Not that we need another imposed contract thread....but I’m confused

[542thruNthru]

...and when the grievance falls flat on it's face because the union and the company both wanted the contract to pass...then file with the NLRB?

I think we only have two options after that. Call the A Team or the Super Friends!

 

[Dulce Bombón]

What rules govern collective bargaining for a contract?

After employees choose a union as a bargaining representative, the employer and union are required to meet at reasonable times to bargain in good faith about wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects. Some managerial decisions such as subcontracting, relocation, and other operational changes may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining, but the employer must bargain about the decision's effects on unit employees.

It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.

If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.

The parties' obligations do not end when the contract expires. They must bargain in good faith for a successor contract, or for the termination of the agreement, while terms of the expired contract continue.

A party wishing to end the contract must notify the other party in writing 60 days before the expiration date, or 60 days before the proposed termination. The party must offer to meet and confer with the other party and notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute if no agreement has been reached by that time.

How is "good faith" bargaining determined?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of NLRB cases dealing with the issue of the duty to bargain in good faith. In determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances. The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.

The additional requirement to bargain in "good faith" was incorporated to ensure that a party did not come to the bargaining table and simply go through the motions. There are objective criteria that the NLRB will review to determine if the parties are honoring their obligation to bargain in good faith, such as whether the party is willing to meet at reasonable times and intervals and whether the party is represented by someone who has the authority to make decisions at the table.

Conduct away from the bargaining table may also be relevant. For instance if an Employer were to make a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employees employment without bargaining, that would be an indication of bad faith.


———The above text is taken from the NLRB website. I am underlining two separate statements, want to see if anyone is paying attention.

My take is this, why would the Union, do exactly what the company is legally allowed to do, based on the Taft Hartley act and the information provided above? My point being, maybe the union is putting on a front knowing the company was going to do this anyway?



Second underlined section, did the union only go through the motions and not bargain in good faith? This would seem to be our only out.


@Bubblehead and @BigUnionGuy I would appreciate your responses.

No more than this them

A spokesman for UPS said Monday that the company planned to sit down with union negotiators to discuss local issues at the 10 local/regional units that had rejected the union.

But whether it’s necessary to talk about 10 separate agreements is unclear, based on a web posting by the TDU.

 

[hellfire]

No more than this them

A spokesman for UPS said Monday that the company planned to sit down with union negotiators to discuss local issues at the 10 local/regional units that had rejected the union.

But whether it’s necessary to talk about 10 separate agreements is unclear, based on a web posting by the TDU.

You can go away now

 

[MenInBrown]

They came to a agreement and it was voted on. We didn't get the results we wanted because of our constitution. I honestly don't believe we have a "good faith" argument.

This seems to just be saying that legally the company has to bargain and also not just pretend to bargain.

Though I'm a big dumb animal so I could be wrong.

I think what everyone is confused about is, our constitution gives them the right to push through with a technicality. But, it also gives them the right to go back to the negotiating table. There is nothing in the constitution that says the contract is automatically pushed through with less than 50% turnout. That is why UPS released a statement that it got voted down. The problem is the union did not want to go with its members, and the majority of its members. The union went against their very own members. After the union told UPS they would just push it through, all of a sudden UPS declares that their first and only offer was their final offer. Corruption on so many levels. friend the teamster leaders.

 

[Bubblehead]

This one's for you @BigUnionGuy....

The History of the “2/3 Rule” on Teamster Contracts

With his brief history lesson, we need to ask ourselves how this Negotiating Committee and General Executive Board has only now found the language in Article 12 to be "clear", rigid, and without recourse.

So are we to believe Denis T to be a more sage negotiator and interpretor of the IBT Constitution than Ken H was 5 years ago???

If this Constitutional language is truly "clear" and rigid (which it isn't), why wasn't it enacted during the 9 month odyssey that was our last contract negotiations in 2013-14???

To me, this isn't as much about bargaining in "good faith" between the Company and Union, rather a breath of the Union's "Duty of Fair Representation" to it's members (and it's future members)....while potentially being fraud and/or collusion with the Company.

 

[Inthegame]

This one's for you @BigUnionGuy....

The History of the “2/3 Rule” on Teamster Contracts

Assuredly no bias in that "factual" report.

So are we to believe Denis T to be a more sage negotiator and interpretor of the IBT Constitution than Ken H was 5 years ago???

You'd be alone in that Team picture.

If this Constitutional language is truly "clear" and rigid (which it isn't), why wasn't it enacted during the 9 month odyssey that was our last contract negotiations in 2013-14???

Because Ken H was running for GST 3 years later, and Denis T isn't.

To me, this isn't as much about bargaining in "good faith" between the Company and Union, rather a breath of the Union's "Duty of Fair Representation" to it's members (and it's future members)....while potentially being fraud and/or collusion with the Company.

Breach of Duty of Fair Representation?

A midget could effortlessly leap over that low bar.

Did the IBT meet with UPS to renegotiate an expired agreement?
Did the parties agree on a TA and put it to vote before members?
Did the IBT then use Constitutional mechanisms to apply the results of the vote.

Yes, yes and yes. Game over.

Many are unhappy with the process but unless you can prove otherwise, you lessen yourself with reckless charges of "fraud and collusion".

Besides referencing, are you now writing for TDU?

 

[Wontmake9.5]

I think we only have two options after that. Call the A Team or the Super Friends!

What about the justice league?

 

[Bubblehead]

Assuredly no bias in that "factual" report.
You'd be alone in that Team picture.
Because Ken H was running for GST 3 years later, and Denis T isn't.

Breach of Duty of Fair Representation?

A midget could effortlessly leap over that low bar.

Did the IBT meet with UPS to renegotiate an expired agreement?
Did the parties agree on a TA and put it to vote before members?
Did the IBT then use Constitutional mechanisms to apply the results of the vote.

Yes, yes and yes. Game over.

Many are unhappy with the process but unless you can prove otherwise, you lessen yourself with reckless charges of "fraud and collusion".

Besides referencing, are you now writing for TDU?

First, I prefaced the TDU link as "for @BigUnionGuy?(a bit of a poke)...but I would be interested to know what parts of the article that you would refute?

Secondly, where was this clarity of constitutional langauge 5 years ago when it took the General Executive Board 9 months to enact Article 12 section 6, not section 2, of the IBT Constitution and why is that language seemingly out of play now?

Section 6. The General Executive Board is empow- ered to amend, delete, or add to thisArticle if at any time it believes such action will be in the interests of the International Union or its subordinate bodies.

How convenient it all seems.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

First, I prefaced the TDU link as "for @BigUnionGuy?...but I would be interested to know what parts of the article that you would refute?

I take anything TDU says with a grain of salt.

They have.... time and time again.... been known to spew half truths and lies.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

I think what everyone is confused about is, our constitution gives them the right to push through with a technicality. But, it also gives them the right to go back to the negotiating table. There is nothing in the constitution that says the contract is automatically pushed through with less than 50% turnout. That is why UPS released a statement that it got voted down. The problem is the union did not want to go with its members, and the majority of its members. The union went against their very own members. After the union told UPS they would just push it through, all of a sudden UPS declares that their first and only offer was their final offer. Corruption on so many levels. friend the teamster leaders.

I hope that the Big Union Guy.... doesn't see this. Lol.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

I take anything TDU says with a grain of salt.

They have.... time and time again.... been known to spew half truths and lies.

Thank goodness.... the Teamster leadership.... doesn't do that. Lol.

 

[Bubblehead]

I take anything TDU says with a grain of salt.

They have.... time and time again.... been known to spew half truths and lies.

Seriously Bug, the "liar, liar, pants half on fire" retort???

It's a bit disappointing when I set you up (in light of you being a self proclaimed Teamsters historian and all) and all you can come up with is a grade school (or congressional) response.




~Bbbl~™

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

Seriously Bug, the "liar, liar, pants half on fire" retort???

It's a bit disappointing when I set you up (in light of you being a self proclaimed Teamsters historian and all) and all you can come up with is a grade school (or congressional) response.




~Bbbl~™

But, but, he has.... all those years of seniority.... at UPS. (He has the plaques). Lol.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Seriously Bug, the "liar, liar, pants half on fire" retort???

It's a bit disappointing when I set you up (in light of you being a self proclaimed Teamsters historian and all) and all you can come up with is a grade school (or congressional) response.

Actually, when I quoted and responded to your post.... you were editing it.

And where else can you get historically correct information ?

Your Local ?

(I haven't seen a dime yet from PayPal)

But, but, he has.... all those years of seniority.... at UPS. (He has the plaques). Lol.

I'm glad you're paying attention.

 

[Inthegame]

First, I prefaced the TDU link as "for @BigUnionGuy?(a bit of a poke)...but I would be interested to know what parts of the article that you would refute?

Think about the last time you were at an event and later read about the goings on?
Too many times in my experience has TDU gotten close to facts but then bends outcomes to build their credibility, avoiding events that interfere with their agenda.
I live in fantasy land where I expect honesty. I'm disappointed often.

 

[DirtySouth]

Assuredly no bias in that "factual" report.
You'd be alone in that Team picture.
Because Ken H was running for GST 3 years later, and Denis T isn't.

Breach of Duty of Fair Representation?

A midget could effortlessly leap over that low bar.

Did the IBT meet with UPS to renegotiate an expired agreement?
Did the parties agree on a TA and put it to vote before members?
Did the IBT then use Constitutional mechanisms to apply the results of the vote.

Yes, yes and yes. Game over.

Many are unhappy with the process but unless you can prove otherwise, you lessen yourself with reckless charges of "fraud and collusion".

Besides referencing, are you now writing for TDU?

Very well said.

And for the record, I think @Bubblehead would be a much better writer for TDU than Ken P.

And that's not a slam on Bubblehead.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

What about the justice league?

Almost the same thing as the Superfriends, minus shape shifting twins and a monkey.

 

[Bubblehead]

Think about the last time you were at an event and later read about the goings on?
Too many times in my experience has TDU gotten close to facts but then bends outcomes to build their credibility, avoiding events that interfere with their agenda.
I live in fantasy land where I expect honesty. I'm disappointed often.

I don't disagree, but also realize that TDU doesn't have the market cornered in that regard.

Take for instance this article from the IBT UPS Rising site, which covers some similar subject matter:

UPS and UPS Freight Contract Ratification Update - UPS Rising

I especially like the the "half truth" slant the IBT uses when representing that this language was adopted in 1991, rather than saying it was amended to a watered down version that year as reported by TDU.

My favorite "spin" though has to be when they likened the process to that of the Presidential Electorial College.

In the end, by reading it all and not dismissing either, while filtering out the nonsense from any entity, I become better rounded and more knowledgeable.

This is how I stay out of the "fantasy land" you described.

 

[Bubblehead]

Very well said.

And for the record, I think @Bubblehead would be a much better writer for TDU than Ken P.

And that's not a slam on Bubblehead.

I don't have TDU bookmarked on my computer, tablet, or cell phone and generally only read their articles when linked elsewhere.

It's not that I have any angst (or love) for the organization, I just find their articles too short and often incomplete, as well as wrought with agenda.
I do however like the links to their sources that are often embedded in the text.

Limiting yourself to one set of specific sources for your news and information severely limits your frame of reference and creates artificial biases.

That's just not for me and the reason that I won't expect TDU or the IBT to knock on my door anytime soon to author any article, but I appreciate your acknowledgement in your post.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

Actually, when I quoted and responded to your post.... you were editing it.

And where else can you get historically correct information ?

Your Local ?

(I haven't seen a dime yet from PayPal)





I'm glad you're paying attention.

Yes. You seem to be a lot like.... our BA. Very fond.... of UPS.