UnconTROLLed
perfection
what is this "labor movement" you speak of? Is that some type of Lamaze?
Dennis Taylor threatens to overrule no vote
- Thread starter opie
- Start date
UnconTROLLed
perfection
Debbie, please!
542thruNthru
Well-Known Member
Superteeth2478
Well-Known Member
Yeah, shut up LagunaBrown turd. You insisted your master Hoffa wouldn't impose the contract, and that there would be a strike instead. Quit changing the tune. You know your master is too much of a coward to call a strike, with as much as a bunch of liars the top union brass has become.
Superteeth2478
Well-Known Member
Also, when the HELL was this determined to be the FINAL offer? Wouldn't it be nice to let the membership know it was the final offer? Neither UPS nor the Teamsters ever stated it was the final offer to my knowledge. The world knew it was in '97.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
Would not look bad at all.
I understand the logic of just counting those that voted.
But if less than half the membership voted, and only a majority of those voted no, that means that only 20% or so of the membership voted no.
You think Hoffa would put us on strike over 20% of the membership voting no?
What about the other 80%
That is why Article XXII of the IBT Constitution exists, to protect those dip
s that didn't bother to vote.
Karma is a bitch
Be careful what you say
Hoffa doesn't deserve his father's name. He is no teamster
Mooseknuckle
Well-Known Member
And in doing so promote others not to vote so HE can decide how to "protect" us in the future. I see your point. Kinda like Asad protecting Syria from terrorist by killing half the country. Or, Kim Jong Un protecting HIS people from all that dangerous freedom stuff.Would not loon bad at all.
I understand the logic of just counting those that voted.
But if less than half the membership voted, and only a majority of those voted no, that means that only 20% or so of the membership voted no.
You think Hoffa would put us on strike over 20% of the membership voting no?
What about the other 80%
That is why Article XXII of the IBT Constitution exists, to protect those dip
We had less than a 50% vote last contract last time. Why should the rules be reversed?Would not look bad at all.
I understand the logic of just counting those that voted.
But if less than half the membership voted, and only a majority of those voted no, that means that only 20% or so of the membership voted no.
You think Hoffa would put us on strike over 20% of the membership voting no?
What about the other 80%
That is why Article XXII of the IBT Constitution exists, to protect those dip
Would not look bad at all.
I understand the logic of just counting those that voted.
But if less than half the membership voted, and only a majority of those voted no, that means that only 20% or so of the membership voted no.
You think Hoffa would put us on strike over 20% of the membership voting no?
What about the other 80%
That is why Article XXII of the IBT Constitution exists, to protect those dip
I see.
What you are saying is that if 49% vote, and they all vote no, it is fair to push the contract through.
But if 51% vote, that's a completely different story?
At just over 50%, and just over half those voting no, we'd still only be talking about 25% of the total teamsters.
So don't try that BS line.
Tony Q bought into the propaganda the union wanted to sell us, that a no vote meant a strike. Good thing people with common sense knew that wasn't true. There's not going to be a strike, and anyone who thought there was after UPS just spent billions on new aircraft, right before peak season, is an idiot.
wasn't true. There's not going to be a strike, and anyone who thought there was after UPS just spent billions on new aircraft, right before peak season, is an idiot.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
The 50% clause needs 2/3 majority to turn down a contract the IBT has agreed to, last contract was yes votes.
And I agree it should be no different if the IBT did not recommend the contract.
All's that I'm say is. Last time it was under 50% and it was eveb close to two thirds of the votes being yes.
It's a BS rule.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
I didn't make the rules.
The IBT does not want the membership overruling them unless a majority of the members overrule them, not just a majority of the voting members.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
The difference is that the Union recommended the contract, so they need a majority of the membership, not just the voting membership, to overrule them.
And they still declared an inoass on the supplements that had over a 50% voter turnout and voted it down by a large margin.
Brown287
Im not the Mail Man!
If this is the case then outside of voting the leadership out our options are few in regards to the national. My question though is how can we apply pressure locally?
From what I understand we can strike locally which individually would amount to jack squat but nationally.....we’d shut them down and demonstrate that those led asses work for us!!!!
From what I understand we can strike locally which individually would amount to jack squat but nationally.....we’d shut them down and demonstrate that those led asses work for us!!!!
Last edited:
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
Yep. Hoffa used another failsafe in the Constitution for that one.
If our Union wants to screw us, not much we can do.
Can't wait to see what they have in store for us in another 24 hours.
Similar threads
