A NO Vote Does NOT Mean A Strike. It Is Just Telling Hall To Strengthen Language.

A

anonymous6

Guest
I hope many will agree that some language in the 2008 contract was weak. Surepost, 9.5, harassment, to name just a few issues. seems to me we are going down the same path with this one.

I asked a labor attorney in Wash. D.C. ( friend of family ) look at certain parts of our Tentative Agreement. His conclusion was that in some parts the language was "WEAK" and in some other parts it was "IRESPONSIBLE".

That statement has CEMENTED my NO vote on the TA.

A NO vote does NOT mean a strike. Many people think it does. All it means is that Hall and our other negotiating team members have to go back to the drawing board and HAMMER out a STRONGER LANGUAGE agreement.


Send a message to the IBT that we deserve stronger protective language in the contract. They still have 3 months to get it right.
 

bluehdmc

Well-Known Member
Sometimes a NO vote is a vote to strike. It all depends on when the voting is done. In 2008 we voted before Dec 2007, in that case there was plenty of time to go back to the table. IIRC the vote had to be completed then before Jan 2001 because of the withdrawal from Central States pension.
I'm sure a vote in July would be a vote to strike. Usually this is explained on the ballot.
Right now I guess if we completed voting before say June 15th, then there might be enough time for renegotiating. I'm sure anytime after that it would turn out to be a strike vote.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
Voting "No" and voting to strike are two separate issues.
Voting "No" on the TA does not give the union the authority to strike unless you have already voted to let the negotiating committee make the decision to strike.

We have had no meeting to authorize the negotiating committee to strike (as we have done during past negotiations).

This is my understanding, I know someone will jump in if I'm wrong.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
A "no" vote and a "vote to strike" are not necessarily one in the same. There have been many instances when a "no" vote meant that the employees would continue to work under the provisions of the current contract until a new one could be ratified. I don't see that happening here----this contract will be ratified by a 2-1 margin----but in the event that it does not pass and a new agreement is not in place prior to 7/31 we would strike rather than extend the existing contract.
 

browned_out

Well-Known Member
A "no" vote and a "vote to strike" are not necessarily one in the same. There have been many instances when a "no" vote meant that the employees would continue to work under the provisions of the current contract until a new one could be ratified. I don't see that happening here----this contract will be ratified by a 2-1 margin----but in the event that it does not pass and a new agreement is not in place prior to 7/31 we would strike rather than extend the existing contract.


You say WE, why would WE not continue working and send our team (Hall/Hoffa) back to the table? A strike would have to be voted on by the membership, I think people would rather work under the old contract while negotiations continue.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
[/B]
You say WE, why would WE not continue working and send our team (Hall/Hoffa) back to the table? A strike would have to be voted on by the membership, I think people would rather work under the old contract while negotiations continue.
I agree with your post, but the first thing that would happen IMO, would be that we would hold "Strike Authorization Votes" which would then allow the negotiating committee to call a strike without an actual (or an additional) strike vote. They always pass.
I don't like authorization votes because, like you, I would rather continue to work under the old contract while they continue negotiations - at least for a while....
 

jumpman23

Oh Yeah
i think everyone would rather work than strike. i wouldnt mind a week off thats about it. I think we all agree a strike would be catastrophic for the company. Thats what i dont understand from ups send us a decent deal at least damm u know instead of trying to screw the people that make the company all their goddam money
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
A No vote would result in the diversion of volume to other carriers.
​Volume diversion means less Teamsters.
That is the unfortunate consequence of working at UPS.
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
I agree with your post, but the first thing that would happen IMO, would be that we would hold "Strike Authorization Votes" which would then allow the negotiating committee to call a strike without an actual (or an additional) strike vote. They always pass.
I don't like authorization votes because, like you, I would rather continue to work under the old contract while they continue negotiations - at least for a while....

A strike authorization vote, is just additional leverage.... for when negotiations come to a stalemate.

In "97".... the company thought it was a bluff. Carey, had no choice at that point.



​-Bug-
 

HEFFERNAN

Huge Member
Back in 97, I am assuming that there was NO tentative contract agreement before the strike.
I remember voting on the last,best,final offer in July as well and it was voted down.

If we went on strike in 97 with no TA , I can't see how the Teamsters would even allow a strike when they have a TA with UPS in 2013.
I would assume a lot of legal action would be taken to stop any strike after both parties agreed on the contract.

THAT would blow up in the Teamster's faces and further tarnish (if not kill) Union Employment in the US.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
The union should agree to a temporary extension of this contract in case of a NO vote.As long a the company continues to bargain.!!

You think FedEx will explain it to our customers that way?
They were already using the threat of a strike to get volume before the TA was announced.
​This is what FedEx has done in the past and I'm just going by past history of FedEx behavior.
 
You think FedEx will explain it to our customers that way?
They were already using the threat of a strike to get volume before the TA was announced.
​This is what FedEx has done in the past and I'm just going by past history of FedEx behavior.
Im sure that will happen..But it may slow the bleeding down!!
 
A

anonymous6

Guest
A No vote would result in the diversion of volume to other carriers.
​Volume diversion means less Teamsters.
That is the unfortunate consequence of working at UPS.

then maybe Hall and co. should of gotten it RIGHT in the first place. he did not listen to the members. I still wonder what if he gave up for this TA. I have a feeling that all along they wanted to take over a multibillion dollar health-plan. so he gave UPS weak language throughout the contract.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
The union should agree to a temporary extension of this contract in case of a NO vote.As long a the company continues to bargain.!!

then maybe Hall and co. should of gotten it RIGHT in the first place. he did not listen to the members. I still wonder what if he gave up for this TA. I have a feeling that all along they wanted to take over a multibillion dollar health-plan. so he gave UPS weak language throughout the contract.


Really a moot point ... the TA will pass easily but I do enjoy the discussions.
 

Benben

Working on a new degree, Masters in BS Detecting!
Really a moot point ... the TA will pass easily but I do enjoy the discussions.

I have heard this last bit from more than a few thus far. They have all been from management or the union reps. Not saying its right or incorrect. I do think its more from a viewpoint that the membership is apathetic. Unless the Teamsters has a plan that all votes not returned or cast are counted as a yes I think it will come down to how active the no voters are around around their teamster brothers and sisters. Was there a TA last contract because I do not remember that term being used? Could it be why its being used now, a non-casted vote is counted as affirmative for the TA?

As for the threat of a strike breaking the union, public realations-wise I don't buy it. The economy is rocking right along at this point. Everyone I know who wants a job has one. Help wanted and hiring signs are back up on every route I run. All it takes is getting it through the public's heads that when they see us out there moving like the energizer bunnies we have been doing it since 8:30 in the morning. For most of us we rarely get home to our families much before 9pm. All the kid's ball games and recitals and school programs that they never see us at its not because we don't want to be there watching our kids grow up. It is because our employer won't let us off any earlier than 9 at night. A quick statistic on the divorce rate among the driver core would "drive" this point home.

In 2009 or 2010 we might have heard, "don't cry, at least you have a job." Now all I hear is, "How do you do it?"
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
In 2009 or 2010 we might have heard, "don't cry, at least you have a job." Now all I hear is, "How do you do it?"

The only people I have heard express this exalted view of the UPS Package Car Driver are UPS Package Car Drivers.

I have heard many people who express a sense of respect for the hustle and professionalism of the UPS Package Car Driver.
When they learn the UPS Package Car Driver compensation package, they understand why.
 
Top