Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH PEOPLE!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="959Nanook" data-source="post: 1375661" data-attributes="member: 14462"><p>Semantically, I asked a different question than whether they should be “forced into Teamcare”. I asked:</p><p></p><p></p><p>On more than one occasion, you have referenced Local 348 when discussing Article 34, Section 2 (b) but the language never applied to Local 348. They would not have “had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to this Agreement” because they were already covered by their own health and welfare coverage prior to this Agreement. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you were never in the same boat as Local 348. They are the proverbial apple (had their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage thus would not have been provided by an Employer) and you are the proverbial orange (would have had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to the Agreement if not for the language saying that you are now in TeamCare). Article 34, Section 2 (b) only applies to oranges. You would have to force Local 348 out of their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage before Article 34, Section 2 (b) could even be applied to Local 348. My broader point then and now is that you need to find a jurisdiction that Article 34, Section 2 (b) actually applied to before you start chiding others about health care being a National issue once the National Master Agreement passed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My statement is absolutely correct. I have already explained in this post that Local 348 had no need to opt out of TeamCare because they were never going to be in TeamCare. You, on the other hand, were going to be in TeamCare “notwithstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum” once the NMA passed. Your jurisdiction had a choice to propose and pass a provision in a Supplement, Rider, or Addendum and essentially opt out of TeamCare. It would seem that your jurisdiction chose to double down on the No Vote because you were unhappy with outcome of the NMA vote. Western Region was not happy with the outcome of the NMA vote either; however, we didn’t double down on the No Vote. We made damn sure there was a provision in the Western Region Supplement and passed our Supplement before January 1, 2014.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This may come across as harsh but your jurisdiction played their hand and lost. You were not forced into a concession by Hoffa though I certainly understand why you might feel that way. Whether you were aware or not, the decision makers in your jurisdiction (be they the membership and/or the leadership) made a calculated decision not to be proactive about avoiding TeamCare in accordance with Article 34, Section 2 (b). They decided to take a much more passive approach and double down on the No Vote rather than using the language in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to opt out of TeamCare. Some jurisdictions chose to play their hand different and they are not in TeamCare now. Only time will tell who played their hand the best. Frankly, you were going into TeamCare as soon as the NMA was ratified once you allowed the January 1, 2014 deadline in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to pass by with no provision in your applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum. If you need to be angry at anyone, you should be looking internally to your jurisdiction. They bluffed and they got called by the nut hand.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="959Nanook, post: 1375661, member: 14462"] Semantically, I asked a different question than whether they should be “forced into Teamcare”. I asked: On more than one occasion, you have referenced Local 348 when discussing Article 34, Section 2 (b) but the language never applied to Local 348. They would not have “had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to this Agreement” because they were already covered by their own health and welfare coverage prior to this Agreement. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you were never in the same boat as Local 348. They are the proverbial apple (had their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage thus would not have been provided by an Employer) and you are the proverbial orange (would have had health and welfare coverage provided by an Employer signatory to the Agreement if not for the language saying that you are now in TeamCare). Article 34, Section 2 (b) only applies to oranges. You would have to force Local 348 out of their own pre-existing health and welfare coverage before Article 34, Section 2 (b) could even be applied to Local 348. My broader point then and now is that you need to find a jurisdiction that Article 34, Section 2 (b) actually applied to before you start chiding others about health care being a National issue once the National Master Agreement passed. My statement is absolutely correct. I have already explained in this post that Local 348 had no need to opt out of TeamCare because they were never going to be in TeamCare. You, on the other hand, were going to be in TeamCare “notwithstanding any provision in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum” once the NMA passed. Your jurisdiction had a choice to propose and pass a provision in a Supplement, Rider, or Addendum and essentially opt out of TeamCare. It would seem that your jurisdiction chose to double down on the No Vote because you were unhappy with outcome of the NMA vote. Western Region was not happy with the outcome of the NMA vote either; however, we didn’t double down on the No Vote. We made damn sure there was a provision in the Western Region Supplement and passed our Supplement before January 1, 2014. This may come across as harsh but your jurisdiction played their hand and lost. You were not forced into a concession by Hoffa though I certainly understand why you might feel that way. Whether you were aware or not, the decision makers in your jurisdiction (be they the membership and/or the leadership) made a calculated decision not to be proactive about avoiding TeamCare in accordance with Article 34, Section 2 (b). They decided to take a much more passive approach and double down on the No Vote rather than using the language in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to opt out of TeamCare. Some jurisdictions chose to play their hand different and they are not in TeamCare now. Only time will tell who played their hand the best. Frankly, you were going into TeamCare as soon as the NMA was ratified once you allowed the January 1, 2014 deadline in Article 34, Section 2 (b) to pass by with no provision in your applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum. If you need to be angry at anyone, you should be looking internally to your jurisdiction. They bluffed and they got called by the nut hand. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH PEOPLE!!!
Top