705 and 710 forced to accept contract.

[Mugarolla]

what makes you think the majority asked for anything???

The majority of those asking.

Basically, what the Union found out from the membership what they wanted most.

And if the majority of the membership didn't bother to submit their requests, does not stop the Union from addressing the concerns of those who voiced their opinions.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

How so....?

How so what? I said if.

And, it's your duty.... to do what ?

Are you a Union Steward, or an Elected Local Union Official ?


Or, just a "self appointed" SJW ?

Everyone has a duty to keep their representatives in line. In your mind is an sjw anyone who challenges authority?

Do you realize, how long there has been Tues-Sat language ?

Do you? Does it matter? How long it's been around doesn't have anything to do with my point.

Ever read the layoff language ?

Irrelevant to my point.

And yet....

Another TDU "locker room Lawyer".



-Bug-

Your dismissiveness and personal attacks don't really add anything to the conversation. I'd expect better from someone calling themselves a big union guy. Said it before, if you are a representation of what it means to be a union supporter, the union is in big trouble.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The majority of those asking.

Basically, what the Union found out from the membership what they wanted most.

And if the majority of the membership didn't bother to submit their requests, does not stop the Union from addressing the concerns of those who voiced their opinions.

Until it comes vote time? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two stances?

 

[bumped]

Oh how quick we forget what the real issues were.

Drivers were complaining not so much about working Saturday. But being forced to work Monday through Saturday.



The complaint was EXCESSIVE overtime.

Not simply just, overtime. I dont think any driver cares about an hour or 2 extra a day. But working 12 to 14 hours everyday seems a bit excessive to me.

I'm not in the 705 or the 710, but I certainly don't want two hours of overtime per day. 30- 60 minutes would be fine. I don't want anything more than a hour.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

a big union guy..

oxymoron, unless you are talking about the physical size or ego...

 

[Mugarolla]

Until it comes vote time? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two stances?

I do and I never said that I don't.

My stance on the voting was that's what the IBT Constitution says.

Change the Constitution and it won't come into play, but do not disregard the Constitution because you don't like what it says.

 

[Bubblehead]

The majority of those asking.

Basically, what the Union found out from the membership what they wanted most.

And if the majority of the membership didn't bother to submit their requests, does not stop the Union from addressing the concerns of those who voiced their opinions.

....and then they said NO....right???

 

[Bubblehead]

I do and I never said that I don't.

My stance on the voting was that's what the IBT Constitution says.

Change the Constitution and it won't come into play, but do not disregard the Constitution because you don't like what it says.

Which contract voting cycle are you referring to, this past offer, or the one in 2013???

 

[Mugarolla]

Which contract voting cycle are you referring to, this past offer, or the one in 2013???

You know damn well.

You know, the one everyone is bitching about, the 2/3 rule on rejecting.

 

[Bubblehead]

You know damn well.

You know, the one everyone is bitching about, the 2/3 rule on rejecting.

....and I know "damn well" it didn't come into play in 2013, despite similar circumstances.

That's where black and white turns gray.

(Btw, I didn't ask you what Contitutional language, rather which contract voting cycle )

 

[Mugarolla]

....and I know "damn well" it didn't come into play in 2013, despite similar circumstances.

That's where black and white turns gray.

(Btw, I didn't ask you what Contitutional language, rather which contract voting cycle )

No, it didn't come into play in 2013. I think the IBT had some made up reason why it didn't.

Even so, one time does not set past practice.

Bottom line, I would be fighting to change the Constitution before I would be filing charges against the IBT.

And yes, I know, good luck with either.

 

[BuckyBadger]

So.... are we voting on this thing Monday?

 

[Benben]

I find it funny.
A majority of the people complained about having to work weekends, or Tuesday thru Saturday, about the failing pension funds and about all the excessive overtime.So, the Union gave them what they asked for and now they bitch and say the Union bargained in bad faith.
I am not thrilled about the contract, but this is what people asked for.
The RPCD's no longer have to work weekends, most pensions were shored up for the time being and the OT is being reduced.
You asked for it, now you want to file NLRB charges because you got what you asked for?

It was the EXCESSIVE OT we complained about, how many damn times do you and BUG need to be told this?!?!
How did they address the failing pension funds? As I recall they only increased the pension contributions the same amount per year that they have the past 8 years, a dollar an hour. Its the same increase correct?

But that was one of the biggest complaints that the members wanted the Union to address, too much forced overtime.

They did not, in any way, address the forced OT! Please show me your proof or stop saying this!

Their efforts (now)should be to stand up and voice their concerns in the actual workplace by enforcing the contract language, instead of just being a paper tiger. (so to speak)

Because our true leaders, the union, has a long track record of being MIA when it comes to the actual day to day happenings!

 

[BigUnionGuy]

....and I know "damn well" it didn't come into play in 2013, despite similar circumstances.

Uh....

2013 was not "similar".


The master language was approved, by vote of the membership.

Then, the IBT constitution was followed by further negotiations and re-voting

of the supplements. Has everyone gone brain dead ?

Because our true leaders, the union, has a long track record of being MIA when it comes to the actual day to day happenings!

Yeah....

The Union is so "out of touch" and spends time and money trying to defend the

members, in all of these stupid discharge cases.


That has to be dumbest thing, I've ever heard.



-Bug-

 

[Mugarolla]

It was the EXCESSIVE OT we complained about

Your idea of excessive OT is different than someone else's idea.

So what is excessive?

The Union took the ambiguity out of the word excessive.

Now, nobody should complain about OT.

Oh, wait, now their complaining about no OT.

 

[Mugarolla]

They did not, in any way, address the forced OT! Please show me your proof or stop saying this!

Guess you didn't hear DT say the 22.4 was partially designed to reduce RPCD workload and OT.

 

[Bubblehead]

Uh....

2013 was not "similar".


The master language was approved, by vote of the membership.

Then, the IBT constitution was followed by further negotiations and re-voting

of the supplements. Has everyone gone brain dead ?

Uh....

Many supplements we're voted down again this time, yet they aren't being "further negotiated", nor is any "revoting" occurring for many that did last time???

....instead, any failed supplement that failed to have 50% participation in voting, or a two thirds No vote are being ratified anyway?

Please point out for us how the only difference (the National Master also being voted down) somehow triggers this Constitution verbaige as being applicable, when it wasn't in 2013?

If anything, the results of these negotiations were worse, with the Master going down as well.

....and it's for sure "similar".



~Bbbl~™

 

[Bubblehead]

Guess you didn't hear DT say the 22.4 was partially designed to reduce RPCD workload and OT.

What was the other part???

 

[Bubblehead]

Your idea of excessive OT is different than someone else's idea.

So what is excessive?

The Union took the ambiguity out of the word excessive.

Now, nobody should complain about OT.

Oh, wait, now their complaining about no OT.

Yeah, and in the building I represent, less than 15% of those eligible to "opt-in" to the 9.5 list actually do.

I'm betting that percentage was below 25% nationally.

What does that tell you....and do you think those stats were readily available to the IBT before negotiations and their push for proposals for this contract???

The "majority" didn't want their OT reduced, the vocal minority did, who had the 9.5 language to address their issues.

Those supposed proposals were just a convenient excuse for a terrible concession.

 

[Mugarolla]

The "majority" didn't want their OT reduced, the vocal minority did

If you yell loud enough.........

And it was much larger than a small minority.

What was the other part???

Pension money?

Those supposed proposals were just a convenient excuse for a terrible concession.

Possibly....Although that is what the loudest yelled about.

Yeah, and in the building I represent, less than 15% of those eligible to "opt-in" to the 9.5 list actually do.

Then why do we have 9.5 in the contract if only a small minority want it?

Apparently, your building is not representative of the whole.