Delivery!!!
Well-Known Member
Just saw an article on tdu, states that 7 of the 10 vps have requested an emergency executive board meeting. Sorry, I don't know how to properly post the link.
Just saw an article on tdu, states that 7 of the 10 vps have requested an emergency executive board meeting. Sorry, I don't know how to properly post the link.
Actually, I think they do. Article XII, Section 6 was used to pack supplemental agreements into the asses of 3 supplemental/local regions in 2014, so there's also no reason it can't be used to changed the Article XII language to allow for a simple majority to reject the contract. That power is in the General Executive Board's hands. Hopefully it happens.Do they have the power to stop ratification? I doubt it.
Damn, i hope so.Actually, I think they do. Article XII, Section 6 was used to pack supplemental agreements into the asses of 3 supplemental/local regions in 2014, so there's also no reason it can't be used to changed the Article XII language to allow for a simple majority to reject the contract. That power is in the General Executive Board's hands. Hopefully it happens.
Do they have the power to stop ratification? I doubt it.
Actually, I think they do. Article XII, Section 6 was used to pack supplemental agreements into the asses of 3 supplemental/local regions in 2014, so there's also no reason it can't be used to changed the Article XII language to allow for a simple majority to reject the contract. That power is in the General Executive Board's hands. Hopefully it happens.
Wrong! Wasn’t a final offer, freight contract proved that. It was a choice and the membership is well aware and will hold them accountable.This contract is already a done deal per the IBT Constitution. Changing the Constitution now will not affect this contract, but it would affect future contracts.
Wrong! Wasn’t a final offer, freight contract proved that. It was a choice and the membership is well aware and will hold them accountable.
That is open to interpretation.The IBT Constitution says you are wrong.
That is open to interpretation.
The freight contract proves it was not a final offer, as there isn’t a strike for them. You are entirely wrong on this, why do you think DT intitially said going back to table, why in 2013 was that theory not used on riders on first offer? You’re wrong!The IBT Constitution says you are wrong.
What did the freight contract prove besides being voted down? Yes, they have to renegotiate per the IBT constitution. They surpassed the 50% voter turnout, again, per the IBT Constitution.
We did not.
That is open to interpretation.
Yup.Nope.
The freight contract proves it was not a final offer, as there isn’t a strike for them.
why do you think DT intitially said going back to table
why in 2013 was that theory not used on riders on first offer?
The constitution doesn’t say he’s wrong. He’s dead balls on. That vaginal blood fart Taylor is doing what he wants because he’s a tool. He better retire.The IBT Constitution says you are wrong.
What did the freight contract prove besides being voted down? Yes, they have to renegotiate per the IBT constitution. They surpassed the 50% voter turnout, again, per the IBT Constitution.
We did not.
Every Taylor ball licker on here and every UPSRISING update for months.Where does it say anywhere that a rejected final offer automatically triggers a strike?
I’m not saying that they can’t do it, but they certainly didn’t have to. That’s a fact.
When does declining a last, best, and final offer not mean a strike?Where does it say anywhere that a rejected final offer automatically triggers a strike?
Because he wasn't sure if they were going to invoke the IBT Constitution. An hour later, they did.
That is the million dollar question. And I am still waiting for an answer from the Union on that.
Sorry, but the IBT Constitution says it was a final offer, in black and white.