Next Contract vote...

[710 steward]

I could speculate about a myriad of reasons for it.





Ron Carey and TDU were directly involved with it.

So....





(Certain) UPS members can cry and bitch all they want.

Great job, on only 22% of the members voting in the "strike authorization".


That's a big hand, to take to the table. (not)

Thanks.... TDU.



-Bug-

Forcing contracts through with over 50% voting also plays a huge roll. Thank a fat lazy pile of dung for that.

 

[Brownsocks]

I seriously doubt the elected delegates would support an amendment, just to

accommodate UPS Teamsters. And how many delegates are even from UPS ?

-Bug-

The union better get their head out of their ass and realize who pays the bills without UPS the Teamsters are in trouble.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Forcing contracts through with over 50% voting also plays a huge roll. Thank a fat lazy pile of dung for that.

50% of the members voting ? It's time to check your numbers....

The union better get their head out of their ass and realize who pays the bills without UPS the Teamsters are in trouble.

Yeah.

The IBT will wait with "baited breath".... on that happening.

 

[Bubblehead]

I could speculate about a myriad of reasons for it.

You could, but you didn't???

Ron Carey and TDU were directly involved with it.

So....

Ron Carey and TDU were directly involved in having the 50% nuance added to the rule in the 90's.

Prior to that it took a two-thirds No Vote no matter how many voted.

That was a good start to elimanting a ridiculous rule.

Thanks Ron!!!

(Certain) UPS members can cry and bitch all they want.

Great job, on only 22% of the members voting in the "strike authorization".


That's a big hand, to take to the table. (not)

Are you saying our negotiators shared those percentages with the Company while at the table???

That would explain some things and not surprise me at all.



~Bbbl~™

 

[Jkloc420]

i dont think you can be a union when the votes of most members dont matter

 

[710 steward]

50% of the members voting ? It's time to check your numbers....





Yeah.

The IBT will wait with "baited breath".... on that happening.

I’m not talking about this contract. The past affects the future. Unless the membership can figure out a way to stop the stuffing of ballot boxes in Canada you will probably be correct.

 

[Mugarolla]

You could, but you didn't???

You already know the answer.

If a majority of the memberships votes, and overrules the Teamsters, so be it.

But, the Teamsters are not going to let a minority overrule them, unless it is a super minority (2/3).

 

[Bubblehead]

You already know the answer.

If a majority of the memberships votes, and overrules the Teamsters, so be it.

But, the Teamsters are not going to let a minority overrule them, unless it is a super minority (2/3).

...."overrule them", think about that for a minute.

I don't see "them" bellyaching or not taking the job when the membership doesn't vote at a 50% or better clip.

The whole premise behind this "super minority" rule as you call it, is complete

....because they should work for "us" at whatever frequency "we" choose to vote.

 

[Crosscutters]

Once again. I get it. A rule that many should be ashamed of was used to pass something that the majority that did vote did not vote for. So instead of constantly posting about it being everyone else’s fault, why not ask why the majority of those who did vote thought it was a bad deal?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The real issue is that the IBT is claiming to be bound by one part of the constitution, but saying another part doesn't matter. When you question the part they are basing their actions on, the answer is "we are bound by the constitution", when you point out the parts they ignore the answer is "we can interpret the constitution however we want, and even change it whenever we want, the constitition says so."

It's impossible not to see the hypocrisy in the words and actions of the IBT and their diehard supporters. Anyone interested in perusing title 29 of the code of federal regulations with me? For all of you unable to answer the questions I had about the administrative rules that govern labor in the US, this is where they are, at least some of them.

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

 

[Mugarolla]

The real issue is that the IBT is claiming to be bound by one part of the constitution, but saying another part doesn't matter.

Which other part do you claim that they say doesn't matter?

 

[Mugarolla]

....because they should work for "us" at whatever frequency "we" choose to vote.

Yes they should......but welcome to the real world.

 

[Coldworld]

They're only sold down the river because they let themselves get sold down the river by not voting.

But, no, I didn't expect less.

Sometimes weed and sex are just more important than fighting for an extra .50 cents an hour or showing up for a union meeting or 2.....

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The real issue is that the IBT is claiming to be bound by one part of the constitution, but saying another part doesn't matter. When you question the part they are basing their actions on, the answer is "we are bound by the constitution", when you point out the parts they ignore the answer is "we can interpret the constitution however we want, and even change it whenever we want, the constitition says so."

It's impossible not to see the hypocrisy in the words and actions of the IBT and their diehard supporters. Anyone interested in perusing title 29 of the code of federal regulations with me? For all of you unable to answer the questions I had about the administrative rules that govern labor in the US, this is where they are, at least some of them.

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Yet again....

Another TDU "locker room lawyer".

 

[BigBrown87]

No we're not.

We are on the whole members not voting issue.

And this can come into play in 5 years no matter who replaces Hoffa.

Even if the "new" leader does not agree with the contract, UPS can force a vote on it, and the IBT Constitution is not changing.

The contract will be enforced if we cannot get enough people to vote.

Start early. Get people informed. Get people involved. Get people to vote.

Yeah I'm over it period, you guys keep arguing and talking up or down hoffas move and I will look forward to 2021. The only thing Hoffa imposing this contract does is show the next slate their fate in imposing future contracts with the bylaws.

 

[Mugarolla]

Yeah I'm over it period, you guys keep arguing and talking up or down hoffas move and I will look forward to 2021.

I'm bored and I don't mind doing it. You're welcome to move on.

But, OK, let's move on to 2021.

The only thing Hoffa imposing this contract does is show the next slate their fate in imposing future contracts with the bylaws.

You suggesting that the next slate should ignore the IBT Constitution?

I'm all for changing it, not ignoring it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Yet again....

Another TDU "locker room lawyer".

You keep saying this, are you talking about yourself? I have no interest in tdu, the only thing they want to change is who is in charge. You can stop trying to recruit me.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Which other part do you claim that they say doesn't matter?

I've answered this several times. Keep pretending like you don't know.

 

[Mugarolla]

I've answered this several times. Keep pretending like you don't know.

I remember you stating your interpretation of the IBT Constitution, and you thought Hoffa was not following your interpretation.

But, it was also pointed out that nobody in power, not Hoffa, the IBT attorneys, Sean OB, FZ nor any other International VP agreed with your interpretation.

I will ask again.

What part of the Constitution did the IBT "say" doesn't matter?

Or is it just that they do not agree with your opinion of the IBT Constitution so you conclude that they're saying it does not matter.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I remember you stating your interpretation of the IBT Constitution, and you thought Hoffa was not following your interpretation.

But, it was also pointed out that nobody in power, not Hoffa, the IBT attorneys, Sean OB, FZ nor any other International VP agreed with your interpretation.

I will ask again.

What part of the Constitution did the IBT "say" doesn't matter?

Or is it just that they do not agree with your opinion of the IBT Constitution so you conclude that they're saying it does not matter.

It's written in black and white, we had to fail to authorize a strike in order for them to be forced to ratify. No interpretation required.