New tdu article on halt to ratification

[Brownslave688]

Who says?

You did.

 

[Brownslave688]

Who says?

If we hadn't taken a strike authorization vote he could not have called a strike after this vote only in a third "final offer" vote does he have that power

 

[Mugarolla]

You did.

View attachment 216700

We did not reject the contract by 2/3 so there is no chance of a strike. The contract passed, according to this vote.

I said that if the contract was turned down by 2/3, a strike vote is not necessary. Hoffa has the authorization, per the Constitution, to strike. But that did not happen.

TTKU

1. The contract can be passed by a majority vote.
2. The contract can be rejected by a majority vote if over half voted.
3. The contract can be rejected if 2/3 majority voted no and less than half the membership voted.
4. The contract is ratified if there is less than 2/3 majority voting no and less than half the membership voted.

If 1, then no strike. The contract is ratified.
If 2 or 3, Hoffa has the authorization to strike, but he can also renegotiate. He does not need to call an immediate strike.
If 4, then no strike. The contract is ratified.

Which one do you think happened? 1,2,3 or 4.

I'll give you a hint 4

 

[Mugarolla]

If we hadn't taken a strike authorization vote he could not have called a strike after this vote only in a third "final offer" vote does he have that power

Again, who says that?

And don't say I did because I did not.

Where do you get this "third final offer" strike language from?

 

[LagunaBrown]

No problem I'll just bend you over and use your backdoor like Hoffa and Sean.

I am not that kind of guy I like women. You can “backdoor” Sean and Hoffa all you like. I won’t judge your sexual preference.

 

[LagunaBrown]

He do whatever you tell him he a yes man

His Local at 886 voted with a majority “yes” and our Local voted a majority “yes”. So we have a ton of “yes” men and women. The members got what they voted on. Deal with it.

 

[cachmeifucan]

You are in kalifornia low informed voters are abundant

 

[LagunaBrown]

You are in kalifornia low informed voters are abundant

Please it’s obvious you guys don’t know crap!

 

[SameRightsForAll]

Nope.

Even TDU is not fighting the angle of not a final offer. They are fighting Article XII Section 2 saying Hoffa does not have to impose the contract per the Constitution, that he can continue to negotiate a better deal, since UPS was willing to right after the vote count.

Then we need to keep a close eye on TDU to see if they're blowing smoke. UPS only needs to claim that they were basing it's statement on premature news from the IBT.

 

[SameRightsForAll]

Where does it say anywhere that a rejected final offer automatically triggers a strike?



Because he wasn't sure if they were going to invoke the IBT Constitution. An hour later, they did.



That is the million dollar question. And I am still waiting for an answer from the Union on that.

Sorry, but the IBT Constitution says it was a final offer, in black and white.

Why would you "not invoke" the IBT constitution? If you can turn the constitution on and off when you like, what good is it?

 

[TheFigurehead]

You are in kalifornia low informed voters are abundant

Hodgkins, IL, however, is a utopia of informed, intelligent voters?

(Hint: it's not)

 

[Mugarolla]

Why would you "not invoke" the IBT constitution? If you can turn the constitution on and off when you like, what good is it?

I agree. But UPS did not know that for a fact, so they had to go into damage control right away.

I don't blame them for that.

 

[542thruNthru]

You are in kalifornia low informed voters are abundant

This coming from the idiot that thought 710 and 705 votes would count towards our 50%

SMH

 

[wayfair]

886 is in OKC

 

[Vacation]

You are in kalifornia low informed voters are abundant

They probably voted for Clinton also.

 

[MyTripisCut]

They probably voted for Clinton also.

 

[Just A UPS Guy]

If we hadn't taken a strike authorization vote he could not have called a strike after this vote only in a third "final offer" vote does he have that power

Actually, the strike authorization vote became irrelevant the moment they came to a tentative agreement. The IBT cannot call a strike while a tentative agreement is in place and awaiting a vote. Voting down the contract within the guidelines of the constitution is another strike authorization vote in it's own right.

There is no language regarding a third offer, any TA submitted to the membership for ratification vote can be determined and interpreted as a final offer, regardless if the company declares it a such, as per the constitution. Whether or not every TA submitted to the membership for ratification is, in fact, a final offer is what will determine the next course of action.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

Your forgetting about Section 1 of Article XXII

The Local Union Executive Board shall determine whether an employer has made a final offer of settlement, regardless of the employer’s characterization. When the Local Union Executive Board has determined that an offer is “final”, such offer must be submitted to the involved membership for a secret ballot vote as hereinafter provided

OH,I guess you're right then. It shouldn't matter at all that the members didn't want it. Thanks for showing me how ignorant I was to think that it was about the 260,000 members instead of being about 2 people.

 

[Mugarolla]

It shouldn't matter at all that the members didn't want it.

How many members didn't want it? Do you even know. Here, let me help you out.

Thanks for showing me how ignorant I was to think that it was about the 260,000 members instead of being about 2 people.

Of those 260,000 members, only 50,000 voted no. That is less than 1/5 of the membership that didn't want it. Or that voiced their opinion by voting.

So the other 210,000, or 4/5 of the membership, either voted yes or didn't care enough to even vote. (I know, they all were not eligible to vote, I'm just having fun with these idiotic responses.)

So, apparently, the bulk of the membership wanted it or didn't care.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

How many members didn't want it? Do you even know. Here, let me help you out.



Of those 260,000 members, only 50,000 voted no. That is less than 1/5 of the membership that didn't want it. Or that voiced their opinion by voting.

So the other 210,000, or 4/5 of the membership, either voted yes or didn't care enough to even vote. (I know, they all were not eligible to vote, I'm just having fun with these idiotic responses.)

So, apparently, the bulk of the membership wanted it or didn't care.

So you're now telling me that 54% voting no means that 4/5 of the people want yes?