Bargaining in good faith.

[SameRightsForAll]

My take is that the company submitted a final offer that the Teamsters took to a vote, and the by laws said that it was passed.

This whole argument that people didn’t know it was a final offer and that it shouldn’t be forced on them is ridiculous. The company did nothing wrong, this is all to do with the Teamsters. Even management was blind sided by it. We thought it failed. Even got an email about it Friday night

It makes perfect sense why you would want it to be the final offer AFTER the election so that the final offer clause could be invoked to shut down the opposition. This is called moving the goal post. It was a first offer, first vote, and you know it.

 

[SameRightsForAll]

The few of you who keep claiming this was a final offer can't explain why there is a clause describing WHEN the 2/3rds rule applies. This proves in the language itself that only a certain scenario can trigger the 2/3rds rule. Denying this means you're saying that all elections are 2/3 and that no election is ever 50/50.

Citing the 2/3 rule after the election in order to change the outcome is not even a loophole. It's blatant snake-work.

 

[Inthegame]

I'm just quoting a piece of language from the Labour Relations Act.

We don't have a "Labour" Relations Act in the US.

 

[Inthegame]

The few of you who keep claiming this was a final offer can't explain why there is a clause describing WHEN the 2/3rds rule applies. This proves in the language itself that only a certain scenario can trigger the 2/3rds rule. Denying this means you're saying that all elections are 2/3 and that no election is ever 50/50.

Citing the 2/3 rule after the election in order to change the outcome is not even a loophole. It's blatant snake-work.

You must be a busy beaver working at UPS and practicing Labor law.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Never mind

 

[Mugarolla]

This proves in the language itself that only a certain scenario can trigger the 2/3rds rule.

Exactly. If less than half the membership votes, that triggers the 2/3. All offers sent to the membership to vote on are final offers per Section 2(a) of the IBT Constitution.

Denying this means you're saying that all elections are 2/3 and that no election is ever 50/50.

They are not elections, but all contract ratifications are 2/3 when less than half the membership votes. If over half vote, it is then 50/50.

How hard is this to understand?

 

[Time for change]

Exactly. If less than half the membership votes, that triggers the 2/3. All offers sent to the membership to vote on are final offers per Section 2(a) of the IBT Constitution.



They are not elections, but all contract ratifications are 2/3 when less than half the membership votes. If over half vote, it is then 50/50.

How hard is this to understand?

Why wasn’t this the case on supplements the were voted down in 2013?

 

[bowhnterdon]

Why wasn’t this the case on supplements the were voted down in 2013?

Nobody knows, not even the ever condescending BUG...

 

[Mugarolla]

Why wasn’t this the case on supplements the were voted down in 2013?

Finally. Someone asking the right question.

I am not so sure that Hoffa has the right to implement the supplements on the 2/3 majority basis just because less than half voted. The Master, yes. Supplements, I'm not so sure.

Section 2(d) Specifically refers to a Master Agreement when citing the 2/3, not supplemental agreements.

Article XII
Section 2(d)

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.

 

[browned out]

The company bargained in good faith, it was the union that did what it did, let’s not get this confused

But the Union did not fulfill its duty of fair representation in contract negotiations as required by law. They would not answer simple questions regarding major changes in working conditions, wages and terms of employment

 

[1989]

But the Union did not fulfill its duty of fair representation in contract negotiations as required by law. They would not answer simple questions regarding major changes in working conditions, wages and terms of employment

Reading is hard for you?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

All offers sent to the membership to vote on are final offers per Section 2(a) of the IBT Constitution.

I disagree.

 

[browned out]

Reading is hard for you?

Not so much. But deception from the Hoffa/Taylor team is hard for me to deal with. Misinformation, disinformation and misleading info from the union is an atrocity.

Some questions that were never answered by the Hoffa/Taylor criminals.
1. If reducing excessive OT is such an important issue; Why create a position with no OT protections, EVER?
2. Why not allow 22.4s 9.5 protection and 8 hour requests?
3. Will all package car delivery? PU OT be offered by seniority to RPCDs first and then offered to 22.4s and if staffing needs are not met; forced from reverse?
4. You told us the Teamcare deductible for every year of the 2013-2018 CBA. What will the deductibles be for every year of this CBA? why wont you tell us?
5. Why did you tell the members that if they voted no; that they risked a work stoppage when you knew there was 0% chance of that happening? Instead; you should have informed the members of the 50% and 2/3 voting thresholds. You had endless opportunities to do so...yet you were not forthright.
6. Why create new language for a new position guaranteeing 5 consecutive days of 8 hours AND not creating the same language for RPCDs? If available? WTF?
7. Can an RPCD driver who did not get their 40 hours bump a 22.4 hybrid on a Saturday?
8. Will RPCDs start times be consistent between 7AM and 9AM as they have been for decades?

I would love to read some answers to these questions. Not gonna happen. Pieces of garbage Hoffa/Taylor and their cronies in the corrupt company controlled union. We need to start addressing this version of the teamsters as the CCCU. CORRUPT COMPANY CONTROLLED UNION.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS; THATS WHAT WE PAY YOU TO DO. INFORM US OF THE MAJOR CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS, WAGES AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT UPS IS FORCING IN THIS NEW CBA.

 

[1989]

Not so much. But deception from the Hoffa/Taylor team is hard for me to deal with. Misinformation, disinformation and misleading info from the union is an atrocity.

Some questions that were never answered by the Hoffa/Taylor criminals.
1. If reducing excessive OT is such an important issue; Why create a position with no OT protections, EVER?
2. Why not allow 22.4s 9.5 protection and 8 hour requests?
3. Will all package car delivery? PU OT be offered by seniority to RPCDs first and then offered to 22.4s and if staffing needs are not met; forced from reverse?
4. You told us the Teamcare deductible for every year of the 2013-2018 CBA. What will the deductibles be for every year of this CBA? why wont you tell us?
5. Why did you tell the members that if they voted no; that they risked a work stoppage when you knew there was 0% chance of that happening? Instead; you should have informed the members of the 50% and 2/3 voting thresholds. You had endless opportunities to do so...yet you were not forthright.
6. Why create new language for a new position guaranteeing 5 consecutive days of 8 hours AND not creating the same language for RPCDs? If available? WTF?
7. Can an RPCD driver who did not get their 40 hours bump a 22.4 hybrid on a Saturday?
8. Will RPCDs start times be consistent between 7AM and 9AM as they have been for decades?

I would love to read some answers to these questions. Not gonna happen. Pieces of garbage Hoffa/Taylor and their cronies in the corrupt company controlled union. We need to start addressing this version of the teamsters as the CCCU. CORRUPT COMPANY CONTROLLED UNION.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS; THATS WHAT WE PAY YOU TO DO. INFORM US OF THE MAJOR CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS, WAGES AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT UPS IS FORCING IN THIS NEW CBA.

 

[1989]

Not so much. But deception from the Hoffa/Taylor team is hard for me to deal with. Misinformation, disinformation and misleading info from the union is an atrocity.

Some questions that were never answered by the Hoffa/Taylor criminals.
1. If reducing excessive OT is such an important issue; Why create a position with no OT protections, EVER?
2. Why not allow 22.4s 9.5 protection and 8 hour requests?
3. Will all package car delivery? PU OT be offered by seniority to RPCDs first and then offered to 22.4s and if staffing needs are not met; forced from reverse?
4. You told us the Teamcare deductible for every year of the 2013-2018 CBA. What will the deductibles be for every year of this CBA? why wont you tell us?
5. Why did you tell the members that if they voted no; that they risked a work stoppage when you knew there was 0% chance of that happening? Instead; you should have informed the members of the 50% and 2/3 voting thresholds. You had endless opportunities to do so...yet you were not forthright.
6. Why create new language for a new position guaranteeing 5 consecutive days of 8 hours AND not creating the same language for RPCDs? If available? WTF?
7. Can an RPCD driver who did not get their 40 hours bump a 22.4 hybrid on a Saturday?
8. Will RPCDs start times be consistent between 7AM and 9AM as they have been for decades?

I would love to read some answers to these questions. Not gonna happen. Pieces of garbage Hoffa/Taylor and their cronies in the corrupt company controlled union. We need to start addressing this version of the teamsters as the CCCU. CORRUPT COMPANY CONTROLLED UNION.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS; THATS WHAT WE PAY YOU TO DO. INFORM US OF THE MAJOR CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS, WAGES AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT UPS IS FORCING IN THIS NEW CBA.

I’m sorry your local can’t answer your questions..... you may not like it..... but hardly criminal or misinformation.

 

[specter208]

Where is my bonus. I'm a part timer, too. My bonus here are a T shirt, hot dog, 1 bag of chips, and 1 bottle of water. UPS BASTARDS YOU OWE ME AT LEAST ANOTHER T- SHIRT!!

Would you settle for a UPS Yo-Yo?

 

[No One on hwy9]

Jesus! We got 5 more years of employment, with raises, maintenance of benefits and retirement. Count your blessings. Before all this after the fact garbage, I saw lots of talk that we'd be lucky to not be locked out. I believe the constitution saved us from ourselves. If you really don't like it and think it's better outside, have at it. Granted I'm out west, maybe elsewhere you didn't get the aforementioned blessings

 

[Time for change]

Jesus! We got 5 more years of employment, with raises, maintenance of benefits and retirement. Count your blessings. Before all this after the fact garbage, I saw lots of talk that we'd be lucky to not be locked out. I believe the constitution saved us from ourselves. If you really don't like it and think it's better outside, have at it. Granted I'm out west, maybe elsewhere you didn't get the aforementioned blessings

Yea if the rest of the country had that pension, I’m sure most would be content and counting their blessings too.

 

[DOK]

So, what's your take on why this happened then? Real question. You hear conference calls that I don't.

My take is that the company submitted a final offer that the Teamsters took to a vote, and the by laws said that it was passed.

This whole argument that people didn’t know it was a final offer and that it shouldn’t be forced on them is ridiculous. The company did nothing wrong, this is all to do with the Teamsters. Even management was blind sided by it. We thought it failed. Even got an email about it Friday night

It’s not passed it was ratified, there’s a difference. No the company did nothing wrong, they in fact wanted to renegotiate on the news it was turned down.

 

[The Real Jack RyanMI6]

You guys have been around a lot longer than most. Do either of you have a general idea what turn out was in contracts prior? I heard 2013 was 39% of the membership so by that metric getting another 6% involved this go around is a win especially when you consider that 6% of the eligible voters is presumably a larger number than it was in 2013.

54% of the work force is part time which makes 50% a tall order in my humble opinion. I think everyone should vote but we did alright, I mean hell we only got 58% in the last us presidential election and that was a record turn out.

I emailed the President of my JC just a few days ago his reply indicated last contract was 30 to 32% participation. This was from memory he didn't have the numbers infront bbn of him. Prior votes were lower again he didnt have the numbers right there. Hope that helps