New tdu article on halt to ratification

[Brown287]

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

Yes it is.....I’ve been saying to guys at work that it’s sad that the union basically is there to protect us against people doing the kind of stuff that the union itself is doing. It’s like we’ve entered into some parallel universe where UPS protects us from the union.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Is it a lie?

Yes.
It's already been explained to you.
You keep tryin cover for Hoffa.
Sad

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

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

 

[opie]

 

[Mugarolla]

Yes.
It's already been explained to you.
You keep tryin cover for Hoffa.
Sad

Explained to me by who? Truck drivers?

And you must not have seen any of my posts criticizing Hoffa, all the way back to the last contract.

I'm not defending Hoffa, I'm defending the rule of law. per se, the IBT Constitution. And yes, we disagree on what it says.

Let's see who is right after the lawyers fight it out. I will guarantee you that it remains imposed, so I guess it is not a lie.

Time will tell.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Let's see who is right after the lawyers fight it out. I will guarantee you that it remains imposed, so I guess it is not a lie.

I bet you think OJ was innocent.

 

[Mugarolla]

I bet you think OJ was innocent.

Different circumstances.

They could not prove that he did it. No witnesses.

A little different than hashing out Constitution language and what the General President can and cannot do, based on the language.

Anyway, OJ was not innocent.

 

[Coldworld]

I bet you think OJ was innocent.

Which time????

 

[Mugarolla]

Which time????

Good point.

I assumed he was referring to the first time.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Article XII Sec 2 (d)
"When in the judgment of the negotiating committee the involved employer has made a fnal offer of settle‑ ment, such negotiating committee shall have the authori‑ ty, with the approval of the General Executive Board, to conduct agreement ratifcation votes ..."

It doesn't go to a vote until the negotiating comittee determines that it is a final offer, and the locals review it. Doesn't matter if UPS says it's a last best or final. In this case, it clearly wasn't a final offer from UPS's perspective. In Art 12 sec 2 (d) (2) it states:

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

This pertains to our situation. The language here clearly states that if we fail to reject the offer and authorize a strike, the negotiating committee is required to accept the offer, or they can try to make some changes. The key here is the phrase:
"The failure of such membership to reject the fnal offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided"

The key word in this phrase is "and". We have to both fail to reject the offer (which we did) and fail to authorize a strike (which we did not) for the negotiating committee to be required to do anything. The union is not required to accept the offer, nor are they required to call a strike. They can technically start from scratch and reopen negotiations if they want, and if UPS is open to it.

 

[just chillin']

any offer put to vote to the members is officially the final offer. jeez just read the damn constitution already. ups doesn't have to call it squat. our constitution calls it that right there in black and white. last best are words that don't even exist as far as i know in the constitution. i believe it was a "catch phrase" left over from the 97 strike. we never ever ever turned one down before with any percentage of voter turnout. 10 people or 200000 we never voted a master down. period. this is new and uncharted waters for us. and as far as freight goes, does anyone know if they took a strike vote????

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Now, we can split hairs over what "herein provided" means. Does it mean as provided in this subsection, in the last sentence, which states that 2/3 must vote to reject the offer and authorize a stirike? Or does it refer to the entire article? Earlier in the article it says they can hold a strike authorization vote, which they did, and which passed. So we did authorize a strike under the terms of the article. "Herein", in this subsection, is undefined, and technically Hoffa has final say, but he can't say that his hands are tied by the constitution.

 

[wutcontractidkwutaunionis]

Not sure if this is correct place to post this but I am tired of hearing people here blaming eligible dues paying members for not being able to cast their votes because they did not receive their materials in time or at all. It should be universally understood that you as dues paying members should not be required to contact your locals to receive said material. WE PAY THEM TO WORK FOR US, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If those same locals did not get their membership involved and keep them informed it just means they were part of the YES movement which involves both the company and our own union leaders.

 

[just chillin']

what gets me is how the hell with the amount of LAWYERS on both sides, that each and every voting scenario would be meticulously going over and pre-planned accurate responses would be at the ready on Friday night. the whole constitution confusion and letters to hoffa from the VPs and all the rest of it is an embarrassment as far as im concerned. the fact that there's is no news on the international website tells me hoffa still is deciding our and his fate with this.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

any offer put to vote to the members is officially the final offer.

I disagree

 

[just chillin']

I disagree

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.

please explain your interpretation of this. im not trying to be a dick, maybe i need to read it a different way. i dunno?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

please explain your interpretation of this. im not trying to be a dick, maybe i need to read it a different way. i dunno?

That's section a.
It says when no more negotiations can take place, use section d to determine vote outcome.

This is section b.
You'll notice no mention of voter participation.

(b). If a majority of the votes cast by the involved membership approve such agreement, it shall become binding and effective upon all Local Unions involved and their members.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

OK.

Who says the Company did not tell the NNC that this was the final offer that they accepted and sent to us to vote on.

Nobody has confirmed, or denied, that.

The company announced it on their website immediately after the tally

 

[zubenelgenubi]

what gets me is how the hell with the amount of LAWYERS on both sides, that each and every voting scenario would be meticulously going over and pre-planned accurate responses would be at the ready on Friday night. the whole constitution confusion and letters to hoffa from the VPs and all the rest of it is an embarrassment as far as im concerned. the fact that there's is no news on the international website tells me hoffa still is deciding our and his fate with this.

Everyone assumed they knew how it worked, so they didn't bother getting too meticulous.

 

[just chillin']

That's section a.
It says when no more negotiations can take place, use section d to determine vote outcome.

This is section b.
You'll notice no mention of voter participation.

(b). If a majority of the votes cast by the involved membership approve such agreement, it shall become binding and effective upon all Local Unions involved and their members.

yeah but you do see the words FINAL OFFER