Next Contract vote...

[Mugarolla]

It's written in black and white, we had to fail to authorize a strike in order for them to be forced to ratify. No interpretation required.

This is your opinion.

Our contract is also written in black and white.

Do you know how many cases go to the National every year for "interpretation" of the language.

And I don't think it is black and white.

One section refers to any offer going to a vote as being a final offer, another section details final offers.

Bottom line, our opinions don't count. Just because Hoffa does not agree with your opinion, or interpretation, does not mean he is saying that part of the Constitution does not matter.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

This is your opinion.

Our contract is also written in black and white.

Do you know how many cases go to the National every year for "interpretation" of the language.

And I don't think it is black and white.

One section refers to any offer going to a vote as being a final offer, another section details final offers.

Bottom line, our opinions don't count. Just because Hoffa does not agree with your opinion, or interpretation, does not mean he is saying that part of the Constitution does not matter.

You are just proving my point, at least part of it. They claim they are bound by the constituation, but if it is open to interpretation, then what you are saying is that Hoffa is bound by his interpretation of the constitution. If interpretation is subject to opinion, and opinions can change, then being bound by the constitution is meaningless, which negates the entire purpose of the constitution. The wording is:
"The failure of such membership to reject the fnal [sic] offer and [emphasis added] to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating com‑ mittee to accept such fnal [sic] offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it"
Meaning you can't ignore the strike authorization, which is not interpretation, it is what the words say. They also declined to try to negotiate additional provisions, even though UPS was open to it, and this subsection allowed for it, even if they were "required" to accept the offer.

I realize my words won't break through your arguing from authority fallacy wall, but if anyone else reading this learns something in the process, it's worth it to me to keep refuting all your false claims, so keep it up.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

You are just proving my point, at least part of it. They claim they are bound by the constituation, but if it is open to interpretation, then what you are saying is that Hoffa is bound by his interpretation of the constitution. If interpretation is subject to opinion, and opinions can change, then being bound by the constitution is meaningless, which negates the entire purpose of the constitution. The wording is:
"The failure of such membership to reject the fnal [sic] offer and [emphasis added] to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating com‑ mittee to accept such fnal [sic] offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it"
Meaning you can't ignore the strike authorization, which is not interpretation, it is what the words say. They also declined to try to negotiate additional provisions, even though UPS was open to it, and this subsection allowed for it, even if they were "required" to accept the offer.

I realize my words won't break through your arguing from authority fallacy wall, but if anyone else reading this learns something in the process, it's worth it to me to keep refuting all your false claims, so keep it up.

It still "begs the question"....


What elected positions have you held in your Local, Or the Teamsters ?



-Bug-

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It still "begs the question"....


What elected positions have you held in your Local, Or the Teamsters ?



-Bug-

Not at all. That is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and a poor attempt to discredit my argument by trying to make it seem like I have no credibility. This is ad hominem fallacy. These posts only serve to harm your own credibility, so keep it up.

 

[Benben]

But, the 54% of the members that voted no didn't have the ability to strike.
The bottom line is.... the voter participation was an embarrassment.
When a pitiful 120K members couldn't even bother to be involved in their own
contract, what did you think would happen ?

You have been asked multiple times by multiple people what the participation rate was for; A. Full timers and B. Part timers. All you do is run off at the mouth about the "horrible, embarrassing" voting rates.
What'cha hiding there mouth?

Great job, on only 22% of the members voting in the "strike authorization".
That's a big hand, to take to the table. (not)
Thanks.... TDU.

Are you saying DT was handcuffed by only 22% voting for the strike authorization?
How exactly did 22% affect the negotiations?

 

[Mugarolla]

then what you are saying is that Hoffa is bound by his interpretation of the constitution

While I do not agree with your opinion, I don't count.

His interpretation is the same as those of the IBT attorneys, Sean OB, FZ, DT and all the other Vice Presidents of the International.

And they all differ from yours.

Meaning you can't ignore the strike authorization

I didn't.

We did not get 2/3 of the membership to reject the final offer and authorize a strike, so the negotiating committee shall be required to accept the final offer.

Black and white, as you say.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Are you saying DT was handcuffed by only 22% voting for the strike authorization?
How exactly did 22% affect the negotiations?

The best I can figure from their nonsense is that tdu released the voter turnout for the strike authorization, and that somehow weakened the bargaining position. They ignore the fact that it more than met the 50% 2/3 threshold, so the strike was authorized, eliminating any requirement for the union to accept the offer. That reality doesn't fit their narrative, so they don't want to talk about it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

While I do not agree with your opinion, I don't count.

His interpretation is the same as those of the IBT attorneys, Sean OB, FZ, DT and all the other Vice Presidents of the International.

And they all differ from yours.



I didn't.

We did not get 2/3 of the membership to reject the final offer and authorize a strike, so the negotiating committee shall be required to accept the final offer.

Black and white, as you say.

We did authorize a strike in a separate vote. Why don't you understand that? Nevermind, I know.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

For anyone interested in long, boring reads involving legal history here's a few documents I dug up, pretty enlightening.

 

[Mugarolla]

We did authorize a strike in a separate vote. Why don't you understand that? Nevermind, I know.

The Constitution did not know that. Just because a strike vote was already taken does not nullify the Constitution.

The Constitution only expected a strike authorization if 2/3 rejected the final offer.

The earlier strike vote does not change needing 2/3 to reject the final offer and authorize a strike. So what? It was already authorized? Does not matter. We needed 2/3 to reject the offer or else it was passed.

So, if a strike vote was not already taken, you would agree with everybody else?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The Constitution did not know that. Just because a strike vote was already taken does not nullify the Constitution.

The Constitution only expected a strike authorization if 2/3 rejected the final offer.

The earlier strike vote does not change needing 2/3 to reject the final offer and authorize a strike. So what? It was already authorized? Does not matter. We needed 2/3 to reject the offer or else it was passed.

So, if a strike vote was not already taken, you would agree with everybody else?

The earlier strike vote meets the requirement set forth by the constitution. It's all in the same subsection. We failed to reject the offer under the 50% 2/3 provision, we authorized a strike in accordance with the 50% 2/3 provision. Nowhere does it say the contract vote overrides any previous strike authorization vote. Nowhere does it say a strike needs to be authorized twice.

The union had our authorization to call a strike, and they threw it in the garbage. The strike authorization made it so our circumstances did not meet the constitutional provisions for the NNC to be required to accept the offer. They should be following the renegotiating/revote procedures outlined in subsection b as allowed for by subsection c.

 

[Mugarolla]

The strike authorization made it so our circumstances did not meet the constitutional provisions for the NNC to be required to accept the offer.

OK.

That's where we, myself, Sean OB, FZ, DT, all the IBT VP's, all the IBT Attorneys and Hoffa himself, disagree with your interpretation.

 

[542thruNthru]

Does any of this arguing even matter? Doesn't the constitution also say the president (Hoffa) has the right to interpret the Constitution how he sees fit?

So even if what he did was not right. Legally our constitution says it was because Hoffa said it was.

 

[Mugarolla]

Doesn't the constitution also say the president (Hoffa) has the right to interpret the Constitution how he sees fit?

Basically, yes.

So even if what he did was not right.

This is my whole issue. People are saying his interpretation is wrong, that we got screwed by Hoffa, yet the Attorneys and all the other VP's say he is not wrong. And I believe all those high ranking officials before I believe the interpretation of a truck driver.

I am not a Hoffa fan, but blame the Constitution, and those who changed it, don't blame Hoffa.

Does any of this arguing even matter?

No, it does not and it seems to be a done issue, but I'm bored.

Oh wait, it may not be done. I think someone on this site wants to take Hoffa on and file charges.

This could get comical.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I am not a Hoffa fan

Sure buddy...

 

[Mugarolla]

Sure buddy...

You're creative buddy.....here, I'll help you out. Just a small sample.

To summarize, Hoffa is saying it cannot change. Lie. It can. Do I think it will change. No. But it can.

My turn. Do you think Hoffa is misleading the members by saying this? Sounds like he is saying your health care is a done deal. Live with it. No mention of the possibility to override the NMUPSA language in the Ohio Rider. He is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Agree?

It was a letter to everyone covered under the Ohio Rider. Do you not think that the president of a union would fight for what his members want? Hoffa only sees that "extra" healthcare money with which to line his pockets. I think he wants another jet.

Yea, maybe the jet thing went a little too far. It was supposed to be just an exaggeration. But I cannot figure out why Hoffa wants this Ohio Rider passed so bad in total disregard of what the members want. I know he wants this contract settled, but if he listened to what we wanted, he could get our yes vote. He ain't listeneing.

Buster would have given in to the ones that were not settled if Hoffa didn't "impose" them. I would still be in my current health plan and would be much better off.

I agree. We can dump Hoffa and Hall in 2016 and make some contractual changes in 2018. Make the best of it for now and enforce what we have.

I agreed in another thread that it was a done deal and we need to work on removing Hoffa and Hall in 2016 and eliminating Teamcare in the UPS 2018 contract

Buster would have settled with the hold outs and let us keep our healthcare, but Hoffa wanted no part of that.

Actually I was forced into a concession by Hoffa. We were leading a good fight to keep our healthcare until Hoffa stuck his brown nose into it.

We will never know though because Hoffa imposed the rider without giving us a chance of not accepting Teamcare.

So thanks to Hoffa/Hall, we took a concession.

But Hoffa/Hall volunteered to take it off their hands and put us into Teamcare and worded the language for it in the master so that it could not be overrode by supplements.

If Hoffa/Hall would have said that they need everyone in Teamcare to keep it solvent, I would agree with you. But they did not. They dumped everyone else into Teamcare because the company wanted to charge a monthly premium for us to keep our insurance and Hall said we are not paying 1 cent.

Yes, some believed Hoffa when he said that Teamcare "mirrored" our existing plan and did not do any research on their own.

How stupid is it to cancel your coverage for a week here, or a week there. Hoffa never mentioned a word about this to us.

The reason the rest of the country got a retro check was that the raises were specified in the Master and it passed. It was not implemented until all supplements, riders and addendums were passed. (or should I say forced on us by Hoffa).

Problem is, Hoffa doesn't care. Take it out and we just suffer the same benefit cuts as everyone else in the Central States Pension.

From the letter that Hoffa sent Congress, he is that UPS got a concession from the Kline-Miller amendment. He wants UPS to pay billions. Paybacks are hell.

He better not be in office in 2018 or we are going to get screwed.

It looks like Hoffa is selling us out again.

But I will not roll over and let Hoffa stick it to me without a fight.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You're creative buddy.....here, I'll help you out. Just a small sample.

 

[DOK]

The union should bring in iPads and make teamsters vote, we all know how ups does this for their survey. We can get a near 100% vote if teamsters would vote at work, before or after a PCM.

Then they won’t be able to manipulate the results, silly.

 

[Mugarolla]

View attachment 225812

Happens to you a lot, doesn't it?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Does any of this arguing even matter? Doesn't the constitution also say the president (Hoffa) has the right to interpret the Constitution how he sees fit?

So even if what he did was not right. Legally our constitution says it was because Hoffa said it was.

This is where us poor, dumb truck drivers would have trouble understanding our rights. It's taken me two months to dig up this info, trying to figure out who had jurisdiction over disputes in these cases. It's not the NRLB, it's not OLMS, or even the DOL. Union constitutions are considered contracts between the union and the members. As such it falls under the jurisdiction of the courts.

Whether it's the state courts' or federal court's jurisdiction is a matter of contention, but the supreme court has consistently ruled that disputes over union constitutions fall under the federal court's jurisdiction. Since they are deemed contracts, contract theory applies. I can just about guarantee that the clausrs that give the general president and executive board final say and the right to make changes when they feel like it would be seen as unenforcable.

The courts have final say over interpretations of contracts, and any clause that gives one party the right to make changes without approval of the other party would be thrown out. According to contract theory, vaguely written clauses will be interpreted in the favor of the party that did not write it. The union wrote the constitution, and article 12 is extremely vaguely written, so....