Don't Leave The Union....

[Superteeth2478]

Hey brother, keep your head up. You're more informed now. Lagunabrown is a well informed member and now so are you. As a steward that's his job. Was he a against you, yes but now you're more prepared for next time. Get involved my brother like he has. I kn ow now you'll be more prepared and knowledgeable about the contract and Constitution. You are a new steward, inform your members! It's a hard job but accep the challenge and now it's your job.

The sad part is that I'm not even a new steward. Even sadder is that none of the stewards or anyone I spoke to even knew of the constitutional language either. I actually did know of it. I had even read Section 2(a) where the language refers to any offer put to the vote as the final offer. I had simply forgotten that language and was only referencing Section 2(d) when speaking to the membership. I'm definitely more informed and knowledgeable than most, but even I screw up sometimes. I'll keep on doing my job as a steward to the best of my ability for the people, and at least I now know even more strongly how important it is to be informed of all the ins and outs of the language.

Oh, and I strongly doubt that Lagunabrown actually knew of the Section 2(a) language himself. I actually had read the constitutional language referring to strikes and the voting process before this all went down. I know that the stewards in my building who were referring to this as the final offer didn't know that language, either. They were all just told this was the case by "someone above them" and took it at face value. If anyone actually knew about the language they would have referenced Article XII voter turnout numbers at the same time. Like I have stated before, it's odd that the IBT didn't even reference Article XII Section 2(a) and 2(d) language. I know it's the job of the membership to become informed, but to talk of a strike without even telling the members why it's a possibility had an obvious intent. Most members don't even know that there's a constitution that governs all of the companies the Teamsters unionize. They think the contract is the only thing relevant to them. This all played out in the IBT's favor.

 

[Benben]

We, as the grieved parties, were never informed that a final offer was submitted. We, as the grieved partied, were never informed that the first offer was to be viewed as the final offer! I did not vote on a final offer in my mind.

I promise you, those who failed to vote were never informed that a final offer had been submitted and accepted as the final offer!

This is not over! Not by a long shot!

 

[Superteeth2478]

You are a classic example of some TDU goofball that doesn’t know .

First off Fred Z did have low turnout and he just put his Local in the same situation as last contract. He made promises he couldn’t keep and hurt his members by getting less. Why is he about to do it again?

You make accusations about Andy M having embezzlement charges?? Then show proof he was arrested! Did he go to jail? We all know it’s a smear campaign and you say so don’t have credibility. Ha!

I made a thread saying that there was gonna be a low turnout and the contract would be passed but all you vote no guys talked and said it wouldn’t happen. You guys even said you known about that for years. Now that it actually happens you act like you got hosed? What a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks that didn’t get their way due to a rule that has been in existence for 30 years! Cry me a river! You want to act like leaders but you dummies don’t even know the contract now blame others and want to withdraw from the union. What a bunch of

I really want to see if you EVER cited Article XII Section 2(a) language prior to this having been called the "final" offer by Taylor. A lot of people knew about the Section 2(d) language here, it was posted by Bubblehead and myself at some point in time. I knew about it before this whole thing went down. I had forgotten the details of the Section 2(a) language. But I've never seen you cite the Section 2(a) language. The only reason you "knew" the contract would be imposed was because someone above you told you this would happen because of low turnout who actually knew of the Section 2(a) language.

 

[Superteeth2478]

We, as the grieved parties, were never informed that a final offer was submitted. We, as the grieved partied, were never informed that the first offer was to be viewed as the final offer! I did not vote on a final offer in my mind.

I promise you, those who failed to vote were never informed that a final offer had been submitted and accepted as the final offer!

This is not over! Not by a long shot!

The wording in the constitution is intentional in my opinion. People simply don't see the first offer put to the vote as the "final" offer.

 

[Benben]

The wording in the constitution is intentional in my opinion. People simply don't see the first offer put to the vote as the "final" offer.

Reading the entire article, section 2 seems to be about preventing a whole sale strike! It has absolutely nothing to do with the first vote on a contract offer! Dennis Taylor is trying to bastardize it to ram this POS up our !

 

[SameRightsForAll]

it’s not the leadership it’s the weak ass members. Complaining the contract is so bad but apparently it’s not so bad because they want to stay for the free medical, pension and industry leading pay the Union gets them. It’s obviously just an excuse to free load off the Union and stop paying dues. Idiots are cutting of their nose despite their face. The end of the Union is not Hoffa or Z or anyone else. Clearly it is these imbeciles that are too stupid to realize they were only 12,000 votes away from winning and planning to weaken the Union by not paying dues and withdrawing their right to vote. Amazing! I am not kidding the vote no guys are passionate but the most uniformed stupid people I have seen in my career at UPS. You want new leadership but can not even demonstrate any amongst yourselves. They are really all a bunch of anarchists thinking they are an activists!

It sounds like you're accusing the NO voters as being stupid and greedy, but you're saying that ALL union members are weak. Were you aware that the members who voted NO were 1) not lazy, and 2) trying to protect both the new hires and the retirees from a degrading contract? Do you think we should even have a contract and do you think it should be approved by the union members or just rammed through no matter how terrible? If we want ONLY the bad parts removed, is this a sign of greed? What if said contract stated that you, as in YOU, the person reading this, could now only work 18 hours a week when work is available. Would you try to get the "when work is available" part removed? Were you aware that in order to do this you have to vote the Whole contract down and send our guys back to the table to fix it? Why do you think only an imbecile would disagree with the worst contract ever written? Have you read the contract? My guess is absolutely not.

 

[Trailer monkey]

Low turnout has led to the ratification of the master agreement. I keep seeing posts stating "I'm leaving the Union" and so on. I have a better solution, time to start our own Union or reach out to someone other than the Teamsters to represent us. Happens all the time. Hoffa have lost sight of what's important for members. We could be UPWA for "United Package Workers of America" or something like that..

You don't buy a new house just because the roof is leaking, you fix it

 

[BadIdeaGuy]

You don't buy a new house just because the roof is leaking, you fix it

But when you look up and realize that your house no longer even has a roof?
Then maybe it's time to start shopping.

 

[Blackstream]

Ok, in all seriousness, if you have the numbers to quit the union and start your own (surviving the transitional period at that), then you have the numbers to simply take over this union with your votes. Like literally, there's nothing the union can do to stop you because you -are- the union.

Oh, and if you don't have the numbers to take over this union, then there's no way in hell you'll be able to start your own because you won't have nearly enough support from your own fellow employees to back you up.

 

[BadIdeaGuy]

Ok, in all seriousness, if you have the numbers to quit the union and start your own (surviving the transitional period at that), then you have the numbers to simply take over this union with your votes. Like literally, there's nothing the union can do to stop you because you -are- the union.

So if we "are" the union, and a majority *did* vote against the national contract, then we'd have voted it down, right?

 

[Blackstream]

So if we "are" the union, and a majority *did* vote against the national contract, then we'd have voted it down, right?

Nice strawman. They're the people we elected to interpret our 'laws', so it's a completely different scenario than the majority voting out people that don't represent them and voting in people that do. Unless you're so jaded that you think they're rigging the elections too.

 

[BadIdeaGuy]

Nice strawman. They're the people we elected to interpret our 'laws', so it's a completely different scenario than the majority voting out people that don't represent them and voting in people that do. Unless you're so jaded that you think they're rigging the elections too.

Are you so naive that you think that's impossible?

 

[LagunaBrown]

It sounds like you're accusing the NO voters as being stupid and greedy, but you're saying that ALL union members are weak. Were you aware that the members who voted NO were 1) not lazy, and 2) trying to protect both the new hires and the retirees from a degrading contract? Do you think we should even have a contract and do you think it should be approved by the union members or just rammed through no matter how terrible? If we want ONLY the bad parts removed, is this a sign of greed? What if said contract stated that you, as in YOU, the person reading this, could now only work 18 hours a week when work is available. Would you try to get the "when work is available" part removed? Were you aware that in order to do this you have to vote the Whole contract down and send our guys back to the table to fix it? Why do you think only an imbecile would disagree with the worst contract ever written? Have you read the contract? My guess is absolutely not.

Did you know about the constitution rules? Probably not.

 

[LagunaBrown]

The sad part is that I'm not even a new steward. Even sadder is that none of the stewards or anyone I spoke to even knew of the constitutional language either. I actually did know of it. I had even read Section 2(a) where the language refers to any offer put to the vote as the final offer. I had simply forgotten that language and was only referencing Section 2(d) when speaking to the membership. I'm definitely more informed and knowledgeable than most, but even I screw up sometimes. I'll keep on doing my job as a steward to the best of my ability for the people, and at least I now know even more strongly how important it is to be informed of all the ins and outs of the language.

Oh, and I strongly doubt that Lagunabrown actually knew of the Section 2(a) language himself. I actually had read the constitutional language referring to strikes and the voting process before this all went down. I know that the stewards in my building who were referring to this as the final offer didn't know that language, either. They were all just told this was the case by "someone above them" and took it at face value. If anyone actually knew about the language they would have referenced Article XII voter turnout numbers at the same time. Like I have stated before, it's odd that the IBT didn't even reference Article XII Section 2(a) and 2(d) language. I know it's the job of the membership to become informed, but to talk of a strike without even telling the members why it's a possibility had an obvious intent. Most members don't even know that there's a constitution that governs all of the companies the Teamsters unionize. They think the contract is the only thing relevant to them. This all played out in the IBT's favor.

Every contract I can remember Article 12 has always been brought up and I got hired in the 90’s.

 

[LagunaBrown]

I really want to see if you EVER cited Article XII Section 2(a) language prior to this having been called the "final" offer by Taylor. A lot of people knew about the Section 2(d) language here, it was posted by Bubblehead and myself at some point in time. I knew about it before this whole thing went down. I had forgotten the details of the Section 2(a) language. But I've never seen you cite the Section 2(a) language. The only reason you "knew" the contract would be imposed was because someone above you told you this would happen because of low turnout who actually knew of the Section 2(a) language.

Maybe if you look around last contract me and bubbles had our differences about healthcare and other issues.. It is always brought here (bubbles) and up by our business agents every contract I can remember. Mainly because voting has gotten worse each contract.

 

[john chesney]

Low turnout has led to the ratification of the master agreement. I keep seeing posts stating "I'm leaving the Union" and so on. I have a better solution, time to start our own Union or reach out to someone other than the Teamsters to represent us. Happens all the time. Hoffa have lost sight of what's important for members. We could be UPWA for "United Package Workers of America" or something like that..

The union has left us

 

[Superteeth2478]

Every contract I can remember Article 12 has always been brought up and I got hired in the 90’s.

With that said, has the union ever attempted to inform the membership of what the language stipulates in Section 2(a)?

 

[LagunaBrown]

With that said, has the union ever attempted to inform the membership of what the language stipulates in Section 2(a)?

Not sure, I posted just because I knew people didn’t know about it. We always talk about it at our local

 

[Superteeth2478]

Not sure, I posted just because I knew people didn’t know about it. We always talk about it at our local

Seeing as how that language is crucial knowledge if the membership EVER wants to reject a contract (it hasn't been relevant because the majority of the voters haven't ever rejected a master agreement), don't you think it's odd that the union went so far as to speak of "economic action" against UPS if the agreement is rejected but didn't cite the language that caused that to be the case? Or does that make it clear that the union didn't want the membership to vote unless it was a yes vote (hence the push to vote yes from the union)?

 

[LagunaBrown]

Seeing as how that language is crucial knowledge if the membership EVER wants to reject a contract (it hasn't been relevant because the majority of the voters haven't ever rejected a master agreement), don't you think it's odd that the union went so far as to speak of "economic action" against UPS if the agreement is rejected but didn't cite the language that caused that to be the case? Or does that make it clear that the union didn't want the membership to vote unless it was a yes vote (hence the push to vote yes from the union)?

Not sure but we really pushed to get the vote out at our local. I want to see each locals results. I am willing to bet some locals don’t do anything to get members to vote. No vote no voice should be resonating throughout the membership. This whole thing is not surprising to me because I have been seeing apathy ruining the Teamsters for years. Not just at the ballot box but at Local meetings as well.