuse for not removing him from office. The severity of the violation would be the same no matter the affiliation.

How would you address this violation? or How did you address it?

To my knowledge.... Rob A never filed charges against Betty friend.


The only reason her name came up, was in the NLRB complaint which

was denied and is still sitting out on appeal.



-Bug-

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Is there?

Is there an online resource to view various panel decisions ?

If there was, it wouldn't be an "open source" that members could review.

 

[browned out]

@browned out.... I missed it.

But, I will go back to you original post because #99 is jacked up.






To my knowledge.... Rob A never filed charges against Betty friend.


The only reason her name came up, was in the NLRB complaint which

was denied and is still sitting out on appeal.



-Bug-

Law360, New York (November 28, 2016, 6:27 PM EST) -- A United Parcel Service Inc. driver and union shop steward was illegally fired — twice — for refusing to support a collective bargaining contract, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled...


BUG, you are still skirting the question of WHY BRF is still employed by the IBT?

It is obviously verifiable proof of improper behavior in violation with the IBT constitution?

We deal in a lot of hypotheticals on the BC but there is nothing hypothetical about BRF betrayal of the members. She should have been removed from office long ago.

Here is a hypothetical. How would you deal with BRF or others who violate the IBT constitution and collude with UPS management in order to get a dissident discharged? Do you actually believe there is any justifiable reason for the collusion?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Law360, New York (November 28, 2016, 6:27 PM EST) -- A United Parcel Service Inc. driver and union shop steward was illegally fired — twice — for refusing to support a collective bargaining contract, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled.

Nice try.


That's not Rob A's case.

His case was heard at the NLRB in Pittsburgh.... not New York.

And, was denied.


Case #06-CA-143062

Obviously, his own testimony was disregarded by the NLRB.

BUG, you are still skirting the question of WHY BRF is still employed by the IBT?

She is employed by Local 538, as an elected official. Not the IBT.

It is obviously verifiable proof of improper behavior in violation with the IBT constitution?

Why didn't he file charges with the IRB ?

Or, file internal Union charges that would have progressed thru his Local,

the Joint Council, and eventually to the IBT ?


You would think, a 17 year Union Steward would know the basic fundamentals.


The whole issue of of the e-mails, didn't come to light until the NLRB subpoenaed them.

Which was after the fact.... of his discharge being upheld by a panel.

We deal in a lot of hypotheticals on the BC but there is nothing hypothetical about BRF betrayal of the members. She should have been removed from office long ago.

Here is a hypothetical. How would you deal with BRF or others who violate the IBT constitution and collude with UPS management in order to get a dissident discharged? Do you actually believe there is any justifiable reason for the collusion?

I don't deal in hypotheticals or "what if".

I deal in facts and reality.


The company gave him enough rope to hang himself.

Which.... he did.



-Bug-


Anything else ?

 

[browned out]

OK

 

[browned out]

Nice try.


That's not Rob A's case.

His case was heard at the NLRB in Pittsburgh.... not New York.

And, was denied.


Case #06-CA-143062

Obviously, his own testimony was disregarded by the NLRB.





She is employed by Local 538, as an elected official. Not the IBT.




Why didn't he file charges with the IRB ?

Or, file internal Union charges that would have progressed thru his Local,

the Joint Council, and eventually to the IBT ?


You would think, a 17 year Union Steward would know the basic fundamentals.


The whole issue of of the e-mails, didn't come to light until the NLRB subpoenaed them.

Which was after the fact.... of his discharge being upheld by a panel.





I don't deal in hypotheticals or "what if".

I deal in facts and reality.


The company gave him enough rope to hang himself.

Which.... he did.



-Bug-


Anything else ?

Now; it appears you may be naïve? I would not think you are purposely being not forthright on the BC. The NLRB ruled against UPS. I guess you want to tow the Hoffa line. Fine; but just say so. The BRF question went unanswered by you. Do you employ the same tactics as BRF? BRF is sworn to uphold the IBT constitution. But....you already know all this.

When, why or how BRF's betrayal of union member occurred is irrelevant. BRF should have been removed for violating the Teamsters Constitution and her own sworn duties. Yet; she remains on the Joint Counsel and 538's eboard. Why? I guess; to continue the "good work" on behalf of UPS...and the Teamsters? Conspiring against other members is abhorrent.

Keep on dodgen those tough questions. If you can dodge traffic; you can dodge a tough BRF question.

When is the next local election in your local? Times Up?

I think you believe that you are dealing with facts and reality.

What you are actually dealing with is denial, blind allegiance, or you are just part of the Hoffa/Hall machine trying to stay elected.​

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Now; it appears you may be naïve? I would not think you are purposely being not forthright on the BC. The NLRB ruled against UPS. I guess you want to tow the Hoffa line. Fine; but just say so. The BRF question went unanswered by you. Do you employ the same tactics as BRF? BRF is sworn to uphold the IBT constitution. But....you already know all this.

When, why or how BRF's betrayal of union member occurred is irrelevant. BRF should have been removed for violating the Teamsters Constitution and her own sworn duties. Yet; she remains on the Joint Counsel and 538's eboard. Why? I guess; to continue the "good work" on behalf of UPS...and the Teamsters? Conspiring against other members is abhorrent.

Keep on dodgen those tough questions. If you can dodge traffic; you can dodge a tough BRF question.

When is the next local election in your local? Times Up?

I think you believe that you are dealing with facts and reality.

What you are actually dealing with is denial, blind allegiance, or you are just part of the Hoffa/Hall machine trying to stay elected.​

BRF is still serving the members of Local 538, as an elected Official.


Rob A.... is not working at UPS.

 

[Bubblehead]

Now; it appears you may be naïve? I would not think you are purposely being not forthright on the BC. The NLRB ruled against UPS. I guess you want to tow the Hoffa line. Fine; but just say so. The BRF question went unanswered by you. Do you employ the same tactics as BRF? BRF is sworn to uphold the IBT constitution. But....you already know all this.

When, why or how BRF's betrayal of union member occurred is irrelevant. BRF should have been removed for violating the Teamsters Constitution and her own sworn duties. Yet; she remains on the Joint Counsel and 538's eboard. Why? I guess; to continue the "good work" on behalf of UPS...and the Teamsters? Conspiring against other members is abhorrent.

Keep on dodgen those tough questions. If you can dodge traffic; you can dodge a tough BRF question.

When is the next local election in your local? Times Up?

I think you believe that you are dealing with facts and reality.

What you are actually dealing with is denial, blind allegiance, or you are just part of the Hoffa/Hall machine trying to stay elected.​

@BigUnionGuy in reality is just being "aloof"....and painting with black and white to try and form gray.

He is using his earned "street credit" here to paint a false facade, one where Rob A was "denied" part and parcel in his original charges, when in reality the NLRB ultimately "split the baby", with both he and UPS having subsequently appealing the first verdict, with no decision rendered in the appeal to date.

It's for sure not over yet.

Come on BUG, does your hatred for TDU really allow you to justify this blatant violation of our Constitution by Miss Betty, or can you find the objectivity to finally condemn her most egregious actions against Rob A, a Local political adversary.

 

[browned out]

BRF is still serving the members of Local 538, as an elected Official.


Rob A.... is not working at UPS.

??????

OK

Yep, I know BRF is still serving (the same BRF that "served" up info in a blatant attempt to get a teamster brother fired). 538 is one of the locals that is still holding up the UPS CBA for numerous reasons. The members will have their say again when 538's Eboards term is up.

Anyway you slice it; there can be no viable explanation for allowing someone in that position to violate the IBT Constitution. None. Keep on dodging sir.

If there is....please enlighten everyone.

 

[browned out]

@BigUnionGuy in reality is just being "aloof"....and painting with black and white to try and form gray.

He is using his earned "street credit" here to paint a false facade, one where Rob A was "denied" part and parcel in his original charges, when in reality the NLRB ultimately "split the baby", with both he and UPS having subsequently appealing the first verdict, with no decision rendered to date.

It's for sure not over yet.

Come on BUG, does your hatred for TDU really allow you to justify this blatant violation of our Constitution by Miss Betty, or can you find the objectivity to finally condemn her most egregious actions against Rob A, a Local political adversary.

"split the baby" is a good teamster panel expression. another one they like to use at panel hearings is "if I could pick fly sh#t out of pepper; I'll do it".

Bug refuses to answer a few simple questions. Instead; Bug diverts.

Like I said; whether it is TDU, TU, Hoffa/Hall/Taylor or any other faction; a violation of this seriousness should result in removal from the IBT. Clear, cut and not open to interpretation.

The Hoffa/Hall method of dealing with violations of this type is clear. Hoffa/Hall refuse to deal with it until an NLRB ruling, an indictment, or some other agency forces Hoffa/hall hand. Hoffa/Hall turn a blind eye...until their other eye is in jeopardy. Then and only then; will they take any action. A disgrace.

Vote all pieces of garbage out.

Hoffa/Hall and any other Teamster officials should be dealing with these issues as soon as they have proof the violations occurred.

It is a culture of...…'we will be able to get away with this"

 

[Superteeth2478]

I'll bet that BUG would be all over this if it was a leader of the TDU faction that sold a Hoffa supporter down the river...isn't that right, BUG? Like I've said before, it shouldn't matter what faction anyone is part of because factions in a union are an oxymoron. Anyone who sells a brother/sister down the river because they're part of the wrong faction should be removed from their position immediately. But like BUG, Hoffa and his "leadership" doesn't care as long as it's the other faction that is being wronged.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

He is using his earned "street credit" here to paint a false facade, one where Rob A was "denied" part and parcel in his original charges, when in reality the NLRB ultimately "split the baby", with both he and UPS having subsequently appealing the first verdict, with no decision rendered in the appeal to date.

I skimmed back over the case, to refresh my memory.


Rob A was denied reinstatement and awarded partial backpay. The administrative

law judge refused to reinstate him because of his public FaceBook posts about his

management. But, agreed there was a concerted effort by UPS to try and

discharge him because of his "vote no" activity in violation of the NLRA.... hence,

the reason for partial backpay.

Come on BUG, does your hatred for TDU really allow you to justify this blatant violation of our Constitution by Miss Betty, or can you find the objectivity to finally condemn her most egregious actions against Rob A, a Local political adversary.

I will defer to the NLRB appeal before I pass judgement.

Like I said; whether it is TDU, TU, Hoffa/Hall/Taylor or any other faction; a violation of this seriousness should result in removal from the IBT. Clear, cut and not open to interpretation. Hoffa/Hall and any other Teamster officials should be dealing with these issues as soon as they have proof the violations occurred.

Rob A didn't file any charges with the Union or the IRB.

So at this point, why would the IBT be involved ?


Down the road, if the NLRB makes a ruling on the appeals that implicates BRF

is complicit with UPS in the discharge of RA.... then, that would be an issue

for the IBT to look at.


You want me to prematurely convict BRF, based on what RA thinks....

when the majority of the blame lies with RA for his own situation.



-Bug-



As an aside.... Rob A posted a copy of both the company and Union's panel

briefs on the "vote no" FaceBook page. (which I downloaded)


Reading the Union's brief, his Local went to bat for him.

The company brief.... was heavily redacted. I guess he didn't want everyone

to see the entire company case against him.

 

[browned out]

BUG's reply above epitomizes the complacency, inaction and incompetence of many of the Hoffa/Hall loyalists.

They are comfortable, if not eager, to work with UPS to target an employee.

Even when the union official is caught red handed, they still refuse to act or admonish the behavior that is a serious IBT violation.

His local did not go to bat for him, his local took a bat to him. Big Difference.

It is a plan that has been working like a finely oiled machine for the Teamsters and UPS for a long time. They start TARGETING minor methods or procedural infractions. They hand out warning letters and suspensions to multiple employees. They do this to protect themselves. They build up progressive discipline and discharge the Teamster who opposes the current regime or a driver UPS wants to get rid of due to bad performance/production numbers, etc.

The members will continue to vote these local reps. out.

Teamster officials collude with UPS mgmt=No Punishment
Driver Forgets to download EDD=Discharge

Something is terribly wrong with that equation.

Maybe someone can still file charges against corrupt union officials who target UPS drivers. Maybe? For sure we can vote them out.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

BUG's reply above epitomizes the complacency, inaction and incompetence of many of the Hoffa/Hall loyalists.

They are comfortable, if not eager, to work with UPS to target an employee.

Even when the union official is caught red handed, they still refuse to act or admonish the behavior that is a serious IBT violation.

His local did not go to bat for him, his local took a bat to him. Big Difference.

It is a plan that has been working like a finely oiled machine for the Teamsters and UPS for a long time. They start TARGETING minor methods or procedural infractions. They hand out warning letters and suspensions to multiple employees. They do this to protect themselves. They build up progressive discipline and discharge the Teamster who opposes the current regime or a driver UPS wants to get rid of due to bad performance/production numbers, etc.

The members will continue to vote these local reps. out.

Teamster officials collude with UPS mgmt=No Punishment
Driver Forgets to download EDD=Discharge

Something is terribly wrong with that equation.

Maybe someone can still file charges against corrupt union officials who target UPS drivers. Maybe? For sure we can vote them out.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

BUG's reply above epitomizes the complacency, inaction and incompetence of many of the Hoffa/Hall loyalists.

They are comfortable, if not eager, to work with UPS to target an employee.

Even when the union official is caught red handed, they still refuse to act or admonish the behavior that is a serious IBT violation.

His local did not go to bat for him, his local took a bat to him. Big Difference.

It is a plan that has been working like a finely oiled machine for the Teamsters and UPS for a long time. They start TARGETING minor methods or procedural infractions. They hand out warning letters and suspensions to multiple employees. They do this to protect themselves. They build up progressive discipline and discharge the Teamster who opposes the current regime or a driver UPS wants to get rid of due to bad performance/production numbers, etc.

The members will continue to vote these local reps. out.

Teamster officials collude with UPS mgmt=No Punishment
Driver Forgets to download EDD=Discharge

Something is terribly wrong with that equation.

Maybe someone can still file charges against corrupt union officials who target UPS drivers. Maybe? For sure we can vote them out.

You're just making excuses.

 

[Bubblehead]

Come on BUG, does your hatred for TDU really allow you to justify this blatant violation of our Constitution by Miss Betty, or can you find the objectivity to finally condemn her most egregious actions against Rob A, a Local political adversary.

I will defer to the NLRB appeal before I pass judgement.

You're just making excuses.

Hey Pot, Kettle on line 2....

It was a simple question, in regards to one crystal clear email from a Local Principal Officer to a UPS Labor Manager, designed to bring reproach on a member....and you feel a need to "defer"???

SMH



~Bbbl~™

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Hey Pot, Kettle on line 2....

It was a simple question, in regards to one crystal clear email from a Local Principal Officer to a UPS Labor Manager, designed to bring reproach on a member....and you feel a need to "defer"???

SMH



~Bbbl~™

It's called "due process".

Do you think it's fair to convict someone in the court of public opinion ?


Again, why would the IBT get involved when no charges were filed ?


Because I don't jump all over BRF.... you seem to think I condone what happened.

Where (in all honesty) my reaction is more like Oh . How can anyone be so

stupid, as to leave a paper trail if they are conspiring to to have a political

rival discharged? And if that is the case.... then the whole Union side of the Panel

is in on it.... because they were the ones that decided to uphold the discharge.


I don't know RA. He might be a nice guy and a solid Union brother.

But, he was sure quick to get on FZ's side.... thinking he might have ed

up.... and was lobbying for an appointed position at the IBT, if FZ won.


And really;

What sort of childish behavior is it, when you resort to FaceBook and rant about

your local UPS management with insinuations of "erectile dysfunction" and make

fun of another one because of a speech impediment ?


Just say'n @Bubblehead.

I know.... you are well above stooping to that level of behavior.


That's what cost RA his job. (as per the NLRB)



-Bug-