Another way to look at the vote yes position

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by 2033, Aug 9, 2018.

  1. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    Or, the IBT actually wants you to vote no (hypothetical)


    We have hashed out all of the problems with the contract. I want to believe that the Union actually knows what it's doing, and has the members' best interests at heart. Maybe it's just the optimist in me, but I have come up with a scenario in which the facts of the negotiations match my hopes...

    Imagine, if you will, you are on the negotiating team, and you've wrapped up weeks/months of work and have a handshake agreement with the company that you know is terrible. You can't just turn around and tell the members it's terrible and to vote no, that would be bad faith. So, how do you get the members to vote it down without looking like you are trying to get them to vote it down?

    I'll leave it at that for now, to minimize the tl:dr. Who can see where I'm going with this?
  2. The Range

    The Range In too deep

    I get it but I highly doubt the tip of the teamster spear is that sharp. Vote no then clean house next cycle.
    • Winner Winner x 8
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • List
  3. BrownRecycler

    BrownRecycler Member

    If you think the contract good or bad, vote on it. Don't let anyone tell you how to vote without even giving you the link to the proposed change of contract information. If it more about truck driver dispute with the contract, that is the truck drive side of the contract. The contract is written for everyone not just driver.

    More importantly, seniority and its wage matters. They have the right to be heard about the contract. Ask your employee seniors and get their opinion. It isn't just about the new or young.

    See for more information
  4. Been In Brown Too Long

    Been In Brown Too Long Ex-Package Donkey

    Not voicing an opinion whether or not it is a good deal or bad, simply responding to your what if?...

    The only problem with this argument is why would you shake hands on an agreement that you thought was bad in the first place? If they believed it was a bad deal, you either keep hashing it out, or you walk away from the table. They had a strike authorization in their pocket, and chose not to use it. You don't present/endorse a contract to the members hoping they vote it down.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. Future

    Future Victory Ride

    I just hope the masses know how critical this vote is ......... do your best too inform
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  6. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    I agree it would be a huge risk, it really depends on just how hardball UPS was playing. Let's say the union presented the membership's ultimate wish list, and UPS countered with something that was so far away that the Union just couldn't get them to meet very close to the middle.

    If I believed I had negotiated the best deal I could, but knew it wasn't that great, I wouldn't try to hype it as the greatest deal ever. The way they are pushing it like that, but, so far, have yet to explain how it is the best deal ever in a satisfactory manner, is the main support for the hypothesis.

    If it were me, and I really believed it was the best deal I could get, I would be open and honest, pointing out the good parts, and explaining why the bad parts couldn't be helped (still hoping they will do this). I couldn't straight up tell members to vote no, UPS would cry foul.
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  7. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    I am trying desperately to give the union the benefit of the doubt. They aren't making it easy, though. I would much rather have a reason to believe we are being represented by negotiating geniuses. I say we should all vote no, just in case I am right that it's what the union wants, but can't tell us.
  8. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    I'm all for cleaning house, just don't know if there are enough voting ups teamsters to get it done. Hopefully there are enough other teamsters who are dissatisfied with the status quo.
  9. Benben

    Benben Working on a new degree, Masters in BS Detecting!



    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  10. DOK

    DOK Well-Known Member

    The only thing in this contract that the Teamsters are looking at is the increased pension, H&W, and union dues that will be generated by these 22.4 positions, period. And if you dive into the numbers, the RPCD’s are funding an extremely large part of those “new monies” by having their OT and regular hours reduced. It’s a transfer of wealth, from RPCD’s to 22.4’s, in order to bail out the union’s various funds that they have mismanaged throughout the years, all the while not really costing ups any more money over the length of the agreement, it’s the RPCD’s who are funding these 22.4’s.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. Str8right72

    Str8right72 New Member

    93% of how many though. I’ve asked around and nobody seems to know. It seems that the Union is keeping that number close to the vest. I hope it was a big turnout or the strike vote might not hold much water.
  12. Benben

    Benben Working on a new degree, Masters in BS Detecting!

    Nobody knows because our "negotiators" are playing for the other team.

    Sorry if that hurts but its how we all feel!
  13. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    Based on all the information I've seen, I totally agree with you, my posts in other threads will make that plain. I started this thread as a show of good faith to any die hard, pro IBT folks out there, trying to explore the situation as if we are all wrong about the negotiators.
  14. PT Car Washer

    PT Car Washer Well-Known Member

    I believe this weak tentative contract agreement answers that question. The best the IBT could do when only a third of the members even bother to vote.
  15. a911scanner

    a911scanner Active Member

    I heard it was around 25% of the membership.
  16. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    After going around in circles with a certain big tuna from the south west, I have come up with another angle that gives the IBT the benefit of the doubt, particularly on the 22.4 job.

    It seems that some regions have let their members down by allowing ground drivers to deliver ground packages at 10 dollars an hour less than other ground drivers (not counting progression, of course). Since those regions have been unable to fix their mistake, the IBT has graciously decided to make it everyone's problem. On the surface this appears to be a terrible idea, but it's part of a master plan to bail out these regions that don't have the clout to fix the problems they created. The 22.4, though a huge step backwards for the rest of the country, is a modest improvement for those regions that screwed up. With the entire country in the same sinking ship, they can get everyone working together to fix the problem the next contract.

    Now, of course, the IBT can't let on that this is their plan. For it to have a hope of working, they have to keep it quiet, and let UPS think they've won with this contract. Sometimes you have to take a strategic loss to put yourself in a better position to win the next battle. Of course there will be casualties, but that's all part of the process and can't be helped.

    Something to think about.
  17. BrownRecycler

    BrownRecycler Member

    If UPS is hurting in region, shouldn't package get re-routed to another facility to get ship out? It seems like UPS would drags its feet and blame the lack of driver.

    In the new contract, they made an order of who get the heavy volume, those that volunteer, the least seniority, and if not, and the worst comes worse people. Should those language be in place of the 22.4 because all they have to do is ship it out to another facility that is better equip with the volume?

    I felt that the republic system exist is when IBT vote based upon their geographical location corresponding to the economic and industrial system. As you have said, not all region have it easy and are hurting but to carry those that are hurting when the volume could have been re-route else where. Am thinking the concept of scapegoating. To use those that are hurting serve as an example of why the 22.4 is needed when it could have been averted.
  18. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    I don't think I understand what you mean.
  19. BrownRecycler

    BrownRecycler Member

    I need my editor in chief to correct my writing.

    Let me re-phrase this. Why the regions that are hurting are used as an example for the 22.4 when the heavier volume should have been re-routed to another facility that can better handle this?

    For the record, IBT / :censored2: me in the butt without my permission when they put "Vote Yes" with fancy videos. I didn't see this coming, but I cannot regret my truth seeking behavior.
  20. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    Well, 22.4s are for delivering packages, regions cover a large area. Any facility that would be close enough to deliver packages for another facility would, in most cases, be governed by the same supplemental.

    The issue I'm talking about is that some regions or areas within regions have cover drivers that match the description of the 22.4 job, but get paid less, and don't get full time pension contributions. The 22.4 language is an upgrade for those areas. I don't know how diverting volume would even work, or apply to this situation.