Sylvester caught red handed.

[10 Pt]

And in your mind that mean a pair of cement shoes? Simply put: DUMB!

Evidently in your mind. You are not capable of being anything but a parrot and incapable of being truthful.
Cement shoes? Your Moronic response is true to form.

 

[wide load]

Evidently in your mind. You are not capable of being anything but a parrot and incapable of being truthful.
Cement shoes? Your Moronic response is true to form.

Not a parrot. I'm sorry but I'm not ignorant to deception. That's why I'm a dues paying member of TATDU!

 

[Inthegame]

What was the date of the "Two-person Committee Review"?

Check your timeline. No member voted no on anything in May of 2013.
Against what? How did the steward know what was in the proposal? The T/A hadn't even been voted on at the "Two-person Committee Review" (May 7, 2013 10 AM EST) yet and this guy was passing a vote no petition?

The infamous e-mail was sent by the UPS LM at 8:42AM EST that same morning. SO was at the Two-person mtg getting ready to assist in the presentation of the T/A to the attendees when this was sent. SO responded at 9:22 from the mtg.

 

[Inthegame]

Simply put: wrong.
TeamCare was presented in May of 2013.
So proposal meetings and discussion on the issues were never unveiled to stewards or members prior to May 2013?
It was published the third week of MAY 2013.

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. I didn't expect a thank you for clearing things up but you can't keep reinventing history. Very few union leaders not on the committee knew the complete terms of the T/A prior to the approval from the two-person review vote and acceptance (unanimous BTW, including Fred Z and Tim S) meeting held the same day our friend was passing his vote no petition.
Remember the many threads complaining of the information black out? Now you posit that the terms of the proposed CBA were common knowledge prior to the two-man? Can't have it both ways partner, that position is already taken by UPS Labor.
Anyway, proposal meetings were (or should have been) held prior to negotiations. Explanation meetings were held AFTER the two man vote on May 7, 2013.
The accepted proposed CBA published by the third week of May sounds about right, but on the morning of May 7th when the LM was concerned enough to e-mail SO, that steward knew zilch about what was in it.
It's a common thought amongst some union members that voting no on a first contract offer will always reap a better second offer. This is what I believe this steward was doing. There was no noble cause here, just a guy making noise.
I'll accept the real "vote no" movement as legitimate only after a reasoned review took place. It just could not have happened in this case.

 

[10 Pt]

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. I didn't expect a thank you for clearing things up but you can't keep reinventing history. Very few union leaders not on the committee knew the complete terms of the T/A prior to the approval from the two-person review vote and acceptance (unanimous BTW, including Fred Z and Tim S) meeting held the same day our friend was passing his vote no petition.
Remember the many threads complaining of the information black out? Now you posit that the terms of the proposed CBA were common knowledge prior to the two-man? Can't have it both ways partner, that position is already taken by UPS Labor.
Anyway, proposal meetings were (or should have been) held prior to negotiations. Explanation meetings were held AFTER the two man vote on May 7, 2013.
The accepted proposed CBA published by the third week of May sounds about right, but on the morning of May 7th when the LM was concerned enough to e-mail SO, that steward knew zilch about what was in it.
It's a common thought amongst some union members that voting no on a first contract offer will always reap a better second offer. This is what I believe this steward was doing. There was no noble cause here, just a guy making noise.
I'll accept the real "vote no" movement as legitimate only after a reasoned review took place. It just could not have happened in this case.

OK. THANK YOU. ("Partner").
The whole thing lit my fuse and regardless of who knew what when from where... I'm past it.
Thanks for all the effort. If I was in that local I'm sure I'd be privileged to more details but I'm not so I'll default to OK, have it your way.
(And as always, you're a gentleman.)

 

[10 Pt]

By the way, the TeamCare change was in front of members the third week of MAY 2013. The same month.

 

[LeadBelly]

When are we going to stop going round and round at each other. The election is certified and we have a contract coming up. Us looking all divided plays right into ups's hands.

 

[10 Pt]

When are we going to stop going round and round at each other. The election is certified and we have a contract coming up. Us looking all divided plays right into ups's hands.

OK.



















Just vote No one time then.

 

[Bubblehead]

The infamous e-mail was sent by the UPS LM at 8:42AM EST that same morning. SO was at the Two-person mtg getting ready to assist in the presentation of the T/A to the attendees when this was sent. SO responded at 9:22 from the mtg.

I remember you telling us that you had the "tentative offer well ahead of the two person meeting"?

Are trying to have us believe that this" kook" was lobbying against a contract that was yet to be revealed.....in any way shape or form?

 

[10 Pt]

I remember you telling us that you had the "tentative offer well ahead of the two person meeting"?

Are trying to have us believe that this" kook" was lobbying against a contract that was yet to be revealed.....in any way shape or form?

From the time I started working there the senior members always said "vote No on the first contract offer and it'll get better". It looks like they were all kooks too?
The first contract I voted on was in 97. You know how that went. We pretty much voted Yes after 15 days on the strike line but the contract was a good one.
This last one sucked the first time around so we voted No because it had many negative issues....Not because of someone's Vote No Facebook page.

 

[Inthegame]

I remember you telling us that you had the "tentative offer well ahead of the two person meeting"?

Very few union leaders not on the committee knew the complete terms of the T/A prior to the approval from the two-person review vote and acceptance (unanimous BTW, including Fred Z and Tim S) meeting held the same day our friend was passing his vote no petition.

Not that far ahead as the final offer didn't get the committee approval until very late April.

Are trying to have us believe that this" kook" was lobbying against a contract that was yet to be revealed.....in any way shape or form?

Give that man a teddy bear...
But I'm not sure why you think this fine, upstanding, thoughtful, deep thinking, highly experienced in contract construction and application part time steward is a kook but all I'm saying is the guy wasn't on the National Committee and unless he's clairvoyant he couldn't have known the T/A was going to be accepted at the two-person review, which meant the possibility existed that it could have been rejected AND NOT SENT OUT!!!
Even if he knew the complete contents (which I doubt he had as I had the only functional batphone), why the need to start a vote no petition on a contract before it was out and anyone else read it. Illogical.
Would you sign that petition? Wait a minute, where were you on the morning of May 7, 2013?
You have a right to an attorney, if you can't afford one...

 

[Bubblehead]

Not that far ahead as the final offer didn't get the committee approval until very late April.
Give that man a teddy bear...
But I'm not sure why you think this fine, upstanding, thoughtful, deep thinking, highly experienced in contract construction and application part time steward is a kook but all I'm saying is the guy wasn't on the National Committee and unless he's clairvoyant he couldn't have known the T/A was going to be accepted at the two-person review, which meant the possibility existed that it could have been rejected AND NOT SENT OUT!!!
Even if he knew the complete contents (which I doubt he had as I had the only functional batphone), why the need to start a vote no petition on a contract before it was out and anyone else read it. Illogical.
Would you sign that petition? Wait a minute, where were you on the morning of May 7, 2013?
You have a right to an attorney, if you can't afford one...

I'm not saying I "think" anything, rather trying to establish a "timeline" as you suggested we do?
If May 7th was the date of the email and the infamous "2 man meeting", then I see it as entirely possible that this Local had known of at least the wildly unpopular health-care changes.
For this reason alone, I don't see this guy needing a crystal ball to pen a petition.

As far as the petition, would I have signed it?........probably, but would not have been delusional enough to have thought it would have any effect coming from Podunk, Pennsylvania.

 

[Inthegame]

I'm not saying I "think" anything

Give yourself more credit, partner...

rather trying to establish a "timeline" as you suggested we do?
If May 7th was the date of the email and the infamous "2 man meeting", then I see it as entirely possible that this Local had known of at least the wildly unpopular health-care changes.

Of course you do, yet at that time you were one of the critics of the negotiators for the "information brownouts" and now you convolute a theory in which this part time steward (a kook from Podunk no less) had an inside track to detailed knowledge of the terms of an unreleased T/A not to mention an unpublished H&W SPD.
Hmmm...

 

[Bubblehead]

Give yourself more credit, partner...
Of course you do, yet at that time you were one of the critics of the negotiators for the "information brownouts" and now you convolute a theory in which this part time steward (a kook from Podunk no less) had an inside track to detailed knowledge of the terms of an unreleased T/A not to mention an unpublished H&W SPD.
Hmmm...

Absolutely, I was clamoring about the "information brownouts" ....but not at that time, it was subsequent and you didn't deny that to be the case.
I also subsequently echoed what my Local, and several other Local Officers and Agents told me.
They claimed they saw no details of the Contract Proposal until the day of show at the "2 Man Meeting".
This was their excuse for not being able to digest and question it at this so-called meeting.
They represented it as a "whirlwind" that only served to dumbfound most of the room and ended as fast as it started.

It was you who told me that you had the proposal before that meeting and had ample time to read it.
I believed you then as I do now, without questioning the disconnect of those other officers and agents.

So, do to whatever leak, clairvoyance, or prognosticating abilities this part time steward from Podunk, PA had; I will now rank him up there with Nostradamus or Edward Snowden, because with the aid of hindsight, he was certainly ahead of the crowd.

 

[wide load]

Absolutely, I was clamoring about the "information brownouts" ....but not at that time,

So selective brown outs? When it fits your needs?

 

[Inthegame]

Absolutely, I was clamoring about the "information brownouts" ....but not at that time, it was subsequent and you didn't deny that to be the case.
I also subsequently echoed what my Local, and several other Local Officers and Agents told me.
They claimed they saw no details of the Contract Proposal until the day of show at the "2 Man Meeting".
This was their excuse for not being able to digest and question it at this so-called meeting.
They represented it as a "whirlwind" that only served to dumbfound most of the room and ended as fast as it started.

It was you who told me that you had the proposal before that meeting and had ample time to read it.
I believed you then as I do now, without questioning the disconnect of those other officers and agents.

So, do to whatever leak, clairvoyance, or prognosticating abilities this part time steward from Podunk, PA had; I will now rank him up there with Nostradamus or Edward Snowden, because with the aid of hindsight, he was certainly ahead of the crowd.

I've stated several times that very few folks had the complete T/A prior to the Two-person review on May 7. Indeed, that was the point of bringing in the timeline. You've sustained my point. Thank you.

I also told you I had the only working batphone, so therefore I was privy to details prior to the review, however reading through 53 pages doesn't take that long. The agents present all had a pretty good understanding of the UPS NMA so the changes weren't mind numbing and relatively easy to follow. There was several questions from the floor that were answered to most attendees satisfaction. The meeting lasted almost three hours.

There was also a curious absence of questions from a few dissenting locals that made their opposition clear, not at that meeting but conveniently after the meeting in the safety of their home locals with their fingers high in the air checking for wind direction.

Since Nostradamus from Podunk was busy eliciting petitions, I guessing he wasn't there.

 

[10 Pt]

I've stated several times that very few folks had the complete T/A prior to the Two-person review on May 7. Indeed, that was the point of bringing in the timeline. You've sustained my point. Thank you.

I also told you I had the only working batphone, so therefore I was privy to details prior to the review, however reading through 53 pages doesn't take that long. The agents present all had a pretty good understanding of the UPS NMA so the changes weren't mind numbing and relatively easy to follow. There was several questions from the floor that were answered to most attendees satisfaction. The meeting lasted almost three hours.

There was also a curious absence of questions from a few dissenting locals that made their opposition clear, not at that meeting but conveniently after the meeting in the safety of their home locals with their fingers high in the air checking for wind direction.

Since Nostradamus from Podunk was busy eliciting petitions, I guessing he wasn't there.

Be fair.
There were rumblings about the union taking over our healthcare and many members didn't want that, for many reasons (and not to start a teamcare debate I'm only asserting that as a blanket statement) so IF that was the focal issue at that time the steward was ready to fight against it...even if it was seen as "illegal motion in the secondary".

The email (and the 18 supplements and riders that failed the first time) still shows that there was dissention within the ranks and if someone was a kook he got it right a couple of weeks before many others rebelled.
I understand the situation better now but you have to admit that we are a bunch of doubters and for good reason at times.
We can move on and hopefully should. We'll work together to gain back solidarity that was exploded since May of 2013 and beyond.
We've just got a bunch of harsh charges still pending against union leadership and feelings run deep as shown in the election of officers.

 

[10 Pt]

So selective brown outs? When it fits your needs?

Come on.

 

[10 Pt]

So selective brown outs? When it fits your needs?

Frankly speaking, there wasn't enough info shared early in many locals about healthcare changes and the day we had our healthcare meeting Obama told Hoffa "sorry", you're not special.
We need to look forward but due to where we work our instincts also remind us to look over our shoulder often. It's not totally our fault.

 

[10 Pt]

Maybe if we networked with our co-workers in our local and across other local lines we could rally for positive changes ahead of MAY 2018 and use the same energy to push thru our changes instead of fighting what gets offered after it's too late.
A little positive goes a long way and for too long we've been on the defensive instead of the offensive.
I know, I'm a master of the obvious. But it's true.