Local Unions Against TA and Local TA's???

[RealPerson]

Be nice to have a list, so we can show others who all is Voting NO, so people just don't think it is a few individuals.

Teamsters Local 89

 

[The Other Side]

So far, in local 396- southern california, we are a solid NO VOTE. Part timers are being informed everyday, feeder is on board, Package is unified. Of course, we have to those members who will do whatever the local tells them as long as there is a HAT, or JACKET given to them.

We are working everyday to inform our entire membership of the NO VOTE intention.

Peace

TOS

 

[realbrown1]

So far, in local 396- southern california, we are a solid NO VOTE. Part timers are being informed everyday, feeder is on board, Package is unified. Of course, we have to those members who will do whatever the local tells them as long as there is a HAT, or JACKET given to them.

We are working everyday to inform our entire membership of the NO VOTE intention.

Peace

TOS

Add local 89 to the small but hopefully growing list.

 

[TimeForChange]

Right, TOS. But there can be a difference between what the members seem to want, and what the Local Union Executive Board recommends. So until Ron H announces his recommendation, you can't say that 396 is against the TA.

 

[The Other Side]

Right, TOS. But there can be a difference between what the members seem to want, and what the Local Union Executive Board recommends. So until Ron H announces his recommendation, you can't say that 396 is against the TA.

RON H works for US! We dont work for HIM. Dont ever forget that. It matters NOT what "HE" wants, the membership gives the instructions in 396. "HE" may not like it, but "HE" went along with this crap contract proposal and brought it to us. "WE" will reject it and send him back to HALL/HOFFA to explain why he couldnt sell it to us.

THIS is what the membership is about. He represents "US", "WE" dont represent "HIM".

"HE" doesnt work for UPS, "HE" works for "US" as "WE" work for UPS with a contract that affects "US" directly.

"HE" knew going into last weeks meeting in D.C. that "WE" didnt like the proposal when it was announced, but "HE" plays the game and votes with the majority with complete disregard for the membership.

"HE" will find that out shortly when he schedules a contract meeting, if "HE" has the "BALLS" to do so.

Peace

TOS

 

[Michael Collins]

Poor Ron. Wonder if he will taste like chicken?

 

[realbrown1]

So we have local 89 and 384 recommending no votes. I heard that 952 in So Cal leadership was being yelled at by the membership for recommending a yes vote against a majority of the local.

 

[kingOFchester]

A no from 384. Heard it at meeting today.

Things continue down this path it could get ugly.

Anyone care to give the definition of union?????!!

 

[TimeForChange]

Based on posts here on browncafe, and based on posts on the "Vote No on UPS Contract" facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/groups/161346104027154/?fref=ts here is what I see so far:

Local officers recommending a YES vote on the national TA:
707
623
952

Local officers recommending a NO vote on the national TA:
89
384
804
30

 

[realbrown1]

Based on posts here on browncafe, andbased on postes on the "Vote No o UP Contract" facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/groups/161346104027154/?fref=ts here is what I see so far:

Local officers recommending a YES vote on the national TA:
707
623
952

Local officers recommending a NO vote on the national TA:
89
384
804
30

So how did it go from UNANIMOUS on May 7th in Washington DC to 4 locals (at present) recommending NO votes? That much changes in just 16 days?

 

[kingOFchester]

So how did it go from UNANIMOUS on May 7th in Washington DC to 4 locals (at present) recommending NO votes? That much changes in just 16 days?

I would guess one of two factors, or both:

1) They were unaware of the exact wording and coverage.
2) Locals started to see the members getting worked up and upset over contract. Local decided, in respect of their future, it was in their best interest to align with the rank of file of their respected local. Wouldn't want to loose a seat on the locals board.

 

[Catatonic]

So how did it go from UNANIMOUS on May 7th in Washington DC to 4 locals (at present) recommending NO votes? That much changes in just 16 days?

​Different audiences ... all Union officials are politicians.

 

[kingOFchester]

​Different audiences ... all Union officials are politicians.

Hoax, still feel that this contract will pass with a large margin?

Not being smart, just wondering.

 

[wish i was 65]

At local 384 PT more upset about the Health Care change. E-board says vote no on master yes on sup. Ups Fr meeting at 1PM no vote on UPS Fr contract too

 

[Anonymous 10]

So how did it go from UNANIMOUS on May 7th in Washington DC to 4 locals (at present) recommending NO votes? That much changes in just 16 days?

I guess everyone who said yes but didn't really approve is a pusillanimous?

 

[Catatonic]

Hoax, still feel that this contract will pass with a large margin?

Not being smart, just wondering.

I still think it will.
Been through too many ... Until it changes, I'll stick with history.
​

 

[kingOFchester]

I guess everyone who said yes but didn't really approve is a pusillanimous?

Or maybe those who are a yes vote just want to suck Hall/Hoffa's brown hole.

 

[Anonymous 10]

Hoax, still feel that this contract will pass with a large margin?

Not being smart, just wondering.

It's always like this. People talk a tough game.

 

[Anonymous 10]

Or maybe those who are a yes vote just want to suck Hall/Hoffa's brown hole.

Maybe but I'm willing to bet they were scared or they knew it was a good deal.

 

[kingOFchester]

Maybe but I'm willing to bet they were scared or they knew it was a good deal.

Who knows. All I can say, I feel as though this contract is not in my best interest.