Sean’s Second Letter

F

Frankie's Friend

Guest
My bet is that the teamsters will go on record, stating that the contract was improperly handled in 2013, but this time, in 2018, they got it right.
It only matters if they get it right today. If it had been done wrong in the past, that has no bearing. Any attorney will tell you that.
Yes like walking past your dog every day until one day you decide to kick him in the head because you're allowed to... because he's your dog.
The dog learned to trust you.

So the membership trusted the IBT to continuously handle our contract like in the past but this year we got kicked in the head. Makes perfect sense to all of us.
 

1989

Well-Known Member
Yes like walking past your dog every day until one day you decide to kick him in the head because you're allowed to... because he's your dog.
The dog learned to trust you.

So the membership trusted the IBT to continuously handle our contract like in the past but this year we got kicked in the head. Makes perfect sense to all of us.
It’s not at all like this gibberish.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!

So now he is not mentioning anything about not being a final offer?

Didn't he bring that argument up earlier?

Now he just says an over-literal reading of a vague, obscure and ambiguous provision?

He's been an elected Teamster officer for how long, appointed originally as UPS lead negotiator, and doesn't know what's been in the Constitution for 30 some years?

I do agree with him though that the Supplements should not have been subject to the 2/3 rule
 

Bubblehead

My Senior Picture
So now he is not mentioning anything about not being a final offer?

Didn't he bring that argument up earlier?

Now he just says an over-literal reading of a vague, obscure and ambiguous provision?

He's been an elected Teamster officer for how long, appointed originally as UPS lead negotiator, and doesn't know what's been in the Constitution for 30 some years?

I do agree with him though that the Supplements should not have been subject to the 2/3 rule
Perhaps politically, he's right where he wants to be???
 

wide load

Starting wage is a waste of time.
So now he is not mentioning anything about not being a final offer?

Didn't he bring that argument up earlier?

Now he just says an over-literal reading of a vague, obscure and ambiguous provision?

He's been an elected Teamster officer for how long, appointed originally as UPS lead negotiator, and doesn't know what's been in the Constitution for 30 some years?

I do agree with him though that the Supplements should not have been subject to the 2/3 rule
You’d have to ask Sean.
 

IGotARock

Well-Known Member
Perhaps politically, he's right where he wants to be???
No point trying to fix this while Hoffa's in office. Better to have an extremely disgruntled, angry votership in a couple years.

Still sucks to be us right now, though. And if Sean is willing to sell us down the river right now for political gain...well. That sounds like more of the same, sadly.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
And if Sean is willing to sell us down the river right now for political gain...well. That sounds like more of the same, sadly.

Just the opposite.

He needs to "help" us, or at least appear to help us, not sell us down the river, to get any political gain out of this.

It just seems that he changed his tactics a little.

Not going straight after Hoffa now, but going after "obscure, vague and ambiguous provisions in the Constitution.

Playing both sides?

Maybe. But there is a remote possibility that we could benefit.

Go get 'em, Sean.
 

IGotARock

Well-Known Member
Just the opposite.

He needs to "help" us, or at least appear to help us, not sell us down the river, to get any political gain out of this.

It just seems that he changed his tactics a little.

Not going straight after Hoffa now, but going after "obscure, vague and ambiguous provisions in the Constitution.

Playing both sides?

Maybe. But there is a remote possibility that we could benefit.

Go get 'em, Sean.
Don't get me wrong. He's got my vote. Because we need change, and of the highest order.
 
Top