Not that we need another imposed contract thread....but I’m confused

[Turdferguson]

My question is how did the company not bargain in good faith? It isn’t being imposed by the company, but by the union.

The union clearly supported the contract, so they accepted it as a good faith agreement.

 

[Jkloc420]

reported

 

[Fighter]

My question is how did the company not bargain in good faith? It isn’t being imposed by the company, but by the union.

The union clearly supported the contract, so they accepted it as a good faith agreement.

The company pulled the first offer on the Western Pennsylvania Supplement and submitted an inferior offer. This is called a "regressive" offer and flies in the face of fair bargaining. It comes under unfair labor practices.

 

[Fighter]

I think what everyone is confused about is, our constitution gives them the right to push through with a technicality. But, it also gives them the right to go back to the negotiating table. There is nothing in the constitution that says the contract is automatically pushed through with less than 50% turnout. That is why UPS released a statement that it got voted down. The problem is the union did not want to go with its members, and the majority of its members. The union went against their very own members. After the union told UPS they would just push it through, all of a sudden UPS declares that their first and only offer was their final offer. Corruption on so many levels. friend the teamster leaders.

The Teamster constitution says that three attempts are to be made if the first two are voted down.

 

[MyTripisCut]

The Teamster constitution says that three attempts are to be made if the first two are voted down.

Brother, there have been numerous threads that have discussed the language in the constitution. There are “loopholes” that allow a contract to be ratified without the required number of members voting. @Bubblehead knows them verbatim at this point.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

What rules govern collective bargaining for a contract?

After employees choose a union as a bargaining representative, the employer and union are required to meet at reasonable times to bargain in good faith about wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects. Some managerial decisions such as subcontracting, relocation, and other operational changes may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining, but the employer must bargain about the decision's effects on unit employees.

It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.

If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.

The parties' obligations do not end when the contract expires. They must bargain in good faith for a successor contract, or for the termination of the agreement, while terms of the expired contract continue.

A party wishing to end the contract must notify the other party in writing 60 days before the expiration date, or 60 days before the proposed termination. The party must offer to meet and confer with the other party and notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute if no agreement has been reached by that time.

How is "good faith" bargaining determined?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of NLRB cases dealing with the issue of the duty to bargain in good faith. In determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances. The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.

The additional requirement to bargain in "good faith" was incorporated to ensure that a party did not come to the bargaining table and simply go through the motions. There are objective criteria that the NLRB will review to determine if the parties are honoring their obligation to bargain in good faith, such as whether the party is willing to meet at reasonable times and intervals and whether the party is represented by someone who has the authority to make decisions at the table.

Conduct away from the bargaining table may also be relevant. For instance if an Employer were to make a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employees employment without bargaining, that would be an indication of bad faith.


———The above text is taken from the NLRB website. I am underlining two separate statements, want to see if anyone is paying attention.

My take is this, why would the Union, do exactly what the company is legally allowed to do, based on the Taft Hartley act and the information provided above? My point being, maybe the union is putting on a front knowing the company was going to do this anyway?



Second underlined section, did the union only go through the motions and not bargain in good faith? This would seem to be our only out.


@Bubblehead and @BigUnionGuy I would appreciate your responses.

Way too long.

Didn't even attempt to read it.

 

[MyTripisCut]

Way too long.

Didn't even attempt to read it.

Your loss. It was poignant.

 

[Coldworld]

Most bargaining leverage they've had in decades. And we end up with one of the largest concessions ever

Sad....

 

[Coldworld]

Way too long.

Didn't even attempt to read it.

Wdfd... you want to borrow my readers pimps???

 

[Coldworld]

Brother, there have been numerous threads that have discussed the language in the constitution. There are “loopholes” that allow a contract to be ratified without the required number of members voting. @Bubblehead knows them verbatim at this point.

Heard he was going to be a vice prez at large on the O’Brien slate....

 

[Bubblehead]

Heard he was going to be a vice prez at large on the O’Brien slate....

Who???

 

[Superteeth2478]

I take anything TDU says with a grain of salt.

They have.... time and time again.... been known to spew half truths and lies.

Sounds like the Old Guard does the same thing. Pot meet kettle, right?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Sounds like the Old Guard does the same thing.

How's that ?

 

[Superteeth2478]

How's that ?

Keep sticking your head in the sand, it's nice and cool down there.

One of the most recent ones is where UPSRising is stating that "UPS Teamsters covered by the Central Pennsylvania Supplement have ratified the agreement." Is that not a half-truth? They failed to mention why it was "ratified". A more accurate term is "imposed". Say it like it is, don't make it sound like the ones that voted "ratified" the agreement. That's bull. And that's the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Coldworld]

Who???

Think I got my posts mixed up... it looks like I was talking about you but wasnt.... sorry not sure what happen...

 

[Coldworld]

The company pulled the first offer on the Western Pennsylvania Supplement and submitted an inferior offer. This is called a "regressive" offer and flies in the face of fair bargaining. It comes under unfair labor practices.

*