F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
If they weren't offered by the union they wouldn't have to be shot down by the membership.
TCDs are temporary.
Not a full time position.
And a mistake from the beginning.
Under No Circumstances Can 22.4 Be Allowed To Remain
- Thread starter Imchar1
- Start date
TCDs are temporary.
Not a full time position.
And a mistake from the beginning.
So
Who agreed with corporate to enact this language and what regional areas agreed to implement it.
Not that anyone wouldn't consider the extra pay to work a Saturday;
Some actually don't mind it.
Sunday...however is another animal.
Lets ask your resident steward here.
Do you wish to work Saturdays and Sundays?
Were you forced to work a Sunday during December because you had available hours remaining?
Working weekends, and being requested to do so is another thing.
I would like to agree with another member above who stated that current progression is more favorable than this suggested 22.4 nonsense.
Its sounds more like Pelosi who said lets pass it, then lets look into what it has inside afterwards.
What does the union lose being dealt a NO vote?
I'll go back to my previous inquiry...
Where, if passed, will the 8 hours of work be acquired from?
Giving the company an open hand to loosely create work UNDEFINED is potentially an outcome that will spiral out of control.
Giving the company an avenue to use for the mistakes they make, giving them a resource to cover up union work that is defined to part time up and seniority down, offers management an out and potentially grabs at work to divert away and hide.
Once again...
DEFINE the 8 hours of work prior to a (22.4) members start time.
Where, if passed, will the 8 hours of work be acquired from?
Giving the company an open hand to loosely create work UNDEFINED is potentially an outcome that will spiral out of control.
Giving the company an avenue to use for the mistakes they make, giving them a resource to cover up union work that is defined to part time up and seniority down, offers management an out and potentially grabs at work to divert away and hide.
Once again...
DEFINE the 8 hours of work prior to a (22.4) members start time.
Are you saying they work the majority of the year?
Rack em
Made the Podium
22.4 will be a year round job.
Karma is a bitch
Be careful what you say
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
How many drivers actually bid a Tuesday to Saturday shift? How many drivers actually complained about working weekends? Of those, how many were m-friend drivers being laid off on Mondays and "forced" to work Saturday, and how many were drivers who actually bid t-s? You and the union keep insisting that drivers complaining about working weekends are a main reason for creating 22.4, but unless someone can answer those questions about who actually was complaining, I call BS on the entire premise. It's a red herring, and 22.4 is not even a good solution to this made up problem.
The only people who were unhappy about driving weekends were:
A: the ones who bid a m-friend shift, then had a bait n' switch with the last contract and were forced onto a t-s shift.
B: the drivers who were m-friend and never got moved to a t-s shift, but had to work Saturday because they were laid off on Monday.
I would have gladly bid a t-s shift if it meant I started driving even a year earlier than I did. If I were part time still, waiting to drive, I would rather bid a w-su shift as a full time package car driver than a 22.4. Some drivers in my center were hoping they would start Saturday operations so they could bid a t-s shift.
You can't just make up imaginary bull crap, and blame everyone you disagree with for not being able to make up their minds. Those of us on this forum who oppose 22.4 have never changed our position. 22.4 has been examined from every single angle imaginable, every excuse for creating it has been resoundingly and definitively refuted. No matter which way you look at it 22.4 is bad. If your area has bad language, or can't enforce the language properly, that needs to be addressed in your area, and we would all wholeheartedly support any such efforts any way we could.
Gumbo stated the part-time drivers in that area work 95% of the time. I know 22.4s will be year round.
SameRightsForAll
Well-Known Member
Why the hell is a 2/3 super majority NO vote required in order to vote the contract down?? This is not how an election works. Show me where it says 2/3rds.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Only if less than 50% of eligible voters vote, it's in the teamsters constitution. @Bubblehead has posted the language in another thread if you want to search for it, or you can google the teamster constitution.
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
Article 12 - Section 2(d) reads:
"Results of ratification or rejection
votes with respect to master agreements shall be determined
by all involved voting members on a cumulative
basis of all votes cast as follows:
(1) If at least one half of the members eligible to vote
cast valid ballots then a cumulative majority of
those voting in favor of the final offer shall result
in acceptance of such offer; and a cumulative majority
of those voting against acceptance of the final
offer shall authorize a strike without any additional
vote being necessary for such strike
authorization. A tie vote shall be resolved as provided
in Section 1(b)(l) of this Article.
(2) If less than half of the eligible members cast valid
ballots, then a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those voting
shall be required to reject such final offer and to
authorize a strike. The failure of such membership
to reject the final offer and to authorize a strike as
herein provided shall require the negotiating committee
to accept such final offer or such additional
provisions as can be negotiated by it."
Credit to Bubblehead for the research.
iruhnman630
Well-Known Member
Technically this is a tentative agreement, not a 'final offer.'
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
This isn't from the UPS tentative agreement. I believe @Bubblehead got this from the IBT constitution. This language governs all of the IBT if I'm not mistaken.
Dulce Bombón
I'm Legal Gringo! UPS Latina Heat! Haters ❤ me!
Sounds to me like you encouraging people to vote Yes. This a VOTE NO .
SameRightsForAll
Well-Known Member
So only in the event of a unusually low turnout.
SameRightsForAll
Well-Known Member
"an unusually low turnout". I couldn't edit once I posted and noticed I got in a hurry.
clipperman
Well-Known Member
Over 50% turnout would be an abnormally high turnout,by a wide margin
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
One does not proclude the other....
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
Just so you know this was the turn out last contract. Keep in mind we have 240,000 members.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Yep....and the Vote No Facebook group had around 3,000 members then and going is on 22,000 members now.
....as well as a well organized Vote No effort from Teamsters United, with career politicians pondering where they are going to line up in the next General Election.
It's a whole new ball game and times are a changing.
Similar threads
