Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Next Contract vote...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 3854675" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>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:</p><p>"The failure of such membership to reject the fnal [sic] offer <em><u>and</u></em> [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"</p><p>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 <em>were</em> "required" to accept the offer. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 3854675, member: 63706"] 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 [I][U]and[/U][/I] [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 [I]were[/I] "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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Next Contract vote...
Top