Sylvester caught red handed.

[BigUnionGuy]

You were asserting that the whole conversation was "vague".
View attachment 120678
Sounds like vintage Nancy Pelosi prose.

Prime example....

Of the snowflake generation.



-Bug-

 

[10 Pt]

Prime example....

Of the snowflake generation.



-Bug-

I'm not up on your snowflake analogy but I can see that parallel to your childish comment you forgot to mention that TDU sucks and that "some" people lack "nuts".

Typical.

 

[wide load]

I'm not up on your snowflake analogy but I can see that parallel to your childish comment you forgot to mention that TDU sucks and that "some" people lack "nuts".

Typical.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[10 Pt]

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh

You may as well put your picture with it.
Time out for you chubby cheeks.

 

[wide load]

View attachment 120698
You may as well put your picture with it.
Time out for you chubby cheeks.

I'm not the one crying. You can't seem to answer a simple direct question. Are you going to support the union in negotiations?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

One question for you.
Why would this Labor Manager think that he could get away with calling this dues paying steward a "Kook" to SOB knowing that he would respect his degrading comment and not be concerned that SOB would be angry about having a member referenced in that derogatory way. Looks like there's something we're missing and aren't privileged to.

Could it be that this Labor Manager had dealt with this dues paying steward in the past and came away with the impression that the guy is in fact a kook?

I didn't see anything wrong in the e-mail.

 

[Inthegame]

Could it be that this Labor Manager had dealt with this dues paying steward in the past and came away with the impression that the guy is in fact a kook?

I didn't see anything wrong in the e-mail.

I didn't see anything wrong in the response.

The UPS Labor guy used the very typical contemptuous tone regularly used by UPS Labor toward their employees. I laughed when I read SO's response as that's the same response we've gotten from Labor when we've pointed out "problems" to them, which usually means the issue will be ignored (at least until a grievance is filed).

What's missing in this entire charade is action. What exactly did SO do to harm anyone? Receiving and responding to an e-mail hardly meets the criteria of "quid pro quo".

Time to look under other rocks...

 

[BigUnionGuy]

One question for you.
Why would this Labor Manager think that he could get away with calling this dues paying steward a "Kook" to SOB knowing that he would respect his degrading comment and not be concerned that SOB would be angry about having a member referenced in that derogatory way. Looks like there's something we're missing and aren't privileged to.

Let me take another shot at your question.


What exactly, is the labor guy "getting away with" by calling the Steward a kook ??

Is it disrespectful ??

It sure is.


But, is there some sort of contractual penalty for doing so ??


Ok.... it's a violation of Article 37.

The labor guy should apologize, if the Steward filed a grievance.


Case and point;

We don't know the Steward, the labor guy, or their history.


-Bug-

 

[LeadBelly]

I didn't see anything wrong in the response.

The UPS Labor guy used the very typical contemptuous tone regularly used by UPS Labor toward their employees. I laughed when I read SO's response as that's the same response we've gotten from Labor when we've pointed out "problems" to them, which usually means the issue will be ignored (at least until a grievance is filed).

What's missing in this entire charade is action. What exactly did SO do to harm anyone? Receiving and responding to an e-mail hardly meets the criteria of "quid pro quo".

Time to look under other rocks...

Agree

 

[Brown Spider]

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh

Haven't been on BC for a while. Glad to see that nothing has changed. Keep up the good work, PantLoad!

 

[wide load]

Haven't been on BC for a while. Glad to see that nothing has changed. Keep up the good work, PantLoad!

You haven't? Couldn't even tell.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Haven't been on BC for a while. Glad to see that nothing has changed.

You haven't? Couldn't even tell.

The short story is....

TDU still sucks.


Nuff said.



-Bug-

 

[Brown Spider]

You haven't? Couldn't even tell.

What you "Couldn't even tell" Pantload...could fill volumes.

 

[10 Pt]

Could it be that this Labor Manager had dealt with this dues paying steward in the past and came away with the impression that the guy is in fact a kook?

I didn't see anything wrong in the e-mail.

Your insight is normally tainted and leans anti union.

I didn't see anything wrong in the response.

The UPS Labor guy used the very typical contemptuous tone regularly used by UPS Labor toward their employees. I laughed when I read SO's response as that's the same response we've gotten from Labor when we've pointed out "problems" to them, which usually means the issue will be ignored (at least until a grievance is filed).

What's missing in this entire charade is action. What exactly did SO do to harm anyone? Receiving and responding to an e-mail hardly meets the criteria of "quid pro quo".

Time to look under other rocks...

Let me take another shot at your question.


What exactly, is the labor guy "getting away with" by calling the Steward a kook ??

Is it disrespectful ??

It sure is.


But, is there some sort of contractual penalty for doing so ??


Ok.... it's a violation of Article 37.

The labor guy should apologize, if the Steward filed a grievance.


Case and point;

We don't know the Steward, the labor guy, or their history.


-Bug-

Except for the true topic of the emails your analogy would be easier to accept.
The issue was that a dues paying member as well as the majority of WPa members in that work area voted No following their own consciences and could never be found overwhelmingly following a "kook".

It wasn't just the derogatory slam against this steward but the fact that the Reg Labor Manager reminded SO that they had worked hard (together) on this supplement and this steward was USING HIS RIGHTS to oppose it.

That's bull crap. Kook or not, he and many members were against it and the Labor manager's attitude was "shut him up".

SO didn't say "I'll talk to him'.

He said "I'll take care of it".

That is the problem here and you can smoke it up all you want but if these emails are genuine it is easy to ascertain what was going on.

 

[BrownMonk]

Problem with Timmy S is that he changed policy after being in an election. Constitution requires that the new Eboard be consulted at that time. Also, not supposed to accumulate time in a career. Can only be time for a year if the Locals policy allows and ackowledged at a general meeting.

 

[wide load]

What you "Couldn't even tell" Pantload...could fill volumes.

And you are?

 

[Inthegame]

The issue was that a dues paying member as well as the majority of WPa members in that work area voted No following their own consciences and could never be found overwhelmingly following a "kook".

Check your timeline. No member voted no on anything in May of 2013.

That's bull crap. Kook or not, he and many members were against it and the Labor manager's attitude was "shut him up".

Against what? How did the steward know what was in the proposal? The T/A hadn't even been voted on at the "Two-person Committee Review" (May 7, 2013 10 AM EST) yet and this guy was passing a vote no petition?

It wasn't just the derogatory slam against this steward but the fact that the Reg Labor Manager reminded SO that they had worked hard (together) on this supplement and this steward was USING HIS RIGHTS to oppose it.

Anyone who ever served on any negotiations with UPS understands it is not a walk in the park. On May 7, 2013 both sides felt they had worked out an equitable offer, after many months of talks. To have a union steward, who theoretically holds some sway over their work groups, try to convince others a better contract was available with no knowledge of what was in the first offer (that hadn't even been accepted by Local Officers yet) would very likely cause anyone on that committee to be frustrated.

That's bull crap. Kook or not, he and many members were against it and the Labor manager's attitude was "shut him up".

Again, very few knew what was in the T/A on May 7, 2013 so how were "many" members legitimately against it? Do you see no chance the LM was looking for someone to explain the T/A to the steward? Maybe wait until the two-man approves the T/A and people read what's in it before a vote no campaign starts?
Anyway, if they really wanted to "shut him up" they've shown a propensity to unjustly fire folks in that building. Why not the "kook"?

SO didn't say "I'll talk to him'.

He said "I'll take care of it".

SO had no intention of talking to a steward from another local. By "taking care of it" what did SO do? I'm on a ledge here but I'd bet you a paycheck all he did was call the PO of the local and told him what was happening (or pass on that top secret assignment to Keith B).
End of SO's involvement in Watergate II.

That is the problem here and you can smoke it up all you want but if these emails are genuine it is easy to ascertain what was going on.

Even easier when you add the timetable, common sense and a little experience in the mix.

 

[Bubblehead]

Check your timeline. No member voted no on anything in May of 2013.
Against what? How did the steward know what was in the proposal? The T/A hadn't even been voted on at the "Two-person Committee Review" (May 7, 2013 10 AM EST) yet and this guy was passing a vote no petition?
Anyone who ever served on any negotiations with UPS understands it is not a walk in the park. On May 7, 2013 both sides felt they had worked out an equitable offer, after many months of talks. To have a union steward, who theoretically holds some sway over their work groups, try to convince others a better contract was available with no knowledge of what was in the first offer (that hadn't even been accepted by Local Officers yet) would very likely cause anyone on that committee to be frustrated.
Again, very few knew what was in the T/A on May 7, 2013 so how were "many" members legitimately against it? Do you see no chance the LM was looking for someone to explain the T/A to the steward? Maybe wait until the two-man approves the T/A and people read what's in it before a vote no campaign starts?
Anyway, if they really wanted to "shut him up" they've shown a propensity to unjustly fire folks in that building. Why not the "kook"?
SO had no intention of talking to a steward from another local. By "taking care of it" what did SO do? I'm on a ledge here but I'd bet you a paycheck all he did was call the PO of the local and told him what was happening (or pass on that top secret assignment to Keith B).
End of SO's involvement in Watergate II.

Even easier when you add the timetable, common sense and a little experience in the mix.

What was the date of the "Two-person Committee Review"?

 

[10 Pt]

Check your timeline. No member voted no on anything in May of 2013.
Against what? How did the steward know what was in the proposal? The T/A hadn't even been voted on at the "Two-person Committee Review" (May 7, 2013 10 AM EST) yet and this guy was passing a vote no petition?
Anyone who ever served on any negotiations with UPS understands it is not a walk in the park. On May 7, 2013 both sides felt they had worked out an equitable offer, after many months of talks. To have a union steward, who theoretically holds some sway over their work groups, try to convince others a better contract was available with no knowledge of what was in the first offer (that hadn't even been accepted by Local Officers yet) would very likely cause anyone on that committee to be frustrated.
Again, very few knew what was in the T/A on May 7, 2013 so how were "many" members legitimately against it? Do you see no chance the LM was looking for someone to explain the T/A to the steward? Maybe wait until the two-man approves the T/A and people read what's in it before a vote no campaign starts?
Anyway, if they really wanted to "shut him up" they've shown a propensity to unjustly fire folks in that building. Why not the "kook"?
SO had no intention of talking to a steward from another local. By "taking care of it" what did SO do? I'm on a ledge here but I'd bet you a paycheck all he did was call the PO of the local and told him what was happening (or pass on that top secret assignment to Keith B).
End of SO's involvement in Watergate II.

Even easier when you add the timetable, common sense and a little experience in the mix.

Simply put: wrong.
TeamCare was presented in May of 2013.
So proposal meetings and discussion on the issues were never unveiled to stewards or members prior to May 2013?
It was published the third week of MAY 2013.

Even if SO (allegedly) wasn't going to personally speak to the steward the dead end statement made in the email was not showing that it was going to be up for discussion. He was going to take care of it. Period.

 

[wide load]

Simply put: wrong.
TeamCare was presented in May of 2013.
So proposal meetings and discussion on the issues were never unveiled to stewards or members prior to May 2013?
It was published the third week of MAY 2013.

Even if SO (allegedly) wasn't going to personally speak to the steward the dead end statement made in the email was not showing that it was going to be up for discussion. He was going to take care of it. Period.

And in your mind that mean a pair of cement shoes? Simply put: DUMB!