New tdu article on halt to ratification

[Mugarolla]

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.

I sir, stand corrected.

I know he has the power to amend, but I did not think that he amended.

Very good memory or research....or both.

I do apologize to you.

 

[Superteeth2478]

I sir, stand corrected.

I know he has the power to amend, but I did not think that he amended.

Very good memory or research....or both.

I do apologize to you.

No problem. Both you and I were pointing out that the constitutional language was followed in imposing the contract, and that as a result technically Hoffa and Taylor did nothing in violation of the constitutional language (specifically Article XII). That said, they are not, in my opinion, following the spirit of the language in the preamble of the constitution (specifically, the Oath of Office). They clearly have it in their power to address this unprecedented development by amending the constitution, siding with the voting majority this time around, and going back to the negotiating table. UPS really doesn't have any grounds for denying further negotiations, either, seeing as how they were willing to do so when they thought the contract had been voted down.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

No problem. Both you and I were pointing out that the constitutional language was followed in imposing the contract, and that as a result technically Hoffa and Taylor did nothing in violation of the constitutional language (specifically Article XII). That said, they are not, in my opinion, following the spirit of the language in the preamble of the constitution (specifically, the Oath of Office). They clearly have it in their power to address this unprecedented development by amending the constitution, siding with the voting majority this time around, and going back to the negotiating table. UPS really doesn't have any grounds for denying further negotiations, either, seeing as how they were willing to do so when they thought the contract had been voted down.

I agree with everything except the need to amend the constitution. The avenue to reopening negotiations is in article XII as it is, if leadership had the will to go that way.

 

[noazrk]

I find it mind boggling when higher up executives send out a letter with obvious errors (paragraph 4)...seriously? You are a regional V.P.! Either proof read a letter to the President or have someone else do it! That said, THANK YOU for sending the letter. Such a shame MY Western Conference V.P. couldn't be bothered to do so, or worse Ron H actually likes the contract. Guess that's why my local supported it so much as rolls downhill.

 

[noazrk]

Is there a reason we can't post someone's full name? I find that weird. I typed Ron H e r r e r a, not "Ron H".

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Is there a reason we can't post someone's full name? I find that weird. I typed Ron H e r r e r a, not "Ron H".

It seems to only do that when you type in union official names, except James P Hoffa Jr.

 

[Mugarolla]

No problem. Both you and I were pointing out that the constitutional language was followed in imposing the contract, and that as a result technically Hoffa and Taylor did nothing in violation of the constitutional language (specifically Article XII). That said, they are not, in my opinion, following the spirit of the language in the preamble of the constitution (specifically, the Oath of Office). They clearly have it in their power to address this unprecedented development by amending the constitution, siding with the voting majority this time around, and going back to the negotiating table. UPS really doesn't have any grounds for denying further negotiations, either, seeing as how they were willing to do so when they thought the contract had been voted down.

I agree.

And since UPS was willing to talk right after the vote count, I think Hoffa should have at least seen what they had to say before imposing the contract per Section 2(d).

 

[Superteeth2478]

I agree with everything except the need to amend the constitution. The avenue to reopening negotiations is in article XII as it is, if leadership had the will to go that way.

Article XII only refers to "additional provisions that can be negotiated", not a full re-opening of negotiations. It's not quite the same thing. For starters, I don't believe that the "additional provisions" are put to the vote. So it would probably be most beneficial to fully re-open negotiations as if the contract was voted down in accordance with Article XII, Section 2(d). And the only way to do that is to amend the constitution using Article XII, Section 6.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Article XII only refers to "additional provisions that can be negotiated", not a full re-opening of negotiations. It's not quite the same thing. For starters, I don't believe that the "additional provisions" are put to the vote. So it would probably be most beneficial to fully re-open negotiations as if the contract was voted down in accordance with Article XII, Section 2(d). And the only way to do that is to amend the constitution using Article XII, Section 6.

I agree that under section 2(d) the only way a revote is allowed for is if a strike is called. The part that you are overlooking is that even though we failed to reject the TA, we did not fail to authorize a strike, since we had a separate vote on that. That is important because without strike authorization, the Union wouldn't have much leverage to get the company back to the table. According section 2(d), under those circumstances the Union is not required to do anything. They don't have to ratify, don't have to call a strike. They could revert to using section 2(b) if the company agreed to continue negotiations, which we know they did. Like I said, the path to continued negotiations is in there, leadership simply lacked the will to take it.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

I agree that under section 2(d) the only way a revote is allowed for is if a strike is called. The part that you are overlooking is that even though we failed to reject the TA, we did not fail to authorize a strike, since we had a separate vote on that. That is important because without strike authorization, the Union wouldn't have much leverage to get the company back to the table. According section 2(d), under those circumstances the Union is not required to do anything. They don't have to ratify, don't have to call a strike. They could revert to using section 2(b) if the company agreed to continue negotiations, which we know they did. Like I said, the path to continued negotiations is in there, leadership simply lacked the will to take it.

In 2013: (a) no strike vote; (b) went back to the table (of course, offering the C6 healthcare plan the first time knowing it sucked compared to what many of us had and also knowing they were going to "enhance" it for the second offer to make it look "better" to outraged members);
(c) lost the trust of ups members due to the games that were played....and precipitated a majority ups vote against Hoffa in his next GP bid.

I think this was his last "screw you" to ups Teamsters. I cant imagine him running for office again after this sucker punch but let's leave room for egos.

 

[Bubblehead]

Is there a reason we can't post someone's full name? I find that weird. I typed Ron H e r r e r a, not "Ron H".

Yes, it's as a result of the site's Terms of Service rules.

 

[LagunaBrown]

Why are you all missing the real issue? There is a reason UPS quickly took down their post that the contract was voted down. Both the company and the Teamsters know if that the contract did actually get voted down with 50% or 2/3 majority stocks would drop, companies would divert volume, ther would be layoffs and it would take too much time to recover company loses. We would lose all leverage and UPS could low ball us. Especially when renegotiating 22.4’s and the economics would take a long time. How many people here know that after the 1997 strike no jobs were honored until we got ALL the volume back that we lost? Employees handed out sales leads and eventually made it happen but those jobs did not come until months and in some cases years after. As I have said from day one you guys don’t look at the total picture and all risks involved. You just talk trash and post emoji charms because you don’t know those rules and can not take advice on reality.

 

[burrheadd]

Can a mod fix the thread title spelling?

It's making my eyes bleed.

@Indecisi0n

I know this is below your paygrade

But the Jr. mods obviously slacking off

 

[Indecisi0n]

@Indecisi0n

I know this is below your paygrade

But the Jr. mods obviously slacking off

I will forward this to the entry level mods.

 

[just chillin']

I will forward this to the entry level mods.

you got dem hybreed mods yet?

 

[Indecisi0n]

you got dem hybreed mods yet?

22.4 mod's

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Why are you all missing the real issue? There is a reason UPS quickly took down their post that the contract was voted down. Both the company and the Teamsters know if that the contract did actually get voted down with 50% or 2/3 majority stocks would drop, companies would divert volume, ther would be layoffs and it would take too much time to recover company loses. We would lose all leverage and UPS could low ball us. Especially when renegotiating 22.4’s and the economics would take a long time. How many people here know that after the 1997 strike no jobs were honored until we got ALL the volume back that we lost? Employees handed out sales leads and eventually made it happen but those jobs did not come until months and in some cases years after. As I have said from day one you guys don’t look at the total picture and all risks involved. You just talk trash and post emoji charms because you don’t know those rules and can not take advice on reality.

Nope, UPS was unaware of the 50% 2/3 rule, or aware that Hoffa didn't have to enact it, no other companies knew either. No one would have started diverting volume until a strike was actually called. We all knew a strike would not be called, and under the circumstances the Union was not required to call a strike, so negotiations could have continued. The reason UPS posted their intention to return to the bargaining table was excactly to assure customers that service would not be disrupted. That was the first, major indication of UPS's weakness in the bargaining process, and was really time for the Union to pounce. They just threw away an opportunity to demonstrate just how strong a Union could be by owning UPS, but I guess we all know it's really the other way around. Sad.

 

[LagunaBrown]

Nope, UPS was unaware of the 50% 2/3 rule, or aware that Hoffa didn't have to enact it, no other companies knew either. No one would have started diverting volume until a strike was actually called. We all knew a strike would not be called, and under the circumstances the Union was not required to call a strike, so negotiations could have continued. The reason UPS posted their intention to return to the bargaining table was excactly to assure customers that service would not be disrupted. That was the first, major indication of UPS's weakness in the bargaining process, and was really time for the Union to pounce. They just threw away an opportunity to demonstrate just how strong a Union could be by owning UPS, but I guess we all know it's really the other way around. Sad.

That your opinion.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

That your opinion.

Some of it is opinion, but I included facts to support it.