zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Please read article 12 section 2d, we authorized a strike. IBT was not required to impose the contract, it is that simple. Sorry you don't seem to understand.
Lay the Blame Where it Belongs.....The Members.
- Thread starter olroadbeech
- Start date
Please read article 12 section 2d, we authorized a strike. IBT was not required to impose the contract, it is that simple. Sorry you don't seem to understand.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Here is the section that the union is using to say they are required to ratify:
"If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a twothirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such fnal offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the fnal offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating com‑ mittee to accept such fnal offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it"
1) Who is an eligible member, and where are the rules outlining such?
2) Most importantly two things had to happen in order for the negotiating committee to be required to ratify. One was we had to fail to reject, which we did, and two was we had to fail to authorize a strike, which we did not. Negotiating committee was not required to ratify under the conditions.
Why is the strike authorization important? Because it gives the committee the leverage needed to continue negotiating. We gave them that leverage in a separate vote. Section 2d, in regards to strike authorization, need only come into play at all if a strike had not already been authorized.
Another interesting paragraph from section 2c:
"All provisions of Section 2(b) and (c) of this Article shall be equally applicable to companywide negotiations and agreements negotiated on an area, multi‑employer, multi‑state, multi‑area, or national basis"
Section 2b explains the process for renogotiation if a majority of voters rejects an offer.
"If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a twothirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such fnal offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the fnal offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating com‑ mittee to accept such fnal offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it"
1) Who is an eligible member, and where are the rules outlining such?
2) Most importantly two things had to happen in order for the negotiating committee to be required to ratify. One was we had to fail to reject, which we did, and two was we had to fail to authorize a strike, which we did not. Negotiating committee was not required to ratify under the conditions.
Why is the strike authorization important? Because it gives the committee the leverage needed to continue negotiating. We gave them that leverage in a separate vote. Section 2d, in regards to strike authorization, need only come into play at all if a strike had not already been authorized.
Another interesting paragraph from section 2c:
"All provisions of Section 2(b) and (c) of this Article shall be equally applicable to companywide negotiations and agreements negotiated on an area, multi‑employer, multi‑state, multi‑area, or national basis"
Section 2b explains the process for renogotiation if a majority of voters rejects an offer.
Benben
Working on a new degree, Masters in BS Detecting!
Milly
Well-Known Member
When do we all take ownership it what really would have made the difference so we aren't where we are all at now?Nope, you buy into the "them no matter what they want or need or deserve!"
Benben
Working on a new degree, Masters in BS Detecting!
I disagree whole heartily! The strike authorization was not important for the committee to "continue negotiations." It was done well in advance of the negotiations being finalized! It was done with the full knowledge that the percentage of votes submitted never reaches 50% of the eligible voters due to transient workers! The Strike Authorization was put out there prior to the voters knowing what the offer actually was with the express intent of forcing the UPS offer through if the majority of the UPS teamsters vote down said offer!
The devil is in the details!
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
When the IBT leadership quits letting 2 whole regions vote on our healthcare when they aren't subject to getting it themselves.
When they quit forcing contracts down the throats of people (like L89 in 2013/2014) but yet all the while allowing the renegotiation of other supplements until they passed after they were voted down.
One of our most senior employees told me that it wouldn't matter if we voted it down because the leadership would impose it anyway. That's not just apathy, it's disparaging.
Funny thing, the JC attorney that "oversaw" our last local election was caught trying to disqualify votes from a barn that was against the incumbents. The dude knew and passed out the rules from the GEB (initialed by JPH) but because the incumbent pres and other officers jobs were barely hanging by a thread in votes he tried to discard challenged ballots from this facility. When we sent the local a threat of suit the attorney recanted and later included them in the count.
Why would anyone distrust the union leadership?
The reasons are obvious.
Read the report on OLMS convictions.
You dandelion blowers are either out of touch or just plain liars.
RTW is not just growing because people don't want to pay dues.
Wake up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Milly
Well-Known Member
What if 55% actually would have voted? It would be so different.
Integrity
Binge Poster
Making taking ownership of your membership contingent upon the actions of someone else is not taking ownership at all.
Integrity
Binge Poster
If 55% of the membership voted a simple majority would have been required, not a 2/3 majority.
It is that simple.
Milly
Well-Known Member
It makes me wonder if just 7,000 more would have voted. That wouldn't be much to ask. I'm happy my pension went up. This contract made my retirement a little better.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
Who are you directing that to?
I dont need or relish your life lesson agenda.
So glad your situation is better. That's all we live for. The betterment of your pension. And if you die at an early age there'll be more for the rest.
Integrity
Binge Poster
If 7000 more voted it would mean that of the 209,043 eligible voters, 99,604 would have cast a ballot.
This would still be under 50% of the membership and s 2/3 majority would still be required.
Integrity
Binge Poster
It was a reply to a previous post.
Let me look.
Yes, it was a reply to one of your posts.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
He doesn't have a "collage" degree. Give him a break.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
BS.
You have no integrity.
Integrity
Binge Poster
Why do you even bother with these discussion threads?
Have at it, if that is what you are into.
Not a very beneficial or accurate contribution however.
It is not BS.
Milly
Well-Known Member
As someone else pointed out earlier I'm not college educated so my math was a little off!
BrownRecycler
Well-Known Member
So, nobody is going to talk about how they try hard not to send voting ballot to eligible voter even when asked?
Well, I guess we found ourselves a loophole to this quagmire. It isn't the hack but the denial of service for eligible voters aka voting suppression.
Well, I guess we found ourselves a loophole to this quagmire. It isn't the hack but the denial of service for eligible voters aka voting suppression.
Milly
Well-Known Member
Yet I make more that most people I know with a college degree. My pension is better also. What I lack in brain smarts I make up for in my checking account and retirement portfolio. What's better is someone invests it for me because I'm not smart enough for that either!
Milly
Well-Known Member
I received a ballot and my BA also asked us all if we received one and offered to get anyone one who did not get one.
Similar threads
