Supplement status

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Upstate N.Y. Will be mailed mid January. It has very little change. BA said it's a NO vote again. We are thinking the local will do the same as the national. If under 50%. Shove it thru

Then you all gotta vote.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Let me dumb it down step-by-step for you so that you don't go around in circles with me:

-In 2013, the master agreement was ratified by the membership by a majority vote.
-In 2013, supplementals were rejected by the membership with less than a 50% turnout.
-In 2013, those supplementals were still re-negotiated.

I really don't understand what part of this language you can't understand.


"In the event such a special rider or supplement is not approved by the affected members, and the master agreement is ratified, the supplemental negotiating committee shall meet with the master negotiating committee to identify the issues which resulted in the rejection of the special rider or supplement. The master negotiating committee shall assist the supplemental negotiating committee when bargaining resumes with the employer in an effort to resolve the issues."


The circumstances were different in 2013, than they were in 2018.

Subsequently, the IBT applied the appropriate language.... both times.


I can't understand why your still crying about this.

And yet, no one (including Sean O or Fred Z) has done anything about it,

if in fact, the IBT was wrong in applying the constitutional language.

Not even TDU.



-Bug-

 

[3 done 3 to go]

Then you all gotta vote.

Yeah right. If the whole country can't. No way one state will. We all know what side the union is on. Not the membership. Part timers don't vote.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Yeah right. If the whole country can't. No way one state will. We all know what side the union is on. Not the membership. Part timers don't vote.

It's sad.

 

[just chillin']

if the same amount of people vote and they vote the same way it will be rejected once again. the 6 supplements that are holding this up all passed the 50% 2/3 rule. other supplements as well as the master were voted down but did not pass this rule and were implemented. as these 6 supplements get re-voted, they will all have to pass the same rule again to be rejected or they will be implemented as well. the big question will be if they pass the rule and legitimately get voted down a second time, will Hoffa implement them anyway for the so called greater good

 

[Superteeth2478]

I really don't understand what part of this language you can't understand.


"In the event such a special rider or supplement is not approved by the affected members, and the master agreement is ratified, the supplemental negotiating committee shall meet with the master negotiating committee to identify the issues which resulted in the rejection of the special rider or supplement. The master negotiating committee shall assist the supplemental negotiating committee when bargaining resumes with the employer in an effort to resolve the issues."


The circumstances were different in 2013, than they were in 2018.

Subsequently, the IBT applied the appropriate language.... both times.


I can't understand why your still crying about this.

And yet, no one (including Sean O or Fred Z) has done anything about it,

if in fact, the IBT was wrong in applying the constitutional language.

Not even TDU.



-Bug-

So how are the circumstances different?

 

[Crosscutters]

I don’t understand why it takes so long to renegotiate and then vote again. My goodness it’s 2018 not 1918.

 

[Wontmake9.5]

I don’t understand why it takes so long to renegotiate and then vote again. My goodness it’s 2018 not 1918.

Peak season brotatochip.

 

[Benben]

"In the event such a special rider or supplement is not approved by the affected members, and the master agreement is ratified, the supplemental negotiating committee shall meet with the master negotiating committee to identify the issues which resulted in the rejection of the special rider or supplement. The master negotiating committee shall assist the supplemental negotiating committee when bargaining resumes with the employer in an effort to resolve the issues."

So were they "assisted" or was it just rammed up their ?

 

[Mugarolla]

So how are the circumstances different?

In 2013, the Master was ratified by the membership.

In 2018, the Master was not ratified by the
Membership.

 

[Bubblehead]

In 2013, the Master was ratified by the membership.

In 2018, the Master was not ratified by the
Membership.

That caveat does not explain why the IBT Constitution was interpreted differently in 2013 than it was in 2018, in regards to numerous supplements.

It's all about as clear as mud.

 

[Mugarolla]

That caveat does not explain why the IBT Constitution was interpreted differently in 2013 than it was in 2018, in regards to numerous supplements.

It's all about as clear as mud.

Sort of, possibly, maybe, probably, hell, I don't know.

In 2013, the Master was ratified (by the membership), so the failed Supplements get renegotiated.

"In the event such a special rider or supplement is not approved by the affected members, and the master agreement is ratified, the supplemental negotiating committee shall meet with the master negotiating committee to identify the issues which resulted in the rejection of the special rider or supplement. The master negotiating committee shall assist the supplemental negotiating committee when bargaining resumes with the employer in an effort to resolve the issues."

The Constitution does not specify what happens if the Master is not ratified by the affected members and the Supplements are also not ratified.

The power of the President.

Interesting though, that nobody in power, SOB, FZ, TDU, all the other VP's, are not pushing this angle.

So, apparently, they also believe the Constitution is not specific if the membership does not ratify the contract, and that the General President has the final say.

But you are correct. I have not heard him say specifically that this argument is why he interpreted this year's voting differently.

Maybe the Constitution needs amending to this specific this scenario. The Master not ratified by the affected members and the Supplements also not ratified by the affected members.

There would then be no controversy.......although ambiguity in language is also a good thing....

 

[40 and out]

Why would UPS negotiate any improvements when the union is probably going to impose it anyway? Fortunate to get what we're getting with the way our union is.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The Constitution does not specify what happens if the Master is not ratified by the affected members and the Supplements are also not ratified.

The IBT broadly interpreted the 2/3 rule.

(and notice how quiet TDU is)


Thats why, the supplements that had more than a 50% turnout were sent back

for further negotiations.

The power of the President.

Absolutely.


"Any question arising from the application or interpretation of this Section shall be

decided by the General President, whose decision shall be final."


"Section 6. The General Executive Board is empowered to amend, delete, or add to this

Article if at any time it believes such action will be in the interests of the International

Union or its subordinate bodies."


While I keep harping on this, if the members had really "shown their voice"

by voting.... we wouldn't have this confusion, Or this discussion.


With the previous announcement from Sean O and Fred Z, prior to conclusion

of negotiations.... don't you think it's plausible, the IBT General Executive Board

and the General President were heeding the advice of the IBT legal team ?


My comments aren't directed at @Mugarolla or @Bubblehead.

Just a personal opinion, directed towards the membership in general.



-Bug-

 

[Frankie's Friend]

That caveat does not explain why the IBT Constitution was interpreted differently in 2013 than it was in 2018, in regards to numerous supplements.

It's all about as clear as mud.

It's clear to Freight members.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

It's clear to Freight members.

UPS Freight members ?


That's funny.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

The IBT broadly interpreted the 2/3 rule.

(and notice how quiet TDU is)


Thats why, the supplements that had more than a 50% turnout were sent back

for further negotiations.





Absolutely.


"Any question arising from the application or interpretation of this Section shall be

decided by the General President, whose decision shall be final."


"Section 6. The General Executive Board is empowered to amend, delete, or add to this

Article if at any time it believes such action will be in the interests of the International

Union or its subordinate bodies."


While I keep harping on this, if the members had really "shown their voice"

by voting.... we wouldn't have this confusion, Or this discussion.


With the previous announcement from Sean O and Fred Z, prior to conclusion

of negotiations.... don't you think it's plausible, the IBT General Executive Board

and the General President were heeding the advice of the IBT legal team ?


My comments aren't directed at @Mugarolla or @Bubblehead.

Just a personal opinion, directed towards the membership in general.



-Bug-

The only issue that trumps all of this posting about legalities and the power of the GP is...

the company stated that they were going to go back to the table to renegotiate due to the fact that the CBA was rejected but the IBT said nope, we are done.

A concerted response staged by willing participants?

It has angered many members.
I'll probably never know the reasons behind what goes on in these caveats and I am sure there's probably more to the story but to the common member on the street it sucks.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

UPS Freight members ?


That's funny.

To you maybe.
Freight lost support when our cba was imposed.
That's my point in case you didnt understand what I meant.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

To you maybe.
Freight lost support when our cba was imposed.
That's my point in case you didnt understand what I meant.

UPS Freight got cold feet, when the company emptied the system prior to

the second vote. And then, had a record turnout on the second vote.


Voting yes....


All the loudmouth "vote no" people jumped ship.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

To you maybe.
Freight lost support when our cba was imposed.
That's my point in case you didnt understand what I meant.

Uh oh- you might get asked what elected office you hold at your local union. Lol.