A
anonymous6
Guest
Nor-Cal overwhelmingly approved of national and supplements. wondering what the differences are.
Why Did Northern California Teamsters Overwhelmingly Approve Of Contracts ?
CaliforniaPaul
Well-Known Member
Their smart.
Disgruntled employee
Active Member
I'm in the Nor Cal and I voted no on all 3. The reason why I think it passed was because our health benefits do not change. I know mine doesn't. I just did not want the master to pass. You never agree to the first offer.
Hawfuh Sux
Old Guard Assassin!
Northern California is already on a crappy healthcare plan. I believe the San Jose voted against it.
Disgruntled employee
Active Member
I'm in SF. It is different than San Jose.
runnin' late
Member
San Jose is not in the Nor Cal region. Our H&W remained the same but I voted no on all three because of the National and the 9.5, harrassment should have been stronger. Peak season was expanded, formula for calculating vacations changed, and mandatory 1 hr. lunch
A
anonymous6
Guest
ya, healthcare is the wildcard.
Marina or Sutro?
RealPerson
Well-Known Member
If they did not change and you are Not on the Enhanced C6 plan or better, then there should of been a Vote NO.
If you add 150K people to a plan, you should be getting better coverage / rates.
I would be pissed that the 150K being thrown into CS plan is still getting the enhanced, it is like the IBT is saying friend off...
yurgref
Active Member
I believe the threads author was referring to the nor cal supplement not nor cal region - if this person is from San Jose then he/she has no idea on the caliber of his/her benefits. All 287 ups employes are covered by the UPS benefit package which means that everyone is FUBAR with the passage of both the master and supplement and the POS benefit package that has been dumped down our throats.
As for answering the basic question that was asked I would say 1) APATHY 2) uninformed 3) not effected by the change in the benefit package
Mandatory 1 hour lunch during peak season?
Show me that.
I'm not in your region.
My first thought is that they get you to stay out longer with the overloaded truck.
Then take your 2'nd lunch; of which is optional to you in California.
Stay out until 12am.
You won't have to report to work until 10:01 the next day.
revitup
Member
Everyone on here has it wrong, 287 san jose is in nor cal! Have great ups benefits,no copay ever! Changing to crappy teamcare.
san francisco is also in the nor cal, no diff! contract sucks! 287 voted no 56yes 263no, I have no idea why every other local voted yes.
We even had dental with retirement ,not now. Reno a right to work state didn't help,200yes 21no peace!
san francisco is also in the nor cal, no diff! contract sucks! 287 voted no 56yes 263no, I have no idea why every other local voted yes.
We even had dental with retirement ,not now. Reno a right to work state didn't help,200yes 21no peace!
I also, am unclear why some in the west approved this contract. Looking at the numbers, its astonishing that they would just give up their healthcare benefits without a fight. It could have many reasons. No knowledge, no one speaking clear enough to hear, nothing from the local, apathy or just simply, non involvement.
There are many outlying locals in california where politics isnt a big deal. Most dont have the same issues in the yards as bigger yards. Some go through a career never making a union meeting or having to use the local for anything since trouble is rare.
Some vote yes, because they think it will all work out in the end as it always does. Only recently, are they hearing how their votes have hurt themselves knowing that we were only a few thousand votes short of rejecting the TA alltogether, and they know now, that they could have made a difference.
In our own local, over 5000 people did not vote. 25% did. Thats shameful. In our local ALONE, we had unanimous sentiments to reject the contract, yet, when it came down to licking an envelope, everyone thought everyone else would handle business.
Just dumb.
Peace
TOS
There are many outlying locals in california where politics isnt a big deal. Most dont have the same issues in the yards as bigger yards. Some go through a career never making a union meeting or having to use the local for anything since trouble is rare.
Some vote yes, because they think it will all work out in the end as it always does. Only recently, are they hearing how their votes have hurt themselves knowing that we were only a few thousand votes short of rejecting the TA alltogether, and they know now, that they could have made a difference.
In our own local, over 5000 people did not vote. 25% did. Thats shameful. In our local ALONE, we had unanimous sentiments to reject the contract, yet, when it came down to licking an envelope, everyone thought everyone else would handle business.
Just dumb.
Peace
TOS
I would venture that the majority of the people who voted are full time. Their benefits won't change much and they just want to keep on keeping on. It's not someone's responsibility to vote for other people. Other people can vote for themselves. If there's going to be any integrity with voting, you have to vote for what advances your position. You can't help others until you are fine. 1 vote for 1 individual. Now if that individual wants to vote no because they want to help the other people...great! Individual preference. But to say that people who voted yes are cowards or are stupid is logically flawed unless they are cowards or are stupid. We can't say one way or the other since it really isn't any of my business what they voted or why. I personally voted no. I don't begrudge what others voted. It affects me and yes I'm upset, but I have to live with a majority vote just like everyone else. It's for this reason I'm not a fan of the 50+1 majority. I don't care for the tyranny of the majority.
