New tdu article on halt to ratification

[1989]

WDFD

Don’t call a contract ratification an election. Because it is not an election.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Don’t call a contract ratification an election. Because it is not an election.

I edited the post, so you can untangle your panties and put the dictionary away now my guy.

 

[Pizza]

Wasn’t an election

I elected to vote.

 

[hellfire]

I edited the post, so you can untangle your panties and put the dictionary away now my guy.

Time to move on dude, let’s see how dedicated you are, First, get off your cross, second are you gonna opt out of the union to show them, Or, run for office?

 

[Superteeth2478]

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.

Yeah, except they were able to use Article XII, Section 6 last time to amend the constitution and impose the supplementals in one go. No reason they can't do the same again.

 

[hellfire]

Yeah, except they were able to use Article XII, Section 6 last time to amend the constitution and impose the supplementals in one go. No reason they can't do the same again.

Yes, keep playing the victim

 

[Mugarolla]

Yeah, except they were able to use Article XII, Section 6 last time to amend the constitution and impose the supplementals in one go. No reason they can't do the same again.

They did not amend the Constitution last contract. They used an existing clause. The ruling under Section 6 was that the supplements were continuing to vote no trying to change language that was already voted for in the master. And that was the only reason the supplements were not passing. It dealt with Teamcare.

They did not amend the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution would not affect the current contract exactly as I have stated,

Applying Section 6 now, well, he could have before he applied Section 2 and imposed it. To apply Section 6 and change his mind now, isn't very likely.

 

[LagunaBrown]

They did not amend the Constitution last contract. They used an existing clause. The ruling under Section 6 was that the supplements were continuing to vote no trying to change language that was already voted for in the master. And that was the only reason the supplements were not passing. It dealt with Teamcare.

They did not amend the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution would not affect the current contract exactly as I have stated,

Applying Section 6 now, well, he could have before he applied Section 2 and imposed it. To apply Section 6 and change his mind now, isn't very likely.

Just to clarify OZ did not try to amend the 50% or 2/3 rules in the constitution when they attended the last few conventions.

 

[LagunaBrown]

Yeah, except they were able to use Article XII, Section 6 last time to amend the constitution and impose the supplementals in one go. No reason they can't do the same again.

Why didn’t Z or O try and fix the 2/3 or 50% language at the convention? They dropped the ball big time.

 

[Mugarolla]

Why didn’t Z or O try and fix the 2/3 or 50% language at the convention? They dropped the ball big time.

Did they drop the ball?

Maybe they did not have an issue with that section in the Constitution.

I mean, if they did, one would think they would have tried to change it.

But they didn't. Nobody did.

 

[trickpony1]

I mean, if they did, one would think they would have tried to change it.

They didn't change it because it would have required effort and any amended language that invoked majority rule could have led to a nasty 'ol strike and even more hassle.

Path of least resistance...

 

[Dulce Bombón]

Lets hire the most prestige attorneys in the country. IBT sucks, to be honest.

 

[clipperman]

Lets hire the most prestige attorneys in the country. IBT sucks, to be honest.

Avenatti??


This mess is right in his wheelhouse

 

[Dulce Bombón]

Avenatti??


This mess is right in his wheelhouse

Any except Crump. He never won a case.

 

[jagger john]

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

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Lets hire the most prestige attorneys in the country. IBT sucks, to be honest.

Everyone pitches in? Im down like charles brown in a Christmas gown

 

[browned out]

They did not amend the Constitution last contract. They used an existing clause. The ruling under Section 6 was that the supplements were continuing to vote no trying to change language that was already voted for in the master. And that was the only reason the supplements were not passing. It dealt with Teamcare.

They did not amend the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution would not affect the current contract exactly as I have stated,

Applying Section 6 now, well, he could have before he applied Section 2 and imposed it. To apply Section 6 and change his mind now, isn't very likely.

No....Last time Hoffa/Hall lied about it being only the one teamcare issue. And the Teamcare language DID change.
It was also harassment language, progression and other issues. The pieces of garbage JUST decided to say it was one issue so They could force it thru and keep UPS happy. Stating it was 1 issue was BS Nothing could be further from the truth. Par for the course.

 

[clipperman]

Everyone pitches in? Im down like charles brown in a Christmas gown

Wouldn’t that be an odd situation,the union paying lawyers with members dues money to fight the members?

 

[Mugarolla]

No....Last time Hoffa/Hall lied about it being only the one teamcare issue. And the Teamcare language DID change.
It was also harassment language, progression and other issues. The pieces of garbage JUST decided to say it was one issue so They could force it thru and keep UPS happy. Stating it was 1 issue was BS Nothing could be further from the truth. Par for the course.

OK

My point was that they did not amend the Constitution as @Superteeth2478 said they did.

Yeah, except they were able to use Article XII, Section 6 last time to amend the constitution

They used an existing article in the Constitution, they did not amend it.

 

[Superteeth2478]

They did not amend the Constitution last contract. They used an existing clause. The ruling under Section 6 was that the supplements were continuing to vote no trying to change language that was already voted for in the master. And that was the only reason the supplements were not passing. It dealt with Teamcare.

They did not amend the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution would not affect the current contract exactly as I have stated,

Applying Section 6 now, well, he could have before he applied Section 2 and imposed it. To apply Section 6 and change his mind now, isn't very likely.

Article XII, Section 6: "The General Executive Board is empowered to amend, delete, or add to this Article if at any time it believes such action will be in the interests of the International Union or its subordinate bodies."

"Therefore, be it resolved that the General Executive Board exercise its authority to amend Article XII, Section 2(b) by adding the following paragraph in the middle of page 94: Notwithstanding the above, in the event the master agreement has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this Article, but the members covered by a supplement or rider do not approve the employer’s last, best and final offer, as determined by the master negotiating committee, and the supplemental or rider negotiating committee reports that the members have rejected the supplement or rider because of a provision in the ratified master agreement, then the master negotiating committee shall have the authority to declare the master agreement and all supplements and riders to be in effect."

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/teamstersforademocraticunion/pages/8300/attachments/original/1434374401/Article%20XII%20resolution.pdf?1434374401

Article XII, Section 6 gives them the power to amend the constitution. The change was effective immediately in 2014. Again, no reason it can't be used again and be effective immediately, but this time in the interests of the voting membership.