Blame the non-voters?

[zubenelgenubi]

Ok, sure, all those a-holes who couldn't be bothered to vote really screwed us. I mean, they could have not voted on a good contract, and there wouldn't be an issue. But we're not supposed to blame the people who put a terrible contract up for a vote to begin with, right? I mean, they were completely unable to bargain any better, UPS just wouldn't budge, unless you count the fact that they immediately committed to more negotiations the second they thought the contract was rejected. But it's all the non-voters' faults that our voices were ignored.

My question is, how should we hold them responsible? I'm thinking wedgies and noogies. Maybe a wet willy or purple nurple here and there. What say you?

 

[Days]

They already suffer enough with the bad contract. People are blissfully ignorant until things start to affect them. When they go up to that driver and tell him he's not needed today or the 22.4 guy is slammed with stops and can't do anything about it

I'm shocked by the concessions though honestly.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

They already suffer enough with the bad contract. People are blissfully ignorant until things start to affect them. When they go up to that driver and tell him he's not needed today or the 22.4 guy is slammed with stops and can't do anything about it

I'm shocked by the concessions though honestly.

I'm just gonna point and laugh at them. Fan out some cash and wave it front of their faces, tauntingly. The ones who voted yes I'm going to treat like a dog that messed on the carpet. Shove the contract in their face, hit 'em upside the head with a newspaper and say "No! Bad Teamster, No!"

 

[Mugarolla]

But we're not supposed to blame the people who put a terrible contract up for a vote to begin with, right?

Yes, if they thought it was such a terrible contract. Remember, The Union proposed the 22.4 drivers, so they weren't going to fight that language.

I mean, they were completely unable to bargain any better, UPS just wouldn't budge

I posted this before. I'll do it again.

Union: We want $1.00
UPS: We gave you $0.80 and that's all we're going to give you.
Union: We want $1.00
UPS: No
Union: We want $1.00
UPS: No
Union: We want $1.00 or we're going to strike.
UPS: You actually think Hoffa is going to strike over $0.20. We are not giving you anymore money

What do you actually expect the NNC to do? They felt that they could not do better.

unless you count the fact that they immediately committed to more negotiations the second they thought the contract was rejected

It's called damage control. I believe they actually thought it would pass. Once it didn't, yes, they were willing to talk. Does not mean that months ago that they were willing to budge on anything.

You ever played poker?

And yes, we are also to blame.

 

[PT Car Washer]

Yes, if they thought it was such a terrible contract. Remember, The Union proposed the 22.4 drivers, so they weren't going to fight that language.



I posted this before. I'll do it again.

Union: We want $1.00
UPS: We gave you $0.80 and that's all we're going to give you.
Union: We want $1.00
UPS: No
Union: We want $1.00
UPS: No
Union: We want $1.00 or we're going to strike.
UPS: You actually think Hoffa is going to strike over $0.20. We are not giving you anymore money

What do you actually expect the NNC to do? They felt that they could not do better.



It's called damage control. I believe they actually thought it would pass. Once it didn't, yes, they were willing to talk. Does not mean that months ago that they were willing to budge on anything.

You ever played poker?

And yes, we are also to blame.

I am sure the 23% voter turn out for the strike authorization vote sent a loud message to the negotiators on both sides.

 

[Returntosender]

 

[Nimnim]

Yes, if they thought it was such a terrible contract. Remember, The Union proposed the 22.4 drivers, so they weren't going to fight that language.



I posted this before. I'll do it again.

Union: We want $1.00
UPS: We gave you $0.80 and that's all we're going to give you.
Union: We want $1.00
UPS: No
Union: We want $1.00
UPS: No
Union: We want $1.00 or we're going to strike.
UPS: You actually think Hoffa is going to strike over $0.20. We are not giving you anymore money

What do you actually expect the NNC to do? They felt that they could not do better.

Sure negotiations could go that way, but I'd like it more if it was;

Union: We want $1.00
UPS: We gave you $0.80 and that's all we're going to give you.
Union: Ok if you won't give us $1.00 we'll take the $0.80 but we want a $3.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees as well.
UPS: We can give you $0.90 but no catch up raise for existing PT employees.
Union: We want at least $0.90 and a $3.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees or we'll strike. We know you got tax breaks and the profits are still up.
UPS: We'll give you $1.00 and a $2.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees.
Union: We don't think this is enough, but we'll accept this to allow our members to decide.

It's called damage control. I believe they actually thought it would pass. Once it didn't, yes, they were willing to talk. Does not mean that months ago that they were willing to budge on anything.

You ever played poker?

And yes, we are also to blame.

Yeah it's poker, UPS blinked when we voted no, but the IBT leadership is too stupid (or getting kickbacks) to take advantage of that blink and get more. You never accept the first offer, it's always lowball on the first and the second gets more real.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Sure negotiations could go that way, but I'd like it more if it was;

Union: We want $1.00
UPS: We gave you $0.80 and that's all we're going to give you.
Union: Ok if you won't give us $1.00 we'll take the $0.80 but we want a $3.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees as well.
UPS: We can give you $0.90 but no catch up raise for existing PT employees.
Union: We want at least $0.90 and a $3.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees or we'll strike. We know you got tax breaks and the profits are still up.
UPS: We'll give you $1.00 and a $2.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees.

We can sit here, play out (and debate) all sorts of various scenarios.


Bottom line is.... the members didn't vote.

Yeah it's poker, UPS blinked when we voted no, but the IBT leadership is too stupid (or getting kickbacks) to take advantage of that blink and get more.

There is no possibility.... the company.... was trying to "set up" the IBT and

try and use the IBT Constitution against us ?


You might have forgot, who you are dealing with.



-Bug-

 

[Box Ox]

There is no possibility.... the company.... was trying to "set up" the IBT and

try and use the IBT Constitution against us ?

Yes. The Company “set up” JH/DT and made them push the Contract through when they didn’t have to. LOL

 

[Nimnim]

We can sit here, play out (and debate) all sorts of various scenarios.


Bottom line is.... the members didn't vote.





There is no possibility.... the company.... was trying to "set up" the IBT and

try and use the IBT Constitution against us ?


You might have forgot, who you are dealing with.



-Bug-

I know the company does intend to bend every rule and push every boundary for their own benefit, but it's telling they either didn't know or didn't inform their PR dept properly and so when the vote tabulation came out as majority no they put out a statement saying the contract was voted down and intend to go back to the table then to amend their statement hours later. UPS could have easily just stayed quiet for a bit as the ballot results were released on a Friday night and come back on Monday saying they don't intend to go back to the table at this time. UPS changed their initial statement after there was more reporting that the IBT said the contract was ratified.

 

[Maplewood]

Ok, sure, all those a-holes who couldn't be bothered to vote really screwed us. I mean, they could have not voted on a good contract, and there wouldn't be an issue. But we're not supposed to blame the people who put a terrible contract up for a vote to begin with, right? I mean, they were completely unable to bargain any better, UPS just wouldn't budge, unless you count the fact that they immediately committed to more negotiations the second they thought the contract was rejected. But it's all the non-voters' faults that our voices were ignored.

My question is, how should we hold them responsible? I'm thinking wedgies and noogies. Maybe a wet willy or purple nurple here and there. What say you?

Non voters are yes votes or dont care. The 'No's always vote. If the contract was trully bad there would be alot more no votes.

 

[Mugarolla]

Union: Ok if you won't give us $1.00 we'll take the $0.80 but we want a $3.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees as well.

UPS: We'll stick with the $0.80 and give you a crapload of money to fix your pensions and H&W.
Union: OK

Union: We want at least $0.90 and a $3.00 catch up raise for existing PT employees or we'll strike. We know you got tax breaks and the profits are still up.

UPS: Nobody cares about PT employees, they do not vote on contracts. We'll give them close to minimum wage and they will like it. Hoffa will not strike over PT wage rates, hell Hoffa won't strike over anything. We will call your bluff.

Union: We don't think this is enough, but we'll accept this to allow our members to decide.

Union: So that's your final offer? OK, we'll accept it and send to the membership.

You never accept the first offer, it's always lowball on the first and the second gets more real.

The first offer was given last November. I'm sure the offer the NNC sent to us was probably the 20th or 30th.

We have never turned down an offer on the Master that was presented to us for a vote because we "assumed" that was the best we were going to get, and the Union has endorsed every one, just like this time.

What's different this time?

 

[1989]

Non voters are yes votes or dont care. The 'No's always vote. If the contract was trully bad there would be alot more no votes.

With the social media campaign the vote no movement had, I expected an 80-90% no vote. Very disappointing.

 

[CoffeeStainedUniform]

Ok, sure, all those a-holes who couldn't be bothered to vote really screwed us. I mean, they could have not voted on a good contract, and there wouldn't be an issue. But we're not supposed to blame the people who put a terrible contract up for a vote to begin with, right? I mean, they were completely unable to bargain any better, UPS just wouldn't budge, unless you count the fact that they immediately committed to more negotiations the second they thought the contract was rejected. But it's all the non-voters' faults that our voices were ignored.

My question is, how should we hold them responsible? I'm thinking wedgies and noogies. Maybe a wet willy or purple nurple here and there. What say you?

Non voters would have been an overwhelmingly 'yes' vote. The 2/3 majority clause is aimed at moderating that fact.

 

[Nimnim]

UPS: We'll stick with the $0.80 and give you a crapload of money to fix your pensions and H&W.
Union: OK
UPS: Nobody cares about PT employees, they do not vote on contracts. We'll give them close to minimum wage and they will like it. Hoffa will not strike over PT wage rates, hell Hoffa won't strike over anything. We will call your bluff.
Union: So that's your final offer? OK, we'll accept it and send to the membership.
The first offer was given last November. I'm sure the offer the NNC sent to us was probably the 20th or 30th.
We have never turned down an offer on the Master that was presented to us for a vote because we "assumed" that was the best we were going to get, and the Union has endorsed every one, just like this time.
What's different this time?

I agree they don't care about PT employees. Hoffa won't strike even if UPS cut RPCD wages down to $20/hour. Agree with you there about Hoffa not striking.

I did say in my post "I'd like it more if it was" didn't expect it, but it sounded more like a negotiation than what I replied to.

As far as your like in the post I'm replying to now "Union: So that's your final offer? OK, we'll accept it and send to the membership." If the Union said that and then sent the message to the members "This is the final offer" we'd have a much different discourse, instead we go tons of mailers that encouraged voting yes without any real details.

First offer sent to me, is the first offer, I don't care how many times the committees sat at a table in between rounds of golf. It's similar to the salesman at the dealership going to his manager, they can sit in another office bullting about what benefits them most only to come back out to me with an offer for the first time that isn't what I want so I say no and send them back in to bull more for something better for me but they still like. Do it a couple more times and I walk.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Non voters would have been an overwhelmingly 'yes' vote.

Did you consult your magic 8 ball to come to that brilliant conclusion?

 

[CoffeeStainedUniform]

Did you consult your magic 8 ball to come to that brilliant conclusion?

I voted No. It's a simple conclusion that those who took the time to study the contract are the same who took the time to vote. That's a split vote because this contract doesnt screw everyone over.
Those who are left either dont know or dont care and would want their raise ASAP, not long term thinkers.

Just because we don't like it, doesnt make it untrue.

 

[Mugarolla]

"This is the final offer" we'd have a much different discourse, instead we go tons of mailers that encouraged voting yes without any real details.

I get where you're coming from and see your point of view.

But, if the NNC thought that they could do better, and thought that UPS was willing to give up more, that is was not their final offer, why did they stop negotiating and send us the offer? They still had plenty of time left.

I believe that the NNC knew this was the final offer from UPS, but didn't really inform anyone of the fact to have a card in their back pocket in case the vote did not go their way. Their "out" on this was that it is in the Constitution where every member can see it. They will take no responsibility for a member not knowing the Constitution. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Section 2(a) of the Constitution specifies what the offer is they send to the membership. Some may disagree, but it is right there in black and white.

Upon completion of negotiations by any committee designated as hereinafter set forth to engage in negotiations of a master agreement, such agreement shall be submitted to the membership involved in such negotiations for their approval or rejection as the final offer in accordance with Section 2(d) herein.

 

[Dulce Bombón]

Everyone talks about money.. Please add up union dues, it goes up from this new ratification every year from our pay check, weekly.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Perhaps I didn't properly set the tone. I just started this thread to blow off steam. Not trying to debate anything. I thought my first two posts were significantly ridiculous to convey that. Now, I say: