New tdu article on halt to ratification

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
It determined this was a final offer.

And, per the Constitution, they sent it to us to vote on.
The Constitution says use section d when it is a final offer. It does not say every offer is a final offer. Section b is not for final offers, it says majority vote wins, regardless of voter participation.

Link me to a press release by the IBT stating this was a final offer.
 

1989

Well-Known Member
For starters this all played out pretty publicly until Taylor kicked everyone out that was leaking info. From there it isn't that hard to connect the dots is it?
Soooo.....that’s a no..... you are relying in 2nd hand information. Just trying to figure out if your information is reliable.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
Link me to a press release by the IBT stating this was a final offer.

There is none. I already stated that I believe Hoffa kept this secret in his back pocket as a wild card.

Per the IBT Constitution, he was not required to inform us if this was a final offer.

The Constitution says use section d when it is a final offer.

Why would the negotiating committee bring us an offer if they felt they could do better? If they felt that this was not a final offer by UPS?

Doesn't make sense. They would have just kept negotiating.

The only thing that makes sense is that the negotiating committee determined this was a final offer by UPS, and they could do no better.

And again, they do not have to have a press release stating the fact.

Should they have, hell yes. Does the Constitution require it, no.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
There is none. I already stated that I believe Hoffa kept this secret in his back pocket as a wild card.

Per the IBT Constitution, he was not required to inform us if this was a final offer.



Why would the negotiating committee bring us an offer if they felt they could do better? If they felt that this was not a final offer by UPS?

Doesn't make sense. They would have just kept negotiating.

The only thing that makes sense is that the negotiating committee determined this was a final offer by UPS, and they could do no better.

And again, they do not have to have a press release stating the fact.

Should they have, hell yes. Does the Constitution require it, no.
There's always meat left on the bone. For situations just like these.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
So you think every vote is a vote of whether or not to go on strike?

If the negotiating committee brings us an offer, they are bringing it as final offer because that is what it is, they know they can do no better.

They would not bring us an offer if they know they can do better.

If we turn it down, by a 2/3 majority, depending on how many vote, then yes, it authorizes the Union to strike, as they see fit, per the Constitution.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
So that's a yes, you think the vote we took was a vote to either strike or accept the agreement?

Nope.

It was a vote to accept or to "authorize" a strike, if warranted, by the General President. We already gave him that authorization, but the Constitution did not know that.

You seem to have read the Constitution.

voting against acceptance of the final offer shall authorize a strike without any additional vote being necessary for such strike authorization.

Once a strike is called, a contract thereafter may be accepted by a majority vote of the involved members voting either by secret ballot or by mail referendum as directed by the bargaining committee.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Nope.

It was a vote to accept or to "authorize" a strike, if warranted, by the General President. We already gave him that authorization, but the Constitution did not know that.
Uh, wut?
The Constitution did not know that?

Lol, it wasn't a vote on a final offer.

The company announced they were open to continue negotiations. Enough of the political bs.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Nope.

It was a vote to accept or to "authorize" a strike, if warranted, by the General President. We already gave him that authorization, but the Constitution did not know that.

You seem to have read the Constitution.

voting against acceptance of the final offer shall authorize a strike without any additional vote being necessary for such strike authorization.

Once a strike is called, a contract thereafter may be accepted by a majority vote of the involved members voting either by secret ballot or by mail referendum as directed by the bargaining committee.

And this is what a final offer is. The THIRD offer. If we vote down a 3rd offer we go on strike. The president does not need strike authorization. It says it right there.

Hoffa could not have called a strike after this vote unless we had given him strike authorization. Hence it not being a final offer.
 
Top