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
Sylvester caught red handed.
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="Inthegame" data-source="post: 2667495" data-attributes="member: 37112"><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Inthegame, post: 2667495, member: 37112"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Sylvester caught red handed.
Top