N
No way. The Union has to decide what are the important things and go after those. We all know the consequences if there is disagreement, but neither side is required to agree with the other.
Local 243
- Thread starter Brownpants80
- Start date
No way. The Union has to decide what are the important things and go after those. We all know the consequences if there is disagreement, but neither side is required to agree with the other.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
They do if there is ever to be a "LAST AND FINAL OFFER" to impose....
browned out
Well-Known Member
243 targets any and all opposition. You want to lose your UPS job, challenge 243. It has happened more than once. Bribery was effective until they came up with a better method. Collude with UPS to get opponents discharged. Believe what you will. It has happened in 243.
Holding the whole country up for better language is beneficial to all. Something to build on in the next CBA negotiations.
We are just asking for answers and they will not give them to us. Even if they are answers we don't like, just give us the answers.
NorCal has solid language that protects the rights of regular package car drivers by allowing them to bump 22.4s or to work four 10-hour days.
browned out
Well-Known Member
browned out
Well-Known Member
The incompetent and/or colluding morons at 243 are recommending a NO vote on the exact same supplement that 243 first recommended a YES vote on. The supplement 243 drafted. Idiots.Guess it's time to "nut up.... or shut up".
Putting 40% of many RPCDs income in doubt is a serious issue. Any rational negotiator would have had the sense to address this.
243 was asked over and over. by the members in every barn. 243s go to answer. "We don't know"
Arse Clowns. That's your friend N job. To answer the members questions regarding changes in wages, terms and conditions of emolyment,,
"The Trump administration has directed NLRB agents to focus on going after unions."
Come on 243, you were required to fulfill your DFR. Now you put us in Trump's sights. Great Job.
Last edited:
Slinging Packages
Active Member
The company refused to
It's the company who goes to the IBT and asks for a vote. Local 243 has no say on the matter!
Slinging Packages
Active Member
WRONG AGIAN !! The new vote will be on several things the company agreed to and signed off on.
I question if you ever have been to a meeting!!
Slinging Packages
Active Member
The incident regarding colluding with UPS was no more than an employee not doing as he was told. He had a thick file which didn't help.
If you had gone to any meetings they gave answers on what they knew of but didn't have all the answers to some questions which was understandable.
You are correct Norcal has solid language and once AGAIN if you were at the meetings local 243 was told by the company that the language we were asking for nobody else had around the country which was a LIE!! So thats why the company wasn't going to negotiate with 243 because no one had it. Norcal has it agreed to why not 243? The company wants a vote so we NEED TO VOTE IT DOWN AND GET THE 51% WE NEED!
burrheadd
KING Of GIFS
If the company doesn’t want to negotiate maybe it’s time to step away and let them think about it for awhile
If the company is set on 22.4s then maybe they should give something back
This isn’t rocket science it’s negotiation ‘s 101
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
browned out
Well-Known Member
browned out
Well-Known Member
????
browned out
Well-Known Member
Still no answer from BUG.
Bo knows, BUG knows.
Why even announce another vote before the findings from the NLRB charges are explained to the members?
243 rules by instilling fear. And by attempting keep to members divided and in the dark.
Some, beyond reproach, 243 UPSers are coueagous,, stand in solidarity and see the light
The Truth will set you free my Buger.
Bo knows, BUG knows.
Why even announce another vote before the findings from the NLRB charges are explained to the members?
243 rules by instilling fear. And by attempting keep to members divided and in the dark.
Some, beyond reproach, 243 UPSers are coueagous,, stand in solidarity and see the light
The Truth will set you free my Buger.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
I don't think you know what "duty of fair representation" is.
Your Local hasn't refused to bargain on your behalf....
I still question if he even works at UPS.
He has made several references to UPS facilities as being "barns".
That's a freight term.... that 99.9% of employees would never use.
You just don't want to hear what I have to say.
I'm waiting to hear all about the NLRB charges you are filing with your attorney.
-Bug-
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
"Dissidents"? I thought they were called members...
who had the numbers in their locals to vote down the proposed contract.
In 2013 the "small number of" negotiatiators actually allowed (or planned for) two large regions to vote on other regions healthcare without being subject to getting the same plan themselves.
That's honestly representing all members?
We havent forgotten.
Nor have we forgotten that a record number of members voted this time and it still didn't matter.
Now members are reduced to being dissidents because they have the percentages necessary to face off with the company and the IBT.
Good for them.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
Self-admittedly...
I have the same issue... with locals that claim autonomy and yet use other local's compromised decisions to screw their own members instead of fighting for their own members rights that are slam dunk, black and white in the cba.
That's why many members don't vote. They've given up fighting the system. That's embarrassing and failure for the union as a whole.
What'dyabringmetoday???
Well-Known Member
Lol.
What'dyabringmetoday???
Well-Known Member
I hope Big Union Guy....doesn't see this. Lol.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
I have a problem with that myself.
Especially, when a panel decision states "Based on the Facts presented".
That's not a closed door.
Unless you have a transcript of the actual case.... what are the "Facts" ?
Are the facts of the case, identical to yours ?
And, why would a Local decline to process a grievance because of it ?
