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
Local 243
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="browned out" data-source="post: 3949294" data-attributes="member: 8105"><p>You bet. That case is absolutely related. It has a 243 current connection; any how;</p><p></p><p></p><p> 243 should be stating that: after the NLRB rules; then and only then will we vote on the supplement.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Just continuing to establish that the Teamsters have a history of political opponent suppression and retaliation. 243 has been a party to that on numerous occasions. A 243 eb member was involved in that slap on the wrist decision regarding the bribery attempt. It is like comparing apples to apples. Some of the same players involved. It was 18 years ago and the behavior is still prevalent. The fact that the Hoffa/Hall teamsters refuse to address this behavior is unacceptable.</p><p></p><p>243 is incompetent. It was essential that language be included that allowed any and all RPCDs the right to 40 hours before any such 40 hour guarantee be made to a not-yet existent second tier position. 40 Hours absolutely 100% guaranteed for 22.4s. No such guarantee for RPCDs. The language was purposely left out. We can not get clarification on what would happen if a RPCD is laid off Monday and Tuesday; Can they bump a 22.4 on a Saturday and a Sunday? NO ANSWER Can a RPCD request 4 ten hour days in order to reach their 40 hours? NO ANSWER</p><p></p><p>The intent of the 22.4 was to reduce unwanted OT. Not to create a loophole that could hold some full time drivers to only 24 hours worked in a week.</p><p></p><p>The NORCAL negotiating team were not total and utterly useless pieces of garbage. 243 is exactly that.</p><p></p><p>The NORCAL fulfilled its duty of fair representation during contract negotiations.</p><p></p><p>243 continues their long history of representing UPS. 243 has failed miserably in fulfilling their duty of fair representation during contract negotiations.</p><p></p><p>243 is their own worst enemy in any possible upcoming NLRB charges by the members against the Union. 243's documented gross negligence has already cemented a winning case for the members.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="browned out, post: 3949294, member: 8105"] You bet. That case is absolutely related. It has a 243 current connection; any how; 243 should be stating that: after the NLRB rules; then and only then will we vote on the supplement. Just continuing to establish that the Teamsters have a history of political opponent suppression and retaliation. 243 has been a party to that on numerous occasions. A 243 eb member was involved in that slap on the wrist decision regarding the bribery attempt. It is like comparing apples to apples. Some of the same players involved. It was 18 years ago and the behavior is still prevalent. The fact that the Hoffa/Hall teamsters refuse to address this behavior is unacceptable. 243 is incompetent. It was essential that language be included that allowed any and all RPCDs the right to 40 hours before any such 40 hour guarantee be made to a not-yet existent second tier position. 40 Hours absolutely 100% guaranteed for 22.4s. No such guarantee for RPCDs. The language was purposely left out. We can not get clarification on what would happen if a RPCD is laid off Monday and Tuesday; Can they bump a 22.4 on a Saturday and a Sunday? NO ANSWER Can a RPCD request 4 ten hour days in order to reach their 40 hours? NO ANSWER The intent of the 22.4 was to reduce unwanted OT. Not to create a loophole that could hold some full time drivers to only 24 hours worked in a week. The NORCAL negotiating team were not total and utterly useless pieces of garbage. 243 is exactly that. The NORCAL fulfilled its duty of fair representation during contract negotiations. 243 continues their long history of representing UPS. 243 has failed miserably in fulfilling their duty of fair representation during contract negotiations. 243 is their own worst enemy in any possible upcoming NLRB charges by the members against the Union. 243's documented gross negligence has already cemented a winning case for the members. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Local 243
Top