Tell H to debate

[Lead Belly]

Whatever. I was there. I am not misinformed.

That's a lie. You weren't at the two man. I'll screenshot that one half pint.

 

[Lead Belly]

Th

here's an example of why you don't lie. People like me will remember keep it and post it over and over to make you look like a lier.

 

[Lead Belly]

If you were there why are you lying?

Because in the end that's all this merry band of misfits can do.

 

[Instigator]

View attachment 74718 ThView attachment 74717 here's an example of why you don't lie. People like me will remember keep it and post it over and over to make you look like a lier.

Think what you want Skippy. In the end H will lose because he screwed us all over.

 

[Lead Belly]

Think what you want Skippy. In the end H will lose because he screwed us all over.

Go ahead and deflect liar. Now go find your phone books to stand on.

 

[Lead Belly]

Whatever. I was there. I am not misinformed.

So what else do you lie about on here? You weren't on the local 89 negotiating committee either were you?

 

[Whatbrownwontdoforyou]

Again, just your opinion.

You are throwing mud with no evidence of any of what you accuse actually happening.

It wasn't an opinion....it was a question

 

[Whatbrownwontdoforyou]

That's an opinion.

The first part was an opinion.....which I am entitled to....second part was fact

 

[Whatbrownwontdoforyou]

That wasn't a debate.

That was a closed door meeting.

Not the same thing.

It was an opportunity for them to voice concerns.....which they didn't have any....they kept their mouths shut because they agreed then.....I'm just curious why they disagree now

 

[Instigator]

View attachment 74718 ThView attachment 74717 here's an example of why you don't lie. People like me will remember keep it and post it over and over to make you look like a lier.

• Local 89 Stewards, Agents and Executive Board Recommend NO Vote On Proposed UPS National Master Agreement and Central Region Supplement
  
  
  
  
  
  In a meeting today with all Local 89 stewards from UPS Ground, Feeder, and Air divisions, the Executive Board reported its conclusion that both the UPS National Master Agreement and the Central Region Supplement were not worthy of ratification by the membership. The announcement was followed by a motion by the attending members to reject the two substandard agreements. The motion was unanimously approved by all 77 stewards in attendance.
  
  Among others issues with the proposed agreement, the following changes and additions motivated the motion to reject:
  
  Economic
  • The raises contained in the agreement, both hourly and mileage rates, fall below the guaranteed increases in the 2008-13 Contract.
  • There has been no solid information on how the move from the company health plans to Central States will affect members.
  • There are no pension increases in the first four years. The fifth year contains an increase of only $5.00.
  • The 4-year progression contained in the proposed agreement is entirely unacceptable to members moving into full-time positions.
  • The penalty pay language contained in Article 17 is concessionary, raising the dollar amount on pay shortages.
  • There are no protections on full-time positions.
  • The starting wage continues to be substandard and continues to subject our newest members to poverty.
  
  Non-Economic
  • 9.5 language falls very short of fixing the problem and does not protect members with less than four years of seniority.
  • The proposed Article 37 language does nothing to fix harassment issues.
  • Article 14 language will result in job loss for members who cannot return to work in three years.
  • The problems with Surepost have not been fully addressed. Package Car routes will continue to be depleted.
  
  The changes and additions in the Central Region Supplement were also reviewed with the stewards. Throughout the reading and explanations of the new language, there was an audible discomfort with proposed agreement. The responses ranged from outrage to disbelief regarding the many harmful changes contained in the supplement.
  
  The finding of the Executive Board and the motion by the membership to reject the proposed Central Region Supplement were based on some of the following:
  • The extension of seasonals is detrimental to newly hired employees.
  • There is extremely harmful language in Article 3 where it is stated seniority will be broken if a member has reached "maximum medical improvement from an on or off the job injury or illness if at that time they still cannot perform the essential functions of job".
  • Article 19 language on single-day vacation coverage drivers could prevent part-time members from obtaining full-time.
  • The language changes in Article 17 are particularly harmful to the members. Members in the Air Operations, are particularly at risk under the changes in Section (d) which make an aircraft strike, regardless of dollar amount, a terminable offense. Prior, Local 89 followed the now removed “$4400” language contained in the Central. In addition, Changes to Section 17(i) give the Company nearly limitless power to define “other serious offenses”. This will lead to even more members throughout the UPS system losing their jobs to an unrestrained company.
  Galvanized by the disappointment in the two proposed agreements, stewards in all divisions pledged to stand together in solidarity to support each other in their fight for fair agreements. Currently, the Louisville Air Rider is still being negotiated. Talks with the Company are at a virtual standstill with the future and livelihoods of Air District Teamsters in limbo. Throughout the room, there was a consensus among Ground and Feeder stewards that they would continue to support their Air District sisters and brothers in whatever manner necessary to deliver a fair Louisville Air Supplement.

 

[Lead Belly]

• Local 89 Stewards, Agents and Executive Board Recommend NO Vote On Proposed UPS National Master Agreement and Central Region Supplement
  
  
  
  
  
  In a meeting today with all Local 89 stewards from UPS Ground, Feeder, and Air divisions, the Executive Board reported its conclusion that both the UPS National Master Agreement and the Central Region Supplement were not worthy of ratification by the membership. The announcement was followed by a motion by the attending members to reject the two substandard agreements. The motion was unanimously approved by all 77 stewards in attendance.
  
  Among others issues with the proposed agreement, the following changes and additions motivated the motion to reject:
  
  Economic
  • The raises contained in the agreement, both hourly and mileage rates, fall below the guaranteed increases in the 2008-13 Contract.
  • There has been no solid information on how the move from the company health plans to Central States will affect members.
  • There are no pension increases in the first four years. The fifth year contains an increase of only $5.00.
  • The 4-year progression contained in the proposed agreement is entirely unacceptable to members moving into full-time positions.
  • The penalty pay language contained in Article 17 is concessionary, raising the dollar amount on pay shortages.
  • There are no protections on full-time positions.
  • The starting wage continues to be substandard and continues to subject our newest members to poverty.
  
  Non-Economic
  • 9.5 language falls very short of fixing the problem and does not protect members with less than four years of seniority.
  • The proposed Article 37 language does nothing to fix harassment issues.
  • Article 14 language will result in job loss for members who cannot return to work in three years.
  • The problems with Surepost have not been fully addressed. Package Car routes will continue to be depleted.
  
  The changes and additions in the Central Region Supplement were also reviewed with the stewards. Throughout the reading and explanations of the new language, there was an audible discomfort with proposed agreement. The responses ranged from outrage to disbelief regarding the many harmful changes contained in the supplement.
  
  The finding of the Executive Board and the motion by the membership to reject the proposed Central Region Supplement were based on some of the following:
  • The extension of seasonals is detrimental to newly hired employees.
  • There is extremely harmful language in Article 3 where it is stated seniority will be broken if a member has reached "maximum medical improvement from an on or off the job injury or illness if at that time they still cannot perform the essential functions of job".
  • Article 19 language on single-day vacation coverage drivers could prevent part-time members from obtaining full-time.
  • The language changes in Article 17 are particularly harmful to the members. Members in the Air Operations, are particularly at risk under the changes in Section (d) which make an aircraft strike, regardless of dollar amount, a terminable offense. Prior, Local 89 followed the now removed “$4400” language contained in the Central. In addition, Changes to Section 17(i) give the Company nearly limitless power to define “other serious offenses”. This will lead to even more members throughout the UPS system losing their jobs to an unrestrained company.
  Galvanized by the disappointment in the two proposed agreements, stewards in all divisions pledged to stand together in solidarity to support each other in their fight for fair agreements. Currently, the Louisville Air Rider is still being negotiated. Talks with the Company are at a virtual standstill with the future and livelihoods of Air District Teamsters in limbo. Throughout the room, there was a consensus among Ground and Feeder stewards that they would continue to support their Air District sisters and brothers in whatever manner necessary to deliver a fair Louisville Air Supplement.

You can copy and paste all you want you are still a lier. You've made statements on this site that you have been at certain places and they are false. Copy and paste that.

 

[Inthegame]

• 
  
  
  In a meeting today with all Local 89 stewards from The motion was unanimously approved by all 77 stewards in attendance.

• • So this "unanimous" vote was legit, but the unanimous vote at the two-man was suspect? Hmmmm...

 

[Instigator]

View attachment 74805
You can copy and pates all you want you are still a lier. You've made statements on this site that you have been at certain places and they are false. Copy and paste that.

Whatever

 

[Instigator]

• • So this "unanimous" vote was legit, but the unanimous vote at the two-man was suspect? Hmmmm...

Z promptly notified H and H when he had time to review the proposal that Local 89 was opposed to the agreement. When I find the letter I'll post it also Skippy

 

[Lead Belly]

Whatever

Hey you said you were there and you lied about it. I guess whatever is all you can say about that.

 

[Lead Belly]

Z promptly notified H and H when he had time to review the proposal that Local 89 was opposed to the agreement. When I find the letter I'll post it also Skippy

And one thing I find hilarious is you are all of about maybe 5 foot tall calling people skippy. And that's your comeback from getting caught in a lie. Whatever I guess

 

[Lead Belly]

• • So this "unanimous" vote was legit, but the unanimous vote at the two-man was suspect? Hmmmm...

The dudes drinking Suckerman milkshakes. Whatever.

 

[realbrown1]

• • So this "unanimous" vote was legit, but the unanimous vote at the two-man was suspect? Hmmmm...

You tell us, how long (exactly) FZ and TS had to read the UPS contract proposal?

 

[Inthegame]

You tell us, how long (exactly) FZ and TS had to read the UPS contract proposal?

Copies of the proposed CBA were available before the event. I don't know how quickly either fellow can read, but I know one had a copy. Regardless both of these savvy negotiators could easily discern inadequacies in the three hour presentation and I suspect could have formed a rudimentary question if their desire was to improve the agreement by pointing out the shortfalls. But if another agenda was in play, then of course keeping quiet was their best move.
Or maybe they just couldn't hear from the back row they occupied.

 

[realbrown1]

Copies of the proposed CBA were available before the event. I don't know how quickly either fellow can read, but I know one had a copy. Regardless both of these savvy negotiators could easily discern inadequacies in the three hour presentation and I suspect

How long before the event?

It's a national contract with regional and local supplements.

That's a lot of pages to go over.

So how much time?

(You make out like they had plenty of time, were you guessing about that?)