TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by ZJ NOMAD, Jun 6, 2013.


    ZJ NOMAD New Member

    first off i'm voting NO! on this contract, i'am of local 396, and i'm looking out for my future/family. The reason for the question is when ever I need some information I log in to browncafe or TDU and i get it, with out much trouble - on the other hand my local BA or stewards cater to a select few, and BS and throw under the bus the rest of us. Opinion's anybody.
  2. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

    Your getting inaccurate information from your sources. 50% of the time, TDU is right 2% of the time. Brown Cafe is composed of about 80% of TDUers. I call bullshét on your post. This is a poor effort to "talk up" TDU and promote an organization that was started by a man that is a communist, who has not paid union dues in 38 years, was investigated by the FBI for attempting to overthrow the government and laid the ground work to form a multi marking scheme in order to collect his own dues from people. I don't even know what your last sentence means. Lol
  3. realbrown1

    realbrown1 Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.

    Re: TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

    He's getting information from TDU and BC. The Union B.A.'s are giving him zilch. Sort of says it all.
  4. Anonymous 10

    Anonymous 10 Guest

    There's always three sides to every story.
  5. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll


    First off, you are correct. In our yards, local 396 business agents have been misrepresenting the "facts" of the T.A. right from the jump. Lets start with brother Turner. Turner comes to the yard on the day the T.A. is announced, and he is telling the members:

    1) "your insurance is going to stay the same and there will be no changes to it" (even when pressed, he confirms it again)

    2) "there will be no split raises in this contract" ( again, when pressed, he confirms it over and over)

    3) "All part timers are getting bumped to $11.00 an hour" ( leaving out that includes the 1.00 skill pay)

    These turned out to be all misrepresentations of the facts.

    How about brother Cornejo? Lets see what he had to say in the yards:

    1) "the insurance stays the same, we are not changing coverage, its only going to be administered by a different agency" (when pressed, repeats same)
    "UPS wants out of the insurance business so we going to create a new administrator but you keep the same plan" (when pressed, cant explain it)

    2) "there will be no split raises in this contract" (when pressed, repeats same over and over)

    3) "all part timers are getting a bump to $11.00 an hour" ( no mention of the 1.00 skill pay)

    4) "9.5 language now covers all drivers" ( when pressed, says he doesnt have all the details)

    5) "the company cant use technology anymore against drivers" ( when pressed, says he doesnt have all the details)

    These ALL turn out to be misrepresentations of the facts.

    Agents Castro, Nishi, Truman ALL REPEATED the same crap in the yards.

    Especially agent TRUMAN, who comes to the feeder department and gets himself involved in pissing contests when the members are more informed than he is on every issue. TRUMAN continues to maintain (well at least before Brother Marshall came in and contradicted him) that this insurance is exactly the same as what we have already. Feeder drivers are giving him more than he can handle on this issue.

    Then we have our principle officer Ron H. Two general membership meetings ago, he takes the podium and says that: "i dont have all the information on the contract, but from what I hear, its a strong contract"...."I cant really get into details cause I dont really have it in front of me".... " I cant explain the insurance fully, cause we are waiting for the details of the plan to emerge but let me say that we are fighting for you in local 396"..... "we didnt want to be a part of the C6 central states plan, because that plan isnt as good as the plan you are on now"..." we are going to create our own plan that is way better than the C6 plan but I cant tell you about it because its going to take 6 months to figure it out"....

    Then, he says this doozy that is suppose to sound like he is a real fighter for the part timer:

    QUOTE: "I am fighting for our part timers, its all about our part timers. UPS is trying to hurt our part timers but I wont stand for it!" ( obligatory clapping ) "Everything about this contract is about protecting the part timers!" ... "you know, the company wanted to take part timer progression to 7 years, but I said F--K that, and I got in trouble with the teamsters"..."They wanted 7 years but I got them to take 4 years"...

    This is where it gets funny. The "Stinks and 407's" in the crowd start clapping and hollaring like he just won the super bowl. But what did he really say? Rather than just saying, "HEY, I CONCEEDED to ANOTHER YEAR OF PROGRESSION FOR THE PART TIMERS, THE SECOND YEAR in two contracts"..... he tries a play on words that makes it sound like he did the part timers a FAVOR!

    Really RON? You fought hard to increase progression ANOTHER YEAR? Thats TWO years extended under YOUR watch RON. How hard of a fight is that?

    How about telling us you told the company to go F-itself when they tried to increase progression? That would be impressive. How about telling the company that you will strike them before you conceed anything further?

    How about NOT telling us how you got us $3.90 an hour over 5 years because of solid negotiations and instead, told us that by extending progression for part timers, you took that money out of their pockets and put into ours?

    I realize, that saying it in this fashion doesnt make it so impressive, but people have to understand what kind of shell game the union is playing on us.

    The brothers and sisters of local 396 are really doing their homework on issues. They are asking the right questions. They are seeking the right information. They are calling the Teamcare number and asking teamcare about coverage. They do not TRUST the that the local is being honest with us after the numerous misrepresentations of the facts everyday in the yards.

    When the Principle officer of local 396 cant take the microphone at his OWN contract meeting and recommend a YES vote on the contract what does that say about his leadership??? When the principle officer of the local brings in a surrogate to "field" his heat and avoids having to answer to the members questions, what does that say about his ability to lead?

    These are important things, and I also, am a NO VOTE.


  6. olympicking

    olympicking olympic_king

    That all depends on your hub. Olympic has great stewards that are independent from H.
  7. Inthegame

    Inthegame Well-Known Member

    Re: TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

    He's getting opinions from TDU and BC. He's getting facts from his BA. He can't handle the truth...
  8. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    There are things that happen on a daily basis that TDU has no clue of. It's called real union work. TDU uses a final jeopardy philosophy of even when you guess, make it sound smart, but understand its still a guess.
  9. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    TDU TDU TDU TDU TDU... you sound like a broken record. Out here, TDU is near non existent. While from time to time, some representatives from TDU will pass out some literature, I dont see the same TDU as you do.

    Its apparent, that when someone disagrees with you, you RUN to the TDU shoutouts.

    Why not post a link or a story that TDU posted that demonstrates the inaccuracy you speak of. Once you do that, I am sure the group will be convinced that you know what YOURE talking about.

    Until then, you sound like chicken little.


    Last edited: Jun 6, 2013
  10. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    First off, you validate my point *************************.
    You and Realbrown are the TDU OG cheerleaders.

    Here you go TOS ********. This took 30 seconds. Bust out the actual TA and compare TDU's wording to the TA. I'm sure you will find your spin.
    I'm sure you will fight tooth and nail to try to prove TDU right, when they are obviously far off.
    Lasted edited by : Jun 6, 2013
  11. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    Well, i am not sure what you attempted to prove with this link, because you failed to highlight the part that YOU claim is false? What you linked is a "subjective" opinion based upon the contract as written. But what I dont see, is any falsehood, so I am asking you TO POINT THAT OUT.

    Now, before you go crying "the sky is falling" , please note, that my record shows that I do not support TDU nor their candidates, but what i will say, is that they pretty much have some accurate info on their site.

    NOW, rather than name call as the moderators allow you to do without restraint, point us to the portion or portions of the link that you claim are invalid or lies..?

    Ill wait. In the meantime, I hope the mods edit your post to remove the personal insult contained in it.

    "First off, you validate my point when you make a jackass out of yourself"

  12. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

    It's pretty easy to do. Take your TA out. Compare TDUs claim to what in the TA.
    I don't need to post my opinion. I follow our contract. My point is the TA. It's in black and white. Should I go slower for you?
  13. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    Re: TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

    Again, for everyone to see, you CANT justify anything you say. I give you every opportunity to voice your points and you run and hide. What you linked was a subjective recap of the contract proposal, and you attempt to call it an "objective recap" and claim its false.

    I am not sure that you understand the difference between an OBJECTIVE RECAP and a SUBJECTIVE RECAP, and that really bothers me. Let me see if I can help you out, since you clearly FAILED at making or proving your point. For NOW, you stand CORRECTED.

    OBJECTIVE:[h=3]Adjective[edit][/h]objective (comparative more objective, superlative most objective)

    1. Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.
    2. Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.
    3. Based on observed facts.  [quotations ▼]
      • 1975, Constitution of Greece: Engagement of employees in the Public Administration and in the wider Public Sector, ... , shall take place either by competitive entry examination or by selection on the basis of predefined and objective criteria, and shall be subject to the control of an independent authority, as specified by law.
    4. (grammar) Of, or relating to a noun or pronoun used as the object of a verb.  [quotations ▼]
      • 1921, H. L. Mencken, The American Language: Let us now glance at the demonstrative and relative pronouns. Of the former there are but two in English, this and that, with their plural forms, these and those. To them, American adds a third, them, which is also the personal pronoun of the third person, objective case.


    [h=2]sub·jec·tive[/h] /səbˈdʒɛk[​IMG]tɪv/ Show Spelled [suh[​IMG][​IMG]b-jek-tiv] Show IPA adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).

    2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

    3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

    4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

    5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

    There is a difference between what you stated, and what you attempted to prove. That link from TDU was an overview with a SUBJECTIVE opinion and WAS NOT intended as a DIRECT representation of the written contract which would be OBJECTIVE.

    YOU attempt to mis represent what TDU states in that link and give yourself HERO status.

    What you really proved is that you DONT know what your talking about and your ignorance legitimized for all to see.

    Thanks, for the demonstration.


  14. rpoz11

    rpoz11 Member


    You sound like a desperate man seeking respect.

    You already lost mine !

  15. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    Damn, I was so craving it.
    How many Paffholes are on this site?
  16. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    Why do you change the questions after you get your answer? TDU posted false info. Anyone with a TA and the link I posted can see that. You can pull and twist all you like. But it's right these!
  17. stink219

    stink219 Well-Known Member

    So here. I know you cannot do this yourself on a TDU computer.

    TDU: The contract is very clear that the company does NOT need direct observation or corroborating evidence if a Teamster is terminated for “dishonesty.”

    TA Language: The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge.
  18. realbrown1

    realbrown1 Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.

    other corroborating evidence would mean----telematics?
  19. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    Once again, you demonstrate that you dont understand the written word. What TDU says, what I say, and what the intelligent thinking members say is the SAME THING.

    In this regard, TDU's posting is the correct explanation. THATS RIGHT. A member, who does not support TDU states that they are CORRECT with the explanation. Lets be clear. article 6 states that the company ONLY NEED TO PROVE THE FOLLOWING... AN INTENTIONAL ACT or an OMMISION to establish the the employee intended to defraud the company ( dishonesty )

    THERE IS NO CAVEAT that says THE COMPANY must confirm by direct observation ANYTHING.

    You are MIXING two separate paragraphs and attempting to make one paragraph out of them. Lets look at the whole context of article 6 and compare that to what YOU are representing to the folks on this board.


    Section 6. Technology and Discipline
    No employee shall be discharged if such discharge is based solely upon information received from GPS or any successor system
    unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company).

    The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge. The degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not be changed because of the use of GPS.

    The Company acknowledges that there have been problems with the utilization of technology in the past. Therefore, at the request of the Union’s Joint National Negotiating Committee Co-Chair a
    meeting will be scheduled with the Company Co-Chair to discuss any alleged misuse of technology for disciplinary purposes and what steps are necessary to remedy any misuse.

    You have mistaken sentences whether intentionally or ignorantly and you are WRONG.

    First, you have to understand that the first paragraph has NOTHING to do with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is "SELF DEFINING". In that, it contains the "defining clause" that separates it from the second paragraph. "(defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). "

    This you cannot ignore. It states the purpose of the language contained in the first paragraph. NOWHERE in the first paragraph does the company need direct observation or corroborating evidence other than information solely obtained from technological devices. All that is needed to be proven is either "an intentional act" or "an ommision" that proves that the employee intended on defrauding the company.

    THIS MAKES TDU CORRECT IN ITS ASSESSMENT in the link you provided.

    Now the word "defrauding" is too vague and general to be used. This makes it a BAD WORD.

    Where you are in ERR is in the second paragraph. What you are claiming is the INCORRECT usage of the sentence structure. You stated:

    "TA Language: The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge."

    This sentence applies to "ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS" other than the violations in the first paragraph. You cannot ignore the words "ANY OTHER" as they are the CAVEAT of the sentence.

    In cases other than violations where the company bases a discharge on technology, they must have direct observation along with "other" corroborating evidence.

    This alone separates it from the first paragraph.

    No matter how you try to explain it, or how your B.A. told you, your UNDERSTANDING is WRONG and you are giving the WRONG advice.

    As to the issue of TDU being wrong on their site, you STAND CORRECTED AGAIN.




  20. ZJ NOMAD

    ZJ NOMAD New Member

    Re: TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS

    First of all i am not a communist, nor do I read anything communist, i love my country, but I disagree with Obamacare and this new TA. Promoting the TDU - I guess the only thing i'm saying is that not even my area stewards knew the details of this new TA, when I had already known most of the details way before my sortaisle steward did, all thanks to the TDU. I truly believe that the H slate tried or keeps trying to hide the complete details of this contract, and the BA is trying to brainwash most of the members of 396 by simply saying to vote yes. (Monkey see ! Monkey do ! ) style. Most members think that if the stewards are saying to vote yes, just because they are stewards then they should know best, right - hence - all members should vote yes too, right. Well Not me buddy I know where this TA is leading to, and I'm voting NO!

    Oh and let me give you and example of what I mean in my last sentence - one day in the sort aisle I decided to go to the rest room my lead told me NOT to go, and i still went to relieve myself , right. The next day my lead had a big fat warning letter typed out and all - the lead and steward call me up, the steward asks me what's going on, I said with what, he shows me the warning I read it, I told them that this is harrasment you guys can't hold me from going to the rest room it is California law - they both look at each other and laugh in front of my face, I could explain the BS that came after but my point is that the steward did not once give not one TIP to me of what i had to do next or did not explain to me or defend me at all. That is what I mean by - ( throwing members under the bus). By the way my steward is also known for being a HATER! LOL!

    This post is in reply to the STENCH that lurks in the BC!