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
Supplement status
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="Superteeth2478" data-source="post: 3877847" data-attributes="member: 73024"><p>Disregarding the fact that this a late response to you since I've dropped off of the boards for a bit, seeing as how the Master Agreement being ratified allows the Master Negotiating Committee to determine the appropriate action to be taken, why was there a re-vote last time for the 2013 supplements but not this time around for not passing a 50% threshold? </p><p></p><p>Seeing as how apparently the membership "ratified" the Master Agreement this time around with too low of a voter turnout?</p><p></p><p>If the Master passing is a caveat in regard to failed supplemental agreements (which it is in accordance with the IBT Constitution, as you indicated), then what's with the inconsistent application of this language? Again, the Master Agreement was ratified this time around as well. The constitutional language doesn't differentiate between the master being imposed or outright ratified by a majority.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Superteeth2478, post: 3877847, member: 73024"] Disregarding the fact that this a late response to you since I've dropped off of the boards for a bit, seeing as how the Master Agreement being ratified allows the Master Negotiating Committee to determine the appropriate action to be taken, why was there a re-vote last time for the 2013 supplements but not this time around for not passing a 50% threshold? Seeing as how apparently the membership "ratified" the Master Agreement this time around with too low of a voter turnout? If the Master passing is a caveat in regard to failed supplemental agreements (which it is in accordance with the IBT Constitution, as you indicated), then what's with the inconsistent application of this language? Again, the Master Agreement was ratified this time around as well. The constitutional language doesn't differentiate between the master being imposed or outright ratified by a majority. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Supplement status
Top