Next Contract vote...

[Bubblehead]

This is where us poor, dumb truck drivers would have trouble understanding our rights. It's taken me two months to dig up this info, trying to figure out who had jurisdiction over disputes in these cases. It's not the NRLB, it's not OLMS, or even the DOL. Union constitutions are considered contracts between the union and the members. As such it falls under the jurisdiction of the courts.

Whether it's the state courts' or federal court's jurisdiction is a matter of contention, but the supreme court has consistently ruled that disputes over union constitutions fall under the federal court's jurisdiction. Since they are deemed contracts, contract theory applies. I can just about guarantee that the clausrs that give the general president and executive board final say and the right to make changes when they feel like it would be seen as unenforcable.

The courts have final say over interpretations of contracts, and any clause that gives one party the right to make changes without approval of the other party would be thrown out. According to contract theory, vaguely written clauses will be interpreted in the favor of the party that did not write it. The union wrote the constitution, and article 12 is extremely vaguely written, so....

 

[BigUnionGuy]

This is where us poor, dumb truck drivers would have trouble understanding our rights. It's taken me two months to dig up this info, trying to figure out who had jurisdiction over disputes in these cases. It's not the NRLB, it's not OLMS, or even the DOL. Union constitutions are considered contracts between the union and the members. As such it falls under the jurisdiction of the courts.

Whether it's the state courts' or federal court's jurisdiction is a matter of contention, but the supreme court has consistently ruled that disputes over union constitutions fall under the federal court's jurisdiction. Since they are deemed contracts, contract theory applies. I can just about guarantee that the clausrs that give the general president and executive board final say and the right to make changes when they feel like it would be seen as unenforcable.

The courts have final say over interpretations of contracts, and any clause that gives one party the right to make changes without approval of the other party would be thrown out. According to contract theory, vaguely written clauses will be interpreted in the favor of the party that did not write it. The union wrote the constitution, and article 12 is extremely vaguely written, so....

You don't work at UPS.

 

[Bubblehead]

You don't work at UPS.

That's your only opposition to the post....they must be onto something???

Here comes the tired TDU rhetoric....

 

[Benben]

You don't work at UPS.

You have been asked multiple times by multiple people what the participation rate was for; A. Full timers and B. Part timers.

Are you saying DT was handcuffed by only 22% voting for the strike authorization?
How exactly did 22% affect the negotiations?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

 

[Bubblehead]

View attachment 225847

What's your response to @BigUnionGuy asserting that "You don't work at UPS"???

 

[zubenelgenubi]

What's your response to @BigUnionGuy asserting that "You don't work at UPS"???

I was considering my response. I guess I would answer, "sometimes I wish that were true"?
Ultimately whether I do or not is irrelevant, it doesn't change any realities in this situation. Granted, if I weren't a teamster I would not have any standing to file suit against the union. But, why the heck would I care so much if I didn't work at ups? I think anyone who's read a reasonable amount of my posts would know whether or not I work for ups. Maybe I'm management?

 

[Mugarolla]

The union wrote the constitution, and article 12 is extremely vaguely written,

You just posted that it is black and white.

There are a few areas possibly open to interpretation, but if your contention is that 12 d. doesn't apply solely because we already had a strike authorization, then you are wasting your time.

I think you would have a better shot chasing the final offer angle.

According to contract theory, vaguely written clauses will be interpreted in the favor of the party that did not write it.

Then sue them, and go broke doing it. TDU or TU won't even back you because they know it's a no win case.

Good luck whatever you decide.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You just posted that it is black and white.

There are a few areas possibly open to interpretation, but if your contention is that 12 d. doesn't apply solely because we already had a strike authorization, then you are wasting your time.

I think you would have a better shot chasing the final offer angle.



Then sue them, and go broke doing it. TDU or TU won't even back you because they know it's a no win case.

Good luck whatever you decide.

There are plenty of angles to approach the dispute from. The strike authorization issue is about the most clearly written part, though. Breach of contract is breach of contract, regardless of how many ways it was breached.

I've said it before, TDU is not interested in any real reform, they just want to be the top dogs. They would think that clarifying the constitution would make being in charge more difficult, so of course they wouldn't want that. And are you saying only the rich can afford justice? That's downright unamerican! But you're probably right. I give up.

 

[Mugarolla]

And are you saying only the rich can afford justice?

It helps...

Seriously, don't you think that this was already run past countless contract attorneys?

If TDU, or Sean OB, or anyone else thought that they could win, suits would have already been filed.

Don't give up. Some people hate what we're doing here.

I don't know about you, but I actually enjoy this.

I get bored debating dumb truck drivers, but I don't put you in that category.

You actually seem pretty smart.

 

[Mugarolla]

You're not in that category either @Bubblehead.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It helps...

Seriously, don't you think that this was already run past countless contract attorneys?

Honestly, I don't know. I think some political forces may be at play wherein anyone who would be in a better position to challenge the top brass may be choosing not to.

If TDU, or Sean OB, or anyone else thought that they could win, suits would have already been filed.

I've made some attempts and sent out some feelers up through the ranks. No one seems interested in challenging this on a technicality, anyone who might want to challenge the status quo seems to want to take a different approach. I'd much prefer this be handled in-house, but I don't see anything changing anytime in the near future.

Don't give up. Some people hate what we're doing here.

I don't know about you, but I actually enjoy this.

I get bored debating dumb truck drivers, but I don't put you in that category.

You actually seem pretty smart.

I will admit you have been a big motivator keeping me going in trying to wrap my mind around this whole thing. I wasn't planning on giving up. I was being a smartass. Even if it's just debating the matter here, I'll keep at it. I enjoy learning new things.