How exactly do they determine the number of eligible voters?

[clipperman]

Doesnt matter if you are full time or part time. Shouldnt be allowed to vote until you have x amount of years. I have said 5 years. Some may argue 3 or 4, i would be fine with that. The problem is they are NOT voting and the contract is getting imposed on uis.

This isn’t even worth talking about and no dues paying member should have to wear a muzzle because of years of service. Tomorrow you should just go to work and follow your own life isn’t fair advice and stop complaining about the contract being imposed,cuz life just isn’t fair

 

[rebel87]

This isn’t even worth talking about and no dues paying member should have to wear a muzzle because of years of service. Tomorrow you should just go to work and follow your own life isn’t fair advice and stop complaining about the contract being imposed,cuz life just isn’t fair

They put the muzzle on themselves when they dont vote. If they want to have a voice then they need to vote. If its not worth talking about then quit posting.

 

[clipperman]

They put the muzzle on themselves when they dont vote. If they want to have a voice then they need to vote. If its not worth talking about then quit posting.

What’s not worth talking about is you deciding who is and isn’t qualified to vote,the issue is the 50% rule

 

[rebel87]

What’s not worth talking about is you deciding who is and isn’t qualified to vote,the issue is the 50% rule

This thread is about eligible voters. If you dont want to talk about it then quit your whining and start a thread about the 50% rule

 

[mikejonesjr]

Exactly. 5 years of seniority would even be better but i would be happy with 1 year of senority. The voting system is broke.

5 years is a bit much lol I havent even hit 5 years yet, but the vote turnout would be higher that's for sure. I say 1 year would be right. That way they also can't abuse the system of trying to trick new hires into voting yes just because they don't grasp what everything in the contract means yet/or they plan on leaving after summer anyway and don't care who they screw.

 

[lolbr]

So then change the 2/3s language

It could be possible to change the 2/3 language. Like, if less than 40% turnout, then over 60% to ratify would be much better.

Honestly, I think it should be just majority of voters rule. I understand the thinking of adding in the less than 50% turnout, but by not voting, they are choosing to give up their say. As it is now, buy not voting, they are making each yes vote worth twice as much as each no vote.

To change it you would need to get a proper proposal started a few months before January (like now). Have it checked with a lawyer so Hoffa can't veto it for language issues. Spread the word around. Then submit it to the union. It will be read at 3 union meetings, then put up for a vote.

We could also do the same thing about how their raises are calculated. As of now, it's based on inflation. It should be based on member's pay. For instance, take the full time inside/inside 22.3 job as the basis. Whatever it gets as a percentage increase in a year, that's what those who run the union get for a percentage increase per year.

 

[Rack em]

What they should do is automatically mail out ballots to everyone with 3+ years of seniority because that shows they probably plan on sticking around. Then mail separate forms to everyone below 3 years of seniority with instructions on how to get a ballot. If they want to vote then they can, but if they don't request a ballot then it won't count against total of non votes.

 

[DELACROIX]

Any attempt to get to that 50 + percentage for a straight up vote will be impossible based on our transient part timers. It would be great if you had to be in the union for 3 years in order to vote, or a full timer's vote counts as twice as much as a part timer's. It will never happen, the International would never get a subpar contract through. The starting wage and turnover with this contract will continue this problem and probably will get worst. Next time it will be your pensions on the the chopping block and those transients will have the final say. It's coming..

That is why Freight got to the required percentages to renegotiate, their ratio of part time to full time has to considerably less that the Package Division's.

The ardent "NO" voters were are a dilemma, were we to educate these transient part timers who have less than a year to vote or not. They would of more than likely voted an uninformed or ignorant "yes" just to get a little boost of pay or to get their "retro check". We were between a rock and a hard place, so most of us kept our mouths closes because of it, that is why that threshold of 50 plus % is a pipe dream.

In my perfect world our individual voting should count one for every seniority year that you have as a teamster...fantasy I know..

 

[clipperman]

The 50% rule is the problem,what you’re suggesting is voter suppression in order to achieve a desired outcome which has been fought against in this country for decades,you think the division in this union is bad now,start telling people they aren’t eligible to vote and even when they finally become eligible their vote won’t count as much as the guy standing next to them
I hope whoever our next GP is makes it one of his first priorities to eliminate this garbage amendment,which in itself amounts to voter suppression

 

[DELACROIX]

Agree..If the same principle was applied to another Democratic voting system it would be bedlam in the streets. Somebody has to tell our leadership that we are not living under a Monarchy. The Kings, Queens and Royalty stays in the United Kingdoms not in Washington.