Changes to the 2/3 rule to be voted on

[zubenelgenubi]

Great, too bad it’s 4 years to late.

Yeah, we lost some stuff last contract, but we just have to keep pushing. What happened happened, we need to keep looking to the future and focus our efforts on that. Last contract may have been the wake up call that we needed.

 

[ManInBrown]

Yeah, we lost some stuff last contract, but we just have to keep pushing. What happened happened, we need to keep looking to the future and focus our efforts on that. Last contract may have been the wake up call that we needed.

The problem is the barn door has been opened. That 2/3rd rule allowed them to institute all the PVD, and the feeder subcontracted. That’s never going away. Damage has been done. Hoffa was complicit.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The problem is the barn door has been opened. That 2/3rd rule allowed them to institute all the PVD, and the feeder subcontracted. That’s never going away. Damage has been done. Hoffa was complicit.

Maybe. Pvd's have been around since before last contract, some locals have tried to fight them, but they are just a type of seasonal driver. I'm not as familiar with the feeder stuff, so I don't know about that. My biggest issue was 22.4's. If we can't get rid of that stuff, we can negotiate better or at least clearer language. I'm sure some of this stuff won't be fixed until many of us are retired, but we plant the tree for the following generations to eat the fruit, as past generations did for us.

 

[542thruNthru]

The problem is the barn door has been opened. That 2/3rd rule allowed them to institute all the PVD, and the feeder subcontracted. That’s never going away. Damage has been done. Hoffa was complicit.

PVDs are not in the contract.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

PVDs are not in the contract.

Not specifically, but they fall under seasonal driver. The only difference is that instead of driving a company vehicle, or rental, they drive their own. And they are paid mileage in accordance with the contract. If they don't pay dues, that would be an issue for people to take up with their locals.

 

[PT Car Washer]

Not specifically, but they fall under seasonal driver. The only difference is that instead of driving a company vehicle, or rental, they drive their own. And they are paid mileage in accordance with the contract. If they don't pay dues, that would be an issue for people to take up with their locals.

PVD's don't have to pay Union dues in Republican controlled right to work states.

 

[ManInBrown]

Maybe. Pvd's have been around since before last contract, some locals have tried to fight them, but they are just a type of seasonal driver. I'm not as familiar with the feeder stuff, so I don't know about that. My biggest issue was 22.4's. If we can't get rid of that stuff, we can negotiate better or at least clearer language. I'm sure some of this stuff won't be fixed until many of us are retired, but we plant the tree for the following generations to eat the fruit, as past generations did for us.

My issue is, the building I work at for feeders, is not where I did package. I see people driving personal vehicles in the yard coming back to the building right around my start time. They’re not PVD’s. I’ve been told they are management and it’s in the contract, if needed they can deliver, I don’t know the exact wording because I didn’t check. They drive rented SUV’s. I’m in the 177, there is no way that would ever fly if it wasn’t in the contract. It would be stopped in two seconds. We have one of the strongest locals in the country. There wasn’t PVD’s when I was in package, and there wasn’t management driving in the yard in rented SUV’s coming back from doing hourly work. That 2/3rds clause in the contract, was a big FU by the Teamsters, in coordination with UPS.

 

[542thruNthru]

PVD's don't have to pay Union dues in Republican controlled right to work states.

No one has to so what your point?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

PVD's don't have to pay Union dues in Republican controlled right to work states.

Neither does anyone in a union.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

No one has to so what your point?

D'oh! Beat me.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

My issue is, the building I work at for feeders, is not where I did package. I see people driving personal vehicles in the yard coming back to the building right around my start time. They’re not PVD’s. I’ve been told they are management and it’s in the contract, if needed they can deliver, I don’t know the exact wording because I didn’t check. They drive rented SUV’s. I’m in the 177, there is no way that would ever fly if it wasn’t in the contract. It would be stopped in two seconds. We have one of the strongest locals in the country. There wasn’t PVD’s when I was in package, and there wasn’t management driving in the yard in rented SUV’s coming back from doing hourly work. That 2/3rds clause in the contract, was a big FU by the Teamsters, in coordination with UPS.

I would have to look into it more, but I believe that they can do bargaining unit work if they have exhausted all available bargaining unit employees. Our local still makes them pay a bargaining unit employee for the work they perform.

I'm still of the opinion that the IBT was not required by the constitution to ratify based on the circumstances, like they claimed they were. It took me a while to figure out how to challenge a decision like that, but it was too late by that point, and the process didn't exactly give me hope that anything would be accomplished by a challenge.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I'm still of the opinion that the IBT was not required by the constitution to ratify based on the circumstances, like they claimed they were.

If I'm not mistaken (and remember correctly) it happened in freight, years ago.

 

[DELACROIX]

I would have to look into it more, but I believe that they can do bargaining unit work if they have exhausted all available bargaining unit employees. Our local still makes them pay a bargaining unit employee for the work they perform.

I'm still of the opinion that the IBT was not required by the constitution to ratify based on the circumstances, like they claimed they were. It took me a while to figure out how to challenge a decision like that, but it was too late by that point, and the process didn't exactly give me hope that anything would be accomplished by a challenge.

If I remember correctly when the voting results of the last first came out, UPS indicated that they were willing to renegotiate..

It did not take long before the International used that over 50 % voter participation clause and ratified the Master...

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

If I remember correctly when the voting results of the last first came out, UPS indicated that they were willing to renegotiate..

It did not take long before the International used that over 50 % voter participation clause and ratified the Master...

Yes sir you are correct on that

 

[zubenelgenubi]

If I remember correctly when the voting results of the last first came out, UPS indicated that they were willing to renegotiate..

It did not take long before the International used that over 50 % voter participation clause and ratified the Master...

Right, and I still believe, because we had already authorized a strike through a separate vote, that the IBT was not required to ratify.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Right, and I still believe, because we had already authorized a strike through a separate vote, that the IBT was not required to ratify.

A strike.. authorized.. by only 22% of a vote participation ? (and only 19% voted for it)

Not gonna happen.


It would have been a massive failure.

In "97" there was good (?) support by the members and public sympathy.

Not now....

 

[zubenelgenubi]

A strike.. authorized.. by only 22% of a vote participation ? (and only 19% voted for it)

Not gonna happen.


It would have been a massive failure.

In "97" there was good (?) support by the members and public sympathy.

Not now....

That may well have been the reality, but they had no business claiming they had to ratify based on the constitution. They should have just been honest and said that they didn't believe they had enough support for a strike.

Better yet, they could have at least heard what UPS was willing to budge on.

 

[DELACROIX]

That may well have been the reality, but they had no business claiming they had to ratify based on the constitution. They should have just been honest and said that they didn't believe they had enough support for a strike.

but...UPS did not want a strike either...they put out a statement clearly indicating that they were willing to renegotiate right after the final tallies were counted..

They had their reasons ... and God forbid they would tell the membership...

 

[zubenelgenubi]

but...UPS did not want a strike either...they put out a statement clearly indicating that they were willing to renegotiate right after the final tallies were counted..

They had their reasons ... and God forbid they would tell the membership...

I agree. I would have felt better about the situation if they had at least made the effort. They still could have ratified without having to go through another vote if they were able to get any better terms out of UPS, or even if they couldn't.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

I agree. I would have felt better about the situation if they had at least made the effort. They still could have ratified without having to go through another vote if they were able to get any better terms out of UPS, or even if they couldn't.

They could have definitely gotten better language.

Everyone wants more money and I understand that but language is key