Don't get fooled when contract gets reworked.

[siouxman]

well with the union and the company standing behind this mess, realistically how much change do you really think is gonna happen with a no vote? best case is they remove the "as along as work is available" language and maybe let the new 22.4s opt onto 9.5 list or at least pay them double time after 50 hours instead of 60 so they get paid as there abused. up the raise to a straight dollar a year or attach a signing bonus and the rest of the problem language will not change and it will pass. i mean if this was ups's offer and the teamsters hated it and said screw that and told us to vote no we might have a shot of real change to avoid a strike. but that is not the case.

My guess is the contract passes

 

[mikejonesjr]

My guess is the contract passes

Who's voting yes? Most drivers and most pt don't like it.

 

[PT Car Washer]

Who's voting yes? Most drivers and most pt don't like it.

Did you take a survey?

 

[mikejonesjr]

Did you take a survey?

Not me, no

 

[Doubleparkedrunner]

I have said all I need to about this point.

I don't approve of unproven allegations against the Teamsters Leadership on any level.

It doesn't do anything to strengthen the union and the needed solidarity and support Union leadership need to be effective.

I also don't approve of unproven allegations against the teamster leadership or anyone else for that matter. I think the insinuations that they are in UPS' pocket are unfair on a few levels.

BUT...this initial "agreement" is so jaw droppingly awful in my and many other teamsters' minds that I think it will take a little dissidence or an " ANTI SOLIDARITY " stance at this point to hopefully wake the negotiating committee up.

it actually is pretty apparent that the "leadership" is NOT producing in an effective manner. And this was with a whopping 93% and change strike authorization vote. With that high a percentage , leadership should have instinctively known that this first proposal would be seen as a non starter.

So that leaves just a few different possibilities in my mind...

1.) They either are clueless to the sticking points of the teamster members , thought this was a good proposal and were surprised by the uproar.

2.) They are not clueless , knew that the membership would not be happy but think they know what is in fact good for us so ,
" it must be done".

3.) Or they are playing chess while UpS is playing checkers...
They intentionally agreed to this proposal knowing full well the rank and file will flip their lid allowing them to go back to the negotiating table with UPS playing a sort of
good cop / bad cop with the good cop being leadership and the bad cop being the unwitting union members.

4.). Leadership is more concerned with having as many dues paying members as possible because their primary interest is Union revenues with those revenues trumping the actual reason for he Union in the first place ; better working conditions for the members.

For me persoanlly ,
# 3 is too elaborate and counterproductive
# 1, 2 and 4 sadly are all possible the way I see it and I don't like any one do them.


So maybe it'll require a bit of "teamster patriotism " resulting in us taking a stand against leadership until they get the point.

 

[siouxman]

Who's voting yes? Most drivers and most pt don't like it.

Most won't vote

 

[brown_trousers]

What experience do you have that leads you to say this?

This has not been my experience.

When i asked my BA a few months ago what changes were being made, he said the negotiations were private and he wasnt allowed to discuss them.

 

[siouxman]

Was told the same.

 

[542thruNthru]

When i asked my BA a few months ago what changes were being made, he said the negotiations were private and he wasnt allowed to discuss them.

Wasn't someone also kicked off the negotiations for telling people what was going on? Seems kinda private.

 

[brown_trousers]

Wasn't someone also kicked off the negotiations for telling people what was going on? Seems kinda private.

Some people have a warped definition of the word private

 

[siouxman]

I also don't approve of unproven allegations against the teamster leadership or anyone else for that matter. I think the insinuations that they are in UPS' pocket are unfair on a few levels.

BUT...this initial "agreement" is so jaw droppingly awful in my and many other teamsters' minds that I think it will take a little dissidence or an " ANTI SOLIDARITY " stance at this point to hopefully wake the negotiating committee up.

it actually is pretty apparent that the "leadership" is NOT producing in an effective manner. And this was with a whopping 93% and change strike authorization vote. With that high a percentage , leadership should have instinctively known that this first proposal would be seen as a non starter.

So that leaves just a few different possibilities in my mind...

1.) They either are clueless to the sticking points of the teamster members , thought this was a good proposal and were surprised by the uproar.

2.) They are not clueless , knew that the membership would not be happy but think they know what is in fact good for us so ,
" it must be done".

3.) Or they are playing chess while UpS is playing checkers...
They intentionally agreed to this proposal knowing full well the rank and file will flip their lid allowing them to go back to the negotiating table with UPS playing a sort of
good cop / bad cop with the good cop being leadership and the bad cop being the unwitting union members.

4.). Leadership is more concerned with having as many dues paying members as possible because their primary interest is Union revenues with those revenues trumping the actual reason for he Union in the first place ; better working conditions for the members.

For me persoanlly ,
# 3 is too elaborate and counterproductive
# 1, 2 and 4 sadly are all possible the way I see it and I don't like any one do them.


So maybe it'll require a bit of "teamster patriotism " resulting in us taking a stand against leadership until they get the point.

Wasn't someone also kicked off the negotiations for telling people what was going on? Seems kinda private.

i think a few were booted

 

[MenInBrown]

Who's voting yes? Most drivers and most pt don't like it.

Have not found anyone at my center voting yes. The only one I knew who was, was our steward and now he’s telling everyone to vote NO. Not sure what changed with him but everyone is pissed.

 

[Integrity]

When i asked my BA a few months ago what changes were being made, he said the negotiations were private and he wasnt allowed to discuss them.

Negotiations are not private but negotiations can never be done on the floor, negotiations must happen across the table.

Employees have represention at the table.

Employees have opportunity to propose changes before negotiations started.

Did you submit yours?

Employees are being informed of what was the negotiated on their behalf now.

Vote no or yes according to your conscience.

Accept and support the will of the majority.