New tdu article on halt to ratification

[DriveInDriveOut]

yeah but you do see the words FINAL OFFER

Yes I do. It says if it is presented as a final offer use section d.

If every offer is a final offer, explain to me the purpose of section b.

(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.

 

[BigBrown87]

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.

You saying it is a final offer and quoting the constitution text is not the issue. The issue here is that when this offer was presented to the membership, there was no communication that this was in fact the last and best final offer. I really dont care at this point that the contract is imposed. The issue I have is that you seem to think it was not a choice when it clearly was a choice made by Hoffa himself. What is done is done and he will be gone shortly, the end of story.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Yes I do. It says if it is presented as a final offer use section d.

If every offer is a final offer, explain to me the purpose of section b.

(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.

Subsection (d) simply outlines the rules for a vote on the master.

Subsection (b) States that an agreement will become binding if approved by a majority of voters, and outlines how local unions might be able to witndraw from the master agreement. Then it goes on to outline what happens if the master passes, but a supplemental does not. The steps outlined in subsection (b) pertain only to supplementals and riders that were rejected, not to the master.

I have to admit I'm not sure about the meaning of this paragraph in subsection (b)
"When a master agreement negotiated under the provi‑ sions of this Article provides for a reopener and re‑nego‑ tiation, or is voluntarily reopened during its stated term, the above voting procedure shall apply to ratifcation of the new terms, if any, and Section 2(d) shall apply to strike votes."

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Subsection (d) simply outlines the rules for a vote on the master.

Subsection (b) States that an agreement will become binding if approved by a majority of voters, and outlines how local unions might be able to witndraw from the master agreement. Then it goes on to outline what happens if the master passes, but a supplemental does not. The steps outlined in subsection (b) pertain only to supplementals and riders that were rejected, not to the master.

I have to admit I'm not sure about the meaning of this paragraph in subsection (b)
"When a master agreement negotiated under the provi‑ sions of this Article provides for a reopener and re‑nego‑ tiation, or is voluntarily reopened during its stated term, the above voting procedure shall apply to ratifcation of the new terms, if any, and Section 2(d) shall apply to strike votes."

Explain to me what you think the meaning of the first sentence in the section is. It seems pretty straight forward, but I'm interested in your interpretation.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

@DriveInDriveOut , I'm open to entertaining other interpretations.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Subsection (d) simply outlines the rules for a vote on the master.

section d outlines the rules for a final vote before a strike.

The first sentence of section b outlines majority rule.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Explain to me what you think the meaning of the first sentence in the section is. It seems pretty straight forward, but I'm interested in your interpretation.

"(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."

The significance of this sentence is to establish that a master agreement that is passed will be binding and effective on all local unions involved and their members. Subsection (d) specifies all the rules regarding a vote. In our case, we didn't pass the agreement, we failed to reject it. And I feel I've explained subsection (d) to the best of my ability, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

"(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."

The significance of this sentence is to establish that a master agreement that is passed will be binding and effective on all local unions involved and their members. Subsection (d) specifies all the rules regarding a vote. In our case, we didn't pass the agreement, we failed to reject it. And I feel I've explained subsection (d) to the best of my ability, so I'll leave it at that.

It establishes that a majority vote regardless of voter turnout passes, or doesn't pass, the offer.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

section d outlines the rules for a final vote before a strike.

The first sentence of section b outlines majority rule.

If you look at subsetion (a)
"Upon completion of negotiations by any commit‑ tee designated as hereinafter set forth to engage in nego‑ tiations of a master agreement, such agreement shall be submitted to the membership involved in such negotia‑ tions for their approval or rejection as the fnal offer in accordance with Section 2(d) herein."

I feel that clarifies the matter. It doesn't say in accordance with section 2(b) and/or section 2(d). It clearly states section 2(d) outlines the rules for accepting or rejecting an offer, and that such an offer being put to a vote would be considered a final offer, which is reiterated in 2(d).

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If you look at subsetion (a)
"Upon completion of negotiations by any commit‑ tee designated as hereinafter set forth to engage in nego‑ tiations of a master agreement, such agreement shall be submitted to the membership involved in such negotia‑ tions for their approval or rejection as the fnal offer in accordance with Section 2(d) herein."

I feel that clarifies the matter. It doesn't say in accordance with section 2(b) and/or section 2(d). It clearly states section 2(d) outlines the rules for accepting or rejecting an offer, and that such an offer being put to a vote would be considered a final offer, which is reiterated in 2(d).

Again.
It says it shall be presented as the final offer in accordance with section d.

It doesn't say it has to be presented as the final offer. And it wasn't.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It establishes that a majority vote regardless of voter turnout passes, or doesn't pass, the offer.

It doesn't mention an offer being rejected. It's just establishing that an agreement that has been passed by a majority of voters will be binding on all included locals, which sets the stage for the next sentence about how locals can withdraw from a master agreement. I do agree that it confuses the matter by mentioning a master being passed by a majority. It might even be enough to create a challenge to the vote process, if the constitition didn't give the IBT a trump card by giving the president final say in all questions about the issue.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

It doesn't mention an offer being rejected.

If it isn't passed, what is it?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Again.
It says it shall be presented as the final offer in accordance with section d.

It doesn't say it has to be presented as the final offer. And it wasn't.

"Shall" in formal, and particularly legal, usage means "certainly will" or "must".

 

[zubenelgenubi]

If it isn't passed, what is it?

It could be a tie.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

If it isn't passed, what is it?

And, since this section doesn't specify requirements for rejection it would become subsequent to 2(d) in the event that a vote did not meet the requirement to pass as outlined in 2(b).

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

It could be a tie.

Lol.
I like you.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And, since this section doesn't specify requirements for rejection it would become subsequent to 2(d) in the event that a vote did not meet the requirement to pass as outlined in 2(b).

Nah they renegotiate and try again, section d is for final vote before a strike.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Lol.
I like you.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Nah they renegotiate and try again, section d is for final vote before a strike.

Honestly, I prefer your interpretation. I hope it's correct.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Honestly, I prefer your interpretation. I hope it's correct.

My point is it's ambiguous.
The constitution states Hoffa has the right to interpret the language. I think we know his opinion.

I just want people to know who is responsible for ing them. And vote him and everyone who doesn't push him to renegotiate this agreement out of office.