Maybe getting rid of 2/3 isn't a good idea..

Utahloader

Well-Known Member
Nothing would pass, let's be honest. I don't agree with the newest contract, me a driver, and my wife a PT'er. She got the short end of the stick by far. I also agree most don't care to vote, or be active with our union. I just feel like it would never pass. Someone convince me otherwise?
 

3 done 3 to go

In control of own destiny
Nothing would pass, let's be honest. I don't agree with the newest contract, me a driver, and my wife a PT'er. She got the short end of the stick by far. I also agree most don't care to vote, or be active with our union. I just feel like it would never pass. Someone convince me otherwise?
If it is * that the UNION gives us. It should be voted down. The UNION used to represent the members. Now it is to get the millions it can get from UPS. Without that money. There would be no Teamsters. But, I think they just killed themselves. By taking away our right to vote. I don't care if 10 people voted. Then it passed or failed. The members have lost democracy. To bully liberals who steal votes away from all of us. This should scare everyone. They will eventually run into our national electorate.
 

Days

Well-Known Member
Nothing would pass, let's be honest. I don't agree with the newest contract, me a driver, and my wife a PT'er. She got the short end of the stick by far. I also agree most don't care to vote, or be active with our union. I just feel like it would never pass. Someone convince me otherwise?

They can change the language so that our union leaders can still pass it but there won’t be any justification to do. Hoffa passed this last one and pretty much used the 2/3rds rule as an excuse
 

Jackburton

Gone Fish'n
Want people to vote, it’s really easy.

Next contract put in the language that until there is 50% turnout, we will work under the current contract, with no retro pay even if raises are negotiated in the new contract.

Yes or no, you’ll get turnout none the less.
 

Indecisi0n

Well-Known Member
If it is * that the UNION gives us. It should be voted down. The UNION used to represent the members. Now it is to get the millions it can get from UPS. Without that money. There would be no Teamsters. But, I think they just killed themselves. By taking away our right to vote. I don't care if 10 people voted. Then it passed or failed. The members have lost democracy. To bully liberals who steal votes away from all of us. This should scare everyone. They will eventually run into our national electorate.
I am never one to bash the union but I totally get this . You cant stress the importance of voting to members to only turn over their votes .
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
Nothing would pass, let's be honest. I don't agree with the newest contract, me a driver, and my wife a PT'er. She got the short end of the stick by far. I also agree most don't care to vote, or be active with our union. I just feel like it would never pass. Someone convince me otherwise?

You think there would never be a simple majority yes vote on a contract? I'd say it's way less likely to vote down a national ups contract under the 50% 2/3 rule.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Nothing would pass, let's be honest. I don't agree with the newest contract, me a driver, and my wife a PT'er. She got the short end of the stick by far. I also agree most don't care to vote, or be active with our union. I just feel like it would never pass. Someone convince me otherwise?
Nothing would pass?


Only every other contract in the history of ups/teamsters has passed without using the 2/3 language.
 

Utahloader

Well-Known Member
Nothing would pass?


Only every other contract in the history of ups/teamsters has passed without using the 2/3 language.
Thats also when Teamsters were a hell of a lot more informed and on the same page. The new generation seems to want to vote no, no matter the contract. 50% turnout seems fair. If we can't get that turn out, we should continue under old contract with no retro pay. As a young driver it amazes me how many senior drivers know nothing, or don't care about our union. We need a spark, something to get people to care.
 

BigUnionGuy

Got the T-Shirt
Why is everyone raging on Hoffa/Hall ?


The impudent Ron Carey and TDU.... played their same old game.

Look what happened with the TDU "princess".

She took the money.... and run.
 

BadIdeaGuy

Coronavirus? What coronavirus?
Why is everyone raging on Hoffa/Hall ?


The impudent Ron Carey and TDU.... played their same old game.

Look what happened with the TDU "princess".

She took the money.... and run.

Terrible argument.
Stop bringing up what other people do.

Deal with the substance of the issue; don't just hide behind "well they did it too".
Almost every issue I see you post on, you sidestep, and resort to ad hominems, or other deflections.
 

Staydryitsraining

Well-Known Member
If it is * that the UNION gives us. It should be voted down. The UNION used to represent the members. Now it is to get the millions it can get from UPS. Without that money. There would be no Teamsters. But, I think they just killed themselves. By taking away our right to vote. I don't care if 10 people voted. Then it passed or failed. The members have lost democracy. To bully liberals who steal votes away from all of us. This should scare everyone. They will eventually run into our national electorate.
As a whole the union unless changed drastically in the next election is dead. Only place I can see it being worth a * is the north east.
 

3 done 3 to go

In control of own destiny
As a retiree;

Do you wish.... you had done more.... when you had the chance ?

What a.pathetic cop out. It is never about who was. It's all up to who is coming. The ones who came did great. It wasn't till weak (Hoffa) leaders started to sell out membership. For UPS money. To survive. Also would love to see if their bank accounts grew each contract yrs. You do see what is next? Ups owns the Teamsters union. It is up to them to end it.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
What a.pathetic cop out. It is never about who was. It's all up to who is coming. The ones who came did great. It wasn't till weak (Hoffa) leaders started to sell out membership. For UPS money. To survive. Also would love to see if their bank accounts grew each contract yrs. You do see what is next? Ups owns the Teamsters union. It is up to them to end it.
Yep ups is the teamster golden goose. If/when the pensions die the teamsters die and ups is their only hope of propping up that up.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Thats also when Teamsters were a hell of a lot more informed and on the same page. The new generation seems to want to vote no, no matter the contract. 50% turnout seems fair. If we can't get that turn out, we should continue under old contract with no retro pay. As a young driver it amazes me how many senior drivers know nothing, or don't care about our union. We need a spark, something to get people to care.
1) while there is a strong contingent that seems to want to just vote no I don’t think it’s anywhere near 50%

2) this contract had some really big legitimate reasons to vote no.
 

lolbr

Well-Known Member
I'll say it again. The 2/3 rule can and should be changed. Need to spread the word around, then one January put it up at a union meeting. After 3 months of it being read at the meetings, it would go up for a vote. Here's something to start with:
The 50% 2/3 clause is a flawed improvement. At 50.00002% of turnout, there only needed to be 52,261 no votes for contract to be turned down. But if one less person voted, it would need 69,681 no votes to be turned down. Can you see how easy it is to game the vote for yes voters? If you know the vote will be close to 50%, it is better for some yes voters to not vote, as it will cause all no votes to be worth half as much.

It really needs changed. I would change it to (needs to have a lawyer overlook for correct wording):
(2) If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such final offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the final offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the Local Union Executive Board or to accept such final offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it. The failure of such membership to reject or ratify the final offer shall require a second vote no sooner than 35 days from the previous vote. The second vote shall be decided by a cumulative majority of those voting. The Local Union Executive Board may opt to return to negations instead of a second vote, starting this process over.

This would give ample notice to those who "choose" not to vote to change their minds. Not voting should be counted as an abstain, and should not affect the outcome. If 75% of the eligible voters choose to not vote, they are choosing to defer to the other 25% to determine the outcome for them.
 

Bubblehead

My Senior Picture
Thats also when Teamsters were a hell of a lot more informed and on the same page. The new generation seems to want to vote no, no matter the contract. 50% turnout seems fair. If we can't get that turn out, we should continue under old contract with no retro pay. As a young driver it amazes me how many senior drivers know nothing, or don't care about our union. We need a spark, something to get people to care.
It's an unprecedented dynamic at UPS vs most other traditional vocations, where 65% of the members here are part timers....most of the indigent variety.

This antiquated 50%-two-thirds rule, if it ever had a place in our Union, for sure has no place in 21 century UPS contract negotiations.

It must be abolished.
 
Top