New tdu article on halt to ratification

[dogs.bite.me]

Incorrect.

UPS can say this is the final offer and the Union could accept it, recommend it, and vote on it.

Can you read?

I didn't say always. I said usually.

 

[wide load]

Let's do it again. It is in black and white. It says final offer.

Article XII CONTRACT RATIFICATION, WAGE SCALES, DISPUTES OVER JURISDICTION

Section 2(a). If a majority of the affiliated Local Unions vote to participate in area, multi‑area, national, multi employer, company wide, or industry wide negotiations for an area, multi‑area, national, multi‑employer, company wide, or industry wide agreement (hereinafter “master agreement”), all involved affiliated Local Unions shall comprise a multi‑union unit, be bound by such vote, must participate in such master agreement bargaining and shall be bound by the agreement approved as provided below. Upon completion of negotiations by any commit‑ tee designated as hereinafter set forth to engage in negotiations of a master agreement, such agreement shall be submitted to the membership involved in such negotiations for their approval or rejection as the final offer in accordance with Section 2(d) herein.


d(2) If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a two thirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such final offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the final offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating committee to accept such final offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it

First time in our history that the first offer was the final offer. Taylor is a cock.

 

[dogs.bite.me]

Yes, we already authorized a strike.

But rejecting a final offer does not instantly implement a strike. The Union will still see if the Company is willing to renegotiate.

If they are not, then a strike may be called.

That's my point.

That subsection is saying 2/3 is needed to reject and authorize a strike.

It need not apply in this situation.

 

[Brown287]

We can’t halt it.....but the NLRB sure the hell can. They can also force the teamsters to produce facts that support the idea of best and final offer. Also they can find the rule unconstitutional regardless of its existence. Using the fact that it wasn’t implemented in 2013 with lower voter turnout.

 

[Mugarolla]

How do you explain the message that they were going to meet with the ibt right after the results?

It is clear it is not a final offer.

Also freight proves it. They are not on strike.

First time in our history that the first offer was the final offer. Taylor is a cock.

First time in history the master was rejected by a majority of the votes.

 

[Mugarolla]

That's my point.

That subsection is saying 2/3 is needed to reject and authorize a strike.

It need not apply in this situation.

Even TDU agrees that Hoffa can do it, they also feel like you that he doesn't have to do it.

Like I said before, if he doesn't, does he open himself up to charges of failing to uphold the IBT Constitution?

 

[dogs.bite.me]

I don't align with tdu. But I think this interpretation is wacky and my building is pissed off.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Like I said before, if he doesn't, does he open himself up to charges of failing to uphold the IBT Constitution?

No.
Article 12 section 2d
Any question arising from the application or interpretation of this Section shall be decided by the General President, whose decision
shall be final.

 

[Mugarolla]

Can you read?

I didn't say always. I said usually.

Yes, you said urging a no vote usually.

But if you read it correctly, I was not replying to that statement. I was replying to...

A final offer is when there is no agreement and the corporation says this is it. This is the best you'll get.

A final offer does not mean there is no agreement.

Union: We want $1.00
UPS: We will give you $0.50
Union: We want $0.90
UPS: our final offer, we will give you $0.75 and no more.
Union: we'll take it and send it to the membership to vote on.

 

[Mugarolla]

No.
Article 12 section 2d
Any question arising from the application or interpretation of this Section shall be decided by the General President, whose decision
shall be final.

And he made his decision, didn't he. That's why I say it ain't gonna change.

People may interpret in different ways, buy Hoffa has the final say.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And he made his decision, didn't he. That's why I say it ain't gonna change.

People may interpret in different ways, buy Hoffa has the final say.

Ok.
I'm just trying to clarify it here.

There seems to be this lie going around that he has to impose the contract . You seem to be perpetuating it


Everyone is out trying to blame other members.

It is 100 percent Hoffa's choice to deny the membership proper Democratic process.

 

[BrownArmy]

Can a mod fix the thread title spelling?

It's making my eyes bleed.

 

[wide load]

Even TDU agrees that Hoffa can do it, they also feel like you that he doesn't have to do it.

Like I said before, if he doesn't, does he open himself up to charges of failing to uphold the IBT Constitution?

No.
Article 12 section 2d
Any question arising from the application or interpretation of this Section shall be decided by the General President, whose decision
shall be final.

I’m glad Hoffa friend’d is! Sean wins!!
President Sean!!

 

[Delivery!!!]

Can a mod fix the thread title spelling?

It's making my eyes bleed.

I wholeheartedly agree. Thought I even used auto correct to get it right. Thread title in general is pretty crappy.

 

[Mugarolla]

There seems to be this lie going around that he has to impose the contract .

Is it a lie?

If this was truly a final offer, which people seem to disagree on, then the IBT Constitution says we need a 2/3 no vote to turn it down.

And Hoffa, as you have correctly pointed out, has the final say in the interpretation of Article XII.

So how can it be a lie?

Those who interpret this as a final offer, well, the Constitution is clear.

Those who say it was not a final offer, have a gripe.

Was it a final offer? See your post about the General President having the final say.

 

[Mugarolla]

I’m glad Hoffa friend’d is! Sean wins!!
President Sean!!

Hoffa was not running again, and I will be glad to see him go, either way.

Was never a fan, was actually a big critic, and still am.

 

[Brown287]

Is it a lie?

If this was truly a final offer, which people seem to disagree on, then the IBT Constitution says we need a 2/3 no vote to turn it down.

And Hoffa, as you have correctly pointed out, has the final say in the interpretation of Article XII.

So how can it be a lie?

Those who interpret this as a final offer, well, the Constitution is clear.

Those who say it was not a final offer, have a gripe.

Was it a final offer? See your post about the General President having the final say.

Regardless of what the union claims, this is exactly what the NLRB can determine for us. They still are bound by federal law to represent us without prejudice and in good faith. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to connect the dots between pension money and selling out members. This isn’t hyperbole these are facts and yes even the union Needs to answer for their actions. We may only be lowly union members but we are still guaranteed to be represented fairly and just in accordance to the law.

 

[Mugarolla]

Regardless of what the union claims, this is exactly what the NLRB can determine for us. They still are bound by federal law to represent us without prejudice and in good faith. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to connect the dots between pension money and selling out members. This is hyperbole these are facts and yes even the union Needs to answer for their actions. We may only be lonely union members but we are still guaranteed to be represented fairly and just in accordance to the law.

Cannot disagree with anything you said.

 

[BrownArmy]

Regardless of what the union claims, this is exactly what the NLRB can determine for us. They still are bound by federal law to represent us without prejudice and in good faith. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to connect the dots between pension money and selling out members. This isn’t hyperbole these are facts and yes even the union Needs to answer for their actions. We may only be lowly union members but we are still guaranteed to be represented fairly and just in accordance to the law.

Well, that’s sad if we have to go to the NLRB to find clarity on our contract vote, wtf

 

[Boxchucker]