Lay the Blame Where it Belongs.....The Members.

[brown_trousers]

Also, our leaders are required by law to bargain in good faith. If the members believe they aren't we need to file a NLRB complaint.

If our leaders didnt bargain in good faith. Perhaps we should put that to a vote.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

If our leaders didnt bargain in good faith. Perhaps we should put that to a vote.

No, I think it's time for the authorities to step in.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

No, I think it's time for the authorities to step in.

Sal is looking for them right now.

 

[olroadbeech]

No, I think it's time for the authorities to step in.

Since the same thing happened in 2013 ( less than 50% turnout ) and the teamsters let it go , they set a precedent which good lawyers could argue that the 2/3rds rule is void.

maybe just maybe this could be fought. an injunction to hold up ratification of the contract and sent to the Supreme Court.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Since the same thing happened in 2013 ( less than 50% turnout ) and the teamsters let it go , they set a precedent which good lawyers could argue that the 2/3rds rule is void.

maybe just maybe this could be fought. an injunction to hold up ratification of the contract and sent to the Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure it would have to be brought up with the NLRB before it could even be dealt with in the courts. If the supplementals can be dragged out long enough, there's a chance we can put a halt to ratification.

 

[Integrity]

Since you edited, I'll respond again. Plenty of us acknowledged the possibility of the contract being imposed regardless of the vote. What's your point? What are you so happy about? That the contract had to be imposed against the wishes of the majority of voters? Kinda a crappy thing to gloat about, but you do you.

Your statement is not accurate.

Based upon voter turnout the required 2/3 majority was not obtained therefore the statement that the contract was imposed against the wishes of a majority of voters is inaccurate because a majority was not obtained.

Your statement would be accurate in an election where only a simple majority was necessary.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Your statement is not accurate.

Based upon voter turnout the required 2/3 majority was not obtained therefore the statement that the contract was imposed against the wishes of a majority of voters is inaccurate because a majority was not obtained.

Your statement would be accurate in an election where only a simple majority was necessary.

If someone doesn't vote, then they are not a voter.

We're aware of the 2/3 rule. You're trying real hard to avoid admitting the union is imposing the contract against the will of actual voters.

 

[Integrity]

If someone doesn't vote, then they are not a voter.

We're aware of the 2/3 rule. You're trying real hard to avoid admitting the union is imposing the contract against the will of actual voters.

There is nothing to admit.

The results of the vote has imposed contract on the membership.

The "actual voters" as you call us ( those who have voted) are subject to the reality that, because a huge portion of the membership were too selfish, lazy, ignorant, or whatever to cast their ballot, the voting results requirements changed from a simple majority to a 2/3 majority needed.

It is that simple.

Sorry you are disappointed.

 

[Jim Rockford]

2/3 rds is never going to be reached. Just call it like it it. Is a backdoor way to impose the contract that the union wants. That swell part time workforce UPS gets to enjoy. They wont be here in 5 years. They dont care. They are never going to care. May as well make up a rule that 2/3 of the voters must be Jeopardy champions. It is a requirement that everyone know will never be met.

 

[trickpony1]

the voting results requirements changed from a simple majority to a 2/3 majority needed.

This requirement is arbitrary and capricious.

How about we vote on the issues presented to us?
It appears the NO votes outnumbered the YES votes.

T

 

[Integrity]

2/3 rds is never going to be reached. Just call it like it it. Is a backdoor way to impose the contract that the union wants. That swell part time workforce UPS gets to enjoy. They wont be here in 5 years. They dont care. They are never going to care. May as well make up a rule that 2/3 of the voters must be Jeopardy champions. It is a requirement that everyone know will never be met.

I hate to break the news but not voting is not just a part-timer issue.

Sad but true.

 

[Integrity]

This requirement is arbitrary and capricious.

How about we vote on the issues presented to us?
It appears the NO votes outnumbered the YES votes.

T

You are wrong.

Not arbitrary.

 

[Jim Rockford]

I hate to break the news but not voting is not just a part-timer issue.

Sad but true.

OK. So what? Just impose every contract and drop the vote charade.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

Your statement is not accurate.

Based upon voter turnout the required 2/3 majority was not obtained therefore the statement that the contract was imposed against the wishes of a majority of voters is inaccurate because a majority was not obtained.

Your statement would be accurate in an election where only a simple majority was necessary.

There is nothing to admit.

The results of the vote has imposed contract on the membership.

The "actual voters" as you call us ( those who have voted) are subject to the reality that, because a huge portion of the membership were too selfish, lazy, ignorant, or whatever to cast their ballot, the voting results requirements changed from a simple majority to a 2/3 majority needed.

It is that simple.

Sorry you are disappointed.

I hate to break the news but not voting is not just a part-timer issue.

Sad but true.

You are wrong.

Not arbitrary.

Captain Obvious isn't even this aggravating and reduntant.

So the rules are the rules. Sum it up in one non-repetitious statement.

The rebuttal is that the ibt leadership sucker punched us with the rules instead of going back to the table when the highest voter turnout in ups history (minus 97) said No, Screw that! to this contract like H and H did with the very last cba offering.

Apply the rules evenly and consistantly is what we are saying.

The last time the NMA barely passed with the ibt leadership offering the contentious C6 healthcare plan and then "upgraded" it the second vote.

Why don't you understand what the majority voters are saying? You keep hauling water to the sea with the same old rule rhetoric.

We got that figured out ok Dave.

You're becoming a gnat in the union forum. The door is open. Please take your yellow wings (and spine) and fly away.

 

[Integrity]

OK. So what? Just impose every contract and drop the vote charade.

You may want to ask your Steward to talk with the rank and file about the importance of voting.

Th change must happen at the rank and file level if you ever want change to happen.

Why did your local union brothers and sister give you this contract by not voting?

That is the question that needs to be asked.

In that answer the solution to change will be found.

 

[Integrity]

Captain Obvious isn't even this aggravating and reduntant.

So the rules are the rules. Sum it up in one non-repetitious statement.

The rebuttal is that the ibt leadership sucker punched us with the rules instead of going back to the table when the highest voter turnout in ups history (minus 97) said No, Screw that! to this contract like H and H did with the very last cba offering.

Apply the rules evenly and consistantly is what we are saying.

The last time the NMA barely passed with the ibt leadership offering the contentious C6 healthcare plan and then "upgraded" it the second vote.

Why don't you understand what the majority voters are saying? You keep hauling water to the sea with the same old rule rhetoric.

We got that figured out ok Dave.

You're becoming a gnat in the union forum. The door is open. Please take your yellow wings (and spine) and fly away.

Non voting is a scourge to this union and the democratic process.

This is a self serving selfish act that undermines unionism.

This is probably almost as bad of a problem as deal cutters and individuals who refuse to put it out there and enforce the contract.

Many will complain, few will sacrifice for a cause.

It seems like many will also not even participate(not vote).

Probably so they can complain and lay the blame elsewhere.

Where do you fit?

 

[Frankie's Friend]

You may want to ask your Steward to talk with the rank and file about the importance of voting.

Th change must happen at the rank and file level if you ever want change to happen.

Why did your local union brothers and sister give you this contract by not voting?

That is the question that needs to be asked.

In that answer the solution to change will be found.

When the business agents never come to your building to talk to the rank and file the rank and file will not care about the Union. Nothing is as simplest it as you try to make it on here.

Non voting is a scourge to this union and the democratic process.

This is a self serving selfish act that undermines unionism.

This is probably almost as bad of a problem as deal cutters and individuals who refuse to put it out there and enforce the contract.

Many will complain, few will sacrifice for a cause.

It seems like many will also not even participate(not vote).

Probably so they can complain and lay the blame elsewhere.

Where do you fit?

You must have been a Dodge ball player in your younger days because you actually did not even address what I said. Why do you waste your time on here? People are so far past what you're trying to sell that your answers are not keeping up with the real issues at hand. No one is going to vote in the percentages that you are touting. The IBT negotiators knew that the mixed bag of issues that they addressed we're gonna appeal to some and anger others so they played their game, they dealt their hand...and the majority lost on a technicality.

This is the union form not the jr high debate club. Your analogy is worn out. Pls save it for 2023. We don't want to hear it right now Cpt. Obvious.

 

[upsbeernut]

Do you understand why lots of people feel that Contract/supplement ratification was leadership’s fault?

The Teamsters’ constitutional rule was not interpreted the same way after the 2013 contract vote, when 10 supplements and riders weremixed up in rejected, renegotiated, and re-voted, without meeting the vote thresholds the union is now demanding.

If this stands, the Teamsters are done. If you think the membership participation rate in 2018 was bad, wait until you see 2023, when the membership will have been convinced that their votes did not matter in 2018, and their votes still don’t matter 5 years later.

Good luck to recent retirees in the future.

Good point, im afraid UPS wants the members to stay dazed and confused so membership drops off. Pretty soon a lot of states are going to all turn right to work states. WIN WIN again for corporate.

 

[Integrity]

When the business agents never come to your building to talk to the rank and file the rank and file will not care about the Union. Nothing is as simplest it as you try to make it on here.

You must have been a Dodge ball player in your younger days because you actually did not even address what I said. Why do you waste your time on here? People are so far past what you're trying to sell that your answers are not keeping up with the real issues at hand. No one is going to vote in the percentages that you are touting. The IBT negotiators knew that the mixed bag of issues that they addressed we're gonna appeal to some and anger others so they played their game, they dealt their hand...and the majority lost on a technicality.

This is the union form not the jr high debate club. Your analogy is worn out. Pls save it for 2023. We don't want to hear it right now Cpt. Obvious.

Integrity, not Cpt Obvious.

You are wrong.

Why don't you get started and get in the game and seek to make the changes that you point out?

If you are a member in good standing you have a right to campaign and run.

Be brave seek change!

 

[burrheadd]

Since the same thing happened in 2013 ( less than 50% turnout ) and the teamsters let it go , they set a precedent which good lawyers could argue that the 2/3rds rule is void.

maybe just maybe this could be fought. an injunction to hold up ratification of the contract and sent to the Supreme Court.

Stick to pole dancing