Members Sold Out by TU

[104Feeder]

Hmmm...why or how did a subcontracting case concerning non air work get docketed before the National Air Committee?

It's common practice for grievances to be heard by any open panel to move grievances forward, and in this case the NAC was available.

 

[104Feeder]

....and maybe you are just stumping for your principal officer and international candidate on the opposing slate?
View attachment 348515

Are you seriously suggesting that someone sacrificed 150 subcontracting grievances worth upwards of $58,500 by somehow getting the grievance before the NAC knowing an at-large candidate of an opposing slate would rule against our members so I would have political fodder to use? Really? Is there a grassy knoll in there too?

 

[104Feeder]

Any admin mind splitting off the 3 pages or so of unrelated sidebar going on?

 

[Bubblehead]

Hmmm...why or how did a subcontracting case concerning non air work get docketed before the National Air Committee?

It's common practice for grievances to be heard by any open panel to move grievances forward, and in this case the NAC was available.

Who chairs the Article 43 Premium Services Committee?

....oh yeah, that's right Ron Hererra.

Why would he let such a thing happen to such an import case?

 

[Big Rigger]

Who is we? I'm not hearing any explanations, just a excuses, deflection, and kill the messenger. No JW isn't the whole slate but when such actions are tolerated by those at the top it speaks volumes.

'We' is us in our work group. Why poke at that statement?
Evidently you aren't us.
No one is killing the messenger. I didnt post anything personal against you but "we" happen to know many folks on the TU slate and they are not compromising Teamsters.
Let's not lump them all together because I'm sure there are weak links on every slate although I'm not saying JW was weak.
Whatever happened at that hearing will be exposed and if it was weakness on the union side I'm sure it will be dealt with and in time the details will be known.

 

[Big Rigger]

Who is we? I'm not hearing any explanations, just a excuses, deflection, and kill the messenger. No JW isn't the whole slate but when such actions are tolerated by those at the top it speaks volumes.

Why did you come on here and post this other than to arbitrarily try to give TU a black eye?
If the decision would have gone against the company would you have come on here to post accolades for TU? Doubt it.
Will posting this without knowing the details change anything? Who said it was "tolerated" or supported by OZ?
Maybe it's an internal issue that "your" people need to get to the bottom of and then post what may be facts instead of dissing one person on the panel without all the details....

and then blame the backlash on posters who couldn't defend anyone's actions with facts, by your own admission, that you don't even know.

Granted, you're aggravated that this went down the way it did and I would be too but in your blanket condemnation of JW you try to dilute the value of many strong teamsters on the TU slate and quite frankly I see that to be shortsighted and childish.
That, my friend, is on topic.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

It's common practice for grievances to be heard by any open panel to move grievances forward, and in this case the NAC was available.

I can see that happening.

The 43 committee's docket is full and the NAC was done hearing their cases.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone sacrificed 150 subcontracting grievances worth upwards of $58,500 by somehow getting the grievance before the NAC knowing an at-large candidate of an opposing slate would rule against our members so I would have political fodder to use? Really? Is there a grassy knoll in there too?

I find it hard to believe any panel member would deliberately tank the case for political gain.

Did they actually docket all 150 cases, or use one as the pilot ?

Who chairs the Article 43 Premium Services Committee?

....oh yeah, that's right Ron Hererra.

Why would he let such a thing happen to such an import case?

This is a bizarre situation. Any more speculation on my part.... would be just that.... speculation.


I respect both @104Feeder and @Bubblehead.

So, I'm out.

 

[Big Rigger]

I can see that happening.

The 43 committee's docket is full and the NAC was done hearing their cases.



I find it hard to believe any panel member would deliberately tank the case for political gain.

Did they actually docket all 150 cases, or use one as the pilot ?



This is a bizarre situation. Any more speculation on my part.... would be just that.... speculation.


I respect both @104Feeder and @Bubblehead.

So, I'm out.

Just like in a hearing it's all speculation until the whole story is heard from the grievant and the company.
Hate it as we do I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater until I hear that other slate candidates are complicit in anything like this allegation by agreeing with compromised decisions of any size and the facts aren't known even though the decision sucks.

If there was wrong doing involved it will be dealt with.

 

[Bubblehead]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone sacrificed 150 subcontracting grievances worth upwards of $58,500 by somehow getting the grievance before the NAC knowing an at-large candidate of an opposing slate would rule against our members so I would have political fodder to use? Really? Is there a grassy knoll in there too?

No, I was only pointing out that your principal officer is running on the opposing slate and that your story (which cannot be confirmed here on this site) may just be political fodder, fact or fiction.

It's hard to fathom what JW's motivation would be here in supposedly "sacrificing" these grievances as you put it, as I wonder what might be in it for TU or himself???

If this was actually the case, it would only serve to hurt he and his slate's campaign in the Western Region.

The story just doesn't make sense in the fashion you are spinning it, and is as @BigUnionGuy aptly points out is "bazaar"....so I am still not buying it, sorry.

 

[twoweeled]

There was a term, it was called “dictating a contract”...The real power belongs to the Company’s side if there no real threat of a work stoppage. Our Union lost it’s swagger after the 97 strike, that was the time to really reform and strengthen, it did not happen. What you got now is a two class membership, the haves who happen to be on these negotiating committees and the have nots left behind because they are a minority of the rank and file and do not count.

The company sees this and will use it, they seen weak leadership who have lost touch with it’s membership and their continuing willingness to cut and run to protect their status quo. Our Union has lost it’s soul and needs to go back to it’s roots again, equal pay and benefits for every member, none of this bickering by these conferences to protect their vested interests, playing politics and word games will only destroy any solidarity.

Maybe it is their formula to stay in power, keep the membership in the dark as they play their “ secret reindeer games” and keep their delusional power head game going by prohibiting any oppositional members from participating.

It is time to upgrade every facet of our way of collective bargaining, begin to strengthen these negotiating committees with real teeth, none of this caving in on a strike vote and then blaming it’s membership for their lack of participation...it is a cowardly way to pass blame. The company sees this and are probably laughing behind closed doors at our people on these committees.

Whether either party will make a difference, don’t know...maybe it is all a dog and pony show and every actor is playing their pre rehearse roles, really do not have vote for the better or will it be business as usual with the IBT.

Yep! The last real fight was the 1997 strike. No threat of strike? Then what does the membership really have as a legitimate threat? Unfortunately, the real reason for the strike was debatable at best! But the threat of strike is gone. Sure, we're told it's for the good of the membership because they don't want us out of work (they don't want to lose monthly dues and pay out of the strike fund). Being out of work wasn't a big concern in 97! I think the general feeling between Carey and UPS was well known and I know I miss it. For all of you who have been to grievances and meetings with the company, know everybody is buddy buddy in those meetings. I've always felt it was more show, what hear and see on the outside than anything else. UPS is in the driver's seat, there is no doubt. The Union just guards against blatant atrocious acts and wants to keep those dues coming in. UPS states what they are going to give come negotiation time, and the Union chops it up whatever way they want. Everything else is BS. Sadly, the membership is not every sharp and has traded so much of their future for today ie retirement benefits in exchange for today, and continue to do so (retirees can't vote). You'll pay later. UPS is smart enough to know this, but so many in the membership do not. Our Union knows it too. That's why they take from retiree benefits and keep most active employee benefits. Dumb move on our part, but it goes over every time!

 

[BigUnionGuy]

That's why they take from retiree benefits and keep most active employee benefits.

What ?

 

[104Feeder]

No, I was only pointing out that your principal officer is running on the opposing slate and that your story (which cannot be confirmed here on this site) may just be political fodder, fact or fiction.

It's hard to fathom what JW's motivation would be here in supposedly "sacrificing" these grievances as you put it, as I wonder what might be in it for TU or himself???

If this was actually the case, it would only serve to hurt he and his slate's campaign in the Western Region.

The story just doesn't make sense in the fashion you are spinning it, and is as @BigUnionGuy aptly points out is "bazaar"....so I am still not buying it, sorry.

Here you go

 

[104Feeder]

Just like in a hearing it's all speculation until the whole story is heard from the grievant and the company.
Hate it as we do I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater until I hear that other slate candidates are complicit in anything like this allegation by agreeing with compromised decisions of any size and the facts aren't known even though the decision sucks.

If there was wrong doing involved it will be dealt with.

Start dealing with it

 

[104Feeder]

Why did you come on here and post this other than to arbitrarily try to give TU a black eye?
If the decision would have gone against the company would you have come on here to post accolades for TU? Doubt it.
Will posting this without knowing the details change anything? Who said it was "tolerated" or supported by OZ?
Maybe it's an internal issue that "your" people need to get to the bottom of and then post what may be facts instead of dissing one person on the panel without all the details....

and then blame the backlash on posters who couldn't defend anyone's actions with facts, by your own admission, that you don't even know.

Granted, you're aggravated that this went down the way it did and I would be too but in your blanket condemnation of JW you try to dilute the value of many strong teamsters on the TU slate and quite frankly I see that to be shortsighted and childish.
That, my friend, is on topic.

JW gave himself a black eye. Keep on defending selling out the members.

 

[104Feeder]

'We' is us in our work group. Why poke at that statement?
Evidently you aren't us.
No one is killing the messenger. I didnt post anything personal against you but "we" happen to know many folks on the TU slate and they are not compromising Teamsters.
Let's not lump them all together because I'm sure there are weak links on every slate although I'm not saying JW was weak.
Whatever happened at that hearing will be exposed and if it was weakness on the union side I'm sure it will be dealt with and in time the details will be known.

Expose this

 

[Big Rigger]

Expose this

Weak. Redundant. You expose it. You posted it.

JW gave himself a black eye. Keep on defending selling out the members.

Read and comprehend...
JW is not TU.

Start dealing with it

You deal with it. You posted it.

Again, politicized posting of issues we aren't privy to is what? It's throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
We, in the Central Region like OZ, TJ, AT, and it won't matter what you say because we've had enough of the past Hof fa supported slates and administration.
Deal with it.

 

[Bubblehead]

Here you go

Only tells us of a decision....nothing else, JS

 

[104Feeder]

Weak. Redundant. You expose it. You posted it.
Read and comprehend...
JW is not TU.
You deal with it. You posted it.

Again, politicized posting of issues we aren't privy to is what? It's throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
We, in the Central Region like OZ, TJ, AT, and it won't matter what you say because we've had enough of the past Hof fa supported slates and administration.
Deal with it.

JW is TU

James Wright - O'Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United

Sean O'Brien | Fred Z | Juan Campos | Tony Jones | John Palmer | James Wright | Greg Floyd | Joan Corey | Chris Griswold | Rocco Calo | Bill Hamilton | Matt Taibi | Avral Thompson | Tom Erickson | Danny Avelyn | Pat Darrow | Brent Taylor | Thor Johnson | Mark Davison | Lindsay Dougherty...

unionly.io

You own him and what he's done to my members. Why don't you stop setting straw man attacks against the messenger and clean up the mess in your own house?

TU sells out members for political gain.

 

[104Feeder]

Only tells us of a decision....nothing else, JS

Are you really that disingenuous? This isn't Justia or PACER.
You have the case number, you can see the denial decision, you know who the chair is. Why don't you ask JW about it or is your head stuck in the sand? Have you even offered anything to refute what I've posted?

 

[DELACROIX]

Are you really that disingenuous? This isn't Justia or PACER.
You have the case number, you can see the denial decision, you know who the chair is. Why don't you ask JW about it or is your head stuck in the sand? Have you even offered anything to refute what I've posted?

I am not pretending to know anything about how the system works...just from my limited knowledge:

A. Could you guys get a final hearing transcript of the panel’s decision or a contract interpretation in writing on why was it denied?

B. Can you file board charges if the denial was so grievous claiming collusion?

C. The date of January 2020? Is it common for grievances in your area to be settled 20 months after being filed?

D. What contract language loophole did the company use to win their argument?

E. Who else was on the panel besides JW?

One of the major problems with the grievance process is transparency. The members need access to every step of the process and not be left in the dark claiming a “need to know basis”.

It will be a great question to bring up at the debates, just what are these candidates going to change to bring trust back into the grievance procedures or will it be business as usual.