Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tieguy" data-source="post: 182966" data-attributes="member: 1912">Allright 705 let me be devils advocate again not trying slam you. &nbsp;Correct me if I&#039;m wrong but this california lawsuit was taken independent of the teamsters union and outside the jurisdiction of the contract. If the company is guilty of not complying with the states laws should the teamsters share any guilt for not enforcing the contract language that applies?Should the initial plaintiffs then be viewed the same way you just described satallite since you could argue they also turned thier backs on the union when they took this case to court instead of the grievance panel? &nbsp;Next point and this argument has been made many times when the company is deemed guilty of violating the contract. Why negotiate the language if you&#039;re only going to follow it when it suits you. Shouldn&#039;t loyal teamsters protect the grievance process negotiated by using it? Or shouldn&#039;t loyal teamsters show soladarity with their union by also adhering to the contract?&nbsp;The other point that strikes me and Cole touched on it. If UPS is violating the lunch laws of the state of california then it should be an issue between the labor board and UPS. Why turn it into an act of class action sponsered welfare?&nbsp;Now before any legal junkies start quoting california law to me I know what it says I&#039;m strictly speaking on the flaws I see with the whole issue whether supported by law or not. </blockquote>

[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 182966, member: 1912"] [COLOR=blue]Allright 705 let me be devils advocate again not trying slam you. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Correct me if I'm wrong but this california lawsuit was taken independent of the teamsters union and outside the jurisdiction of the contract. If the company is guilty of not complying with the states laws should the teamsters share any guilt for not enforcing the contract language that applies?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Should the initial plaintiffs then be viewed the same way you just described satallite since you could argue they also turned thier backs on the union when they took this case to court instead of the grievance panel? [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Next point and this argument has been made many times when the company is deemed guilty of violating the contract. Why negotiate the language if you're only going to follow it when it suits you. Shouldn't loyal teamsters protect the grievance process negotiated by using it? Or shouldn't loyal teamsters show soladarity with their union by also adhering to the contract?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]The other point that strikes me and Cole touched on it. If UPS is violating the lunch laws of the state of california then it should be an issue between the labor board and UPS. Why turn it into an act of class action sponsered welfare?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Now before any legal junkies start quoting california law to me I know what it says I'm strictly speaking on the flaws I see with the whole issue whether supported by law or not. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification