You must have misread what I wrote. You can certainly state your opinion, just do it without insulting anyone.
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
- Thread starter ZJ NOMAD
- Start date
You must have misread what I wrote. You can certainly state your opinion, just do it without insulting anyone.
Ok. Fair enough.
Anonymous 10
Guest
Can't wait till this contract is ratified. I can't say it enough
'
I am amazed how you call Realbrown stupid, when his post is CRYSTAL CLEAR? You apparently, in your "hero mindset" cant understand simple english as he stated.
Let me break his post down for you, and see if we can help you out. Sentence by sentence, so you can actually give it some thought, ok?
"I said this before I am NOT TDU." <--- this is a declaration. It tells you that he is NOT TDU. You can stop referring to him as such.
" I will challenge them whenever I think they are wrong." <--- this is a promise. It tells you that he will counter what he hears from TDU if he believes it to be wrong.
" The only ones around here blindly following are you and 407." <--- Here you are just confused. It tells you that YOU are following blindly, someone, something, but he does not define what that is because it is unknown to him.
I happen to agree with him. You believe that you have it all figured out. You continue to keep referring to your B.A. as your source of information, so , we can only imagine that this is your source of knowledge.
Now, you countered his post with this, so lets break that down sentence by sentence.
"You think I and 407 blindly follow TDU?" <--- dumb question. thats not what he said at all. Either you dont comprehend well, or your just plain silly minded.
"I thought you were stupid and I'm sorry." <--- Really, you thought he was stupid? Youre sorry? Now you know how we feel about you.
"Now I have confirmed you are stupid, so thank you!" <--- You confirmed "he" was stupid? ***you hardly proved realbrown is stupid.
I hope this breakdown shows everyone just how "out of touch" you are from reality. You are so wrapped up in your "local" rah rah over this contract, you are unable to digest any other points of view.
A good example of listening and contributing, would be Brother 104Feeder. He may agree with me 100%, but he can profer an opinion or thought than can be understood and considered.
YOU on the other hand, simply have diarhea of the mouth.
I hope this helps.
Peace
TOS
What is you position at UPS?
I err'd in my previous post.
I said this " A good example of listening and contributing, would be Brother 104Feeder. He may agree with me 100%,"...
I meant to say "he may NOT agree with me 100%,"
Sorry for the err.
Peace
TOS
I said this " A good example of listening and contributing, would be Brother 104Feeder. He may agree with me 100%,"...
I meant to say "he may NOT agree with me 100%,"
Sorry for the err.
Peace
TOS
I am a pkg driver with 23years. I am also a steward. I also served as an executive officer of my local. Ive handled hundreds of cases.
'Lord Brown's bidding'
Well-Known Member
I am a little here, but......TOS, there is no "vagueness" when it comes to the word "defraud"; it is not a synonym for "dishonest". That is important. and not weak language.
Ok, but semantics is enough to allow a overly aggressive manager or supervisor to "stretch" an interpretation of the word "defraud". Why not just use the word "dishonesty".?
And the reason is, "dishonesty" isnt as open and shut as the word "defraud".
For example. I could be on my lunch, take an extra 10 minutes to clean my mirrors, or wipe my windshield, or adjust my load, and a manager "could" (hypothetically speaking) suggest that I was stealing time. If the word was "dishonesty", then the company would not have much of a chance to terminate me for "stealing time" whereas, if the word was "Defrauding", the company may be able to suggest that I intentionally delayed myself cleaning objects that didnt need cleaning and therefore, creating a delay, stealing time and thereby "defrauding" the company out of time.
As to the first point, the company wouldnt be able to prove that i was dishonest as there is Nothing dishonest about cleaning mirrors or windows or adjusting loads.
As to the second point, the company "COULD" prove that I was "defrauding" the company out of time, by electing ( an intentional act ) to clean objects that didnt need cleaning and causing an unnecesary delay that "extended" my day and took me into overtime that would have otherwise not been paid.
It depends on the strength of the labor manager pushing the case. Some of them are well trained, and can twist the contract into pretzels. On the other hand, some union reps who handle the same language can twist it back into a straight line.
We really have to question "well placed" words into any contract we enter into with caution.
You have to consider ALL aspects of the use of the words before agreeing to them. IN 2008, article 6 used technology language for the first time. It FAILED and succeeded at the same time. While represented to us that technology was only going to be used for "safety" purposes, the majority of members thought this was true. Unfortunately, the majority of the country "WASNT" on this technology at the time and didnt fear the language because they felt they didnt need to worry about it.
Well, 8 years later, hubs are on all kinds of technology and people are getting fired all over the place. Along with those firings comes arbitrations, and the company was losing there, so a re write was requested and agreed to by the Union.
The words "any intentional act or Ommision" are two critical words. If you do something on purpose and get caught by technology, and they ask you about it and you lie about it, then the company DOES NOT need any further evidence to discharge you for "defrauding" the company.
Those words were NOT in the 2008 language, and you can be your ash that the UNION didnt propose those words, they just agreed to them.
The qualifier "on a first offense" was removed because it was inhibiting UPS Labor efforts to make cases stick. Why the Union agreed to this is beyond me.
The company has clearly attempted to use technology to "spy" on its workers and some managers have even made it a point to watch a single driver day after day from their desks just waiting for something to pop up.
Next up, the company will introduce "INCAB" cameras to monitor us all day. They will say this will be for safety purposes, but you can imagine how far that will go. There is NOTHING in this agreement that precludes the company from installing them.
Think about it.
peace
TOS
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Originally Posted by Stink219
The mods felt that the weak must have some protection. So I apparently cannot state my opinion freely.
English must be Stinks 2nd language.
The mods felt that the weak must have some protection. So I apparently cannot state my opinion freely.
English must be Stinks 2nd language.
Just remember this little factoid. Ron H did not take the podium and SPEAK to those members who "did" show up and recommend the contract be approved or rejected. When your own principle officer cant stand up before you and recommend a contract that he supports outside the hall, then you know where his loyalties lie.
This lack of leadership speaks volumes, and the members are listening. He can talk crap all day long about local 89 if he wishes, but the executive board of local 89 has shown leadership by turning against the Teamster brass and standing up for the members of local 89.
If this contract is ratified and we are stuck on the losing end of all issues, I guarantee you that the talk then will be how long till the next set of ballots come to our local.
Peace
TOS
fastlearner
Well-Known Member
No more than I would take child rearing advice from your mother. I might ask her about food stamps and welfare and what the nicest trailer park in town is.
'Lord Brown's bidding'
Well-Known Member
TOS, in my opinion that is backwards: open/shut words like defraud help us, not hurt us. In your scenario, for instance, there is nothing in of itself about washing windows,to indicate fraud, even the time you did it. Management could ask you to,wash them another time, and if you didn't at most they can get you for is failure to follow instructions, but since there is a safety issue here only the biggest bullies of managers would pursue this....and he would and should be struck down at local, and the driver should be awarded back pay.
OTOH, one can wonder if the time chosen to clean was accurately given, I.e. honest. Are you blowing time with some chick while half-heartedly wiping a small spot on the mirror,? Is this a fairly regular occurence? Do you ever clean at any other time, like when that lady isn't around? You may be dishonest in your representation of why you are cleaming your windows, and if so, now they can get you for fraud. However, there has to be dishonesty to have fraud, but not all forms of dishonesty are fraud; making it specific for what is cardinal makes it tougher to lose one's job for doing something, while inadvisable, doesn't necessarily stem from a desire to seek personal gain-like chatting with a cute girl, maybe "gain" those digits, or more-while damaging the company-taking their time to do so, rather than using that time in the service of their interests. But even that requires some proof, otherwise it is too vague.
As for why the union agreed to certain language, or not forestall whatever efforts the company may pursue in the future to make it easier to terminate us, I haven't given much thought to; I'd rather focus on what we have, but that's me. There is a place for the more "big-picture" minded people, such as yourself. I just don't believe this particular issue is something to worry about, provided the local representation for the aggrieved knows language clearly; if they don't the higher levels should be prepared for this. It will be a poor situation for the one out of work, though.
In the event in your looking ahead you spot "crap" that you call my attention to, I will vote that down in a second. The best contract in the world is no good if they can easily stop me from sharing in the benefits.
Last edited:
'Lord Brown's bidding'
Well-Known Member
Missed the points on the words intentional act of ommision and wanted to comment on them, as it is the over reaction to those words that had gotten me thinking about this in the first place.
Defraud is the qualifier in that statement; in other words, it separates what is serious, and represents a real and present or immediate threat to the company's interests, vs merely being a bad habit that can lead to more serious things if action isn't taken to correct the course. Picking a bad time to legitimately wash windows, or scanning a NDA b4 getting to a stop, where the customer really needs you by 10:30, not 10:32, is something that may be corrected with a simple, "Hey Alan. Customer called about you arriving with their pkg at 10:32, wants a refund. Please get there by 10:30 next time." You can't do that when someone intentionally lies to get-read "gain", part of the definition of "defraud"-something while illicitly taking what belongs to the company, which is the time outside the break periods on their vehicles. That speaks to a deeper issue.
In another perhaps little-noticed detail, the fraud must be committed against ups; afterall, sheeting up a NDA b4 reaching a customer may defraud the customer and end consumer of what was promised, but that doesn't necessarily hurt, or damage UPS; quite frankly it more often than not helps UPS' interests. Now, if a manager was out to get you he could say your actions 'may cause the customer to go somewhere else, and we'd lose that customer!', except fraud only deals with present or immediate damages, not what may happen. Thus, a good rep should be able toget that overturned. The more specific the language, the more it excludes as reasons/options to use, thus the more difficult it is to pursue a certain action: namely, terminantion.
Defraud is the qualifier in that statement; in other words, it separates what is serious, and represents a real and present or immediate threat to the company's interests, vs merely being a bad habit that can lead to more serious things if action isn't taken to correct the course. Picking a bad time to legitimately wash windows, or scanning a NDA b4 getting to a stop, where the customer really needs you by 10:30, not 10:32, is something that may be corrected with a simple, "Hey Alan. Customer called about you arriving with their pkg at 10:32, wants a refund. Please get there by 10:30 next time." You can't do that when someone intentionally lies to get-read "gain", part of the definition of "defraud"-something while illicitly taking what belongs to the company, which is the time outside the break periods on their vehicles. That speaks to a deeper issue.
In another perhaps little-noticed detail, the fraud must be committed against ups; afterall, sheeting up a NDA b4 reaching a customer may defraud the customer and end consumer of what was promised, but that doesn't necessarily hurt, or damage UPS; quite frankly it more often than not helps UPS' interests. Now, if a manager was out to get you he could say your actions 'may cause the customer to go somewhere else, and we'd lose that customer!', except fraud only deals with present or immediate damages, not what may happen. Thus, a good rep should be able toget that overturned. The more specific the language, the more it excludes as reasons/options to use, thus the more difficult it is to pursue a certain action: namely, terminantion.
'Lord Brown's bidding'
Well-Known Member
I do not think the words fraud or against ups were the company's idea; narrows what they can get us for, especially when it comes to technology, which can easily show 'intentional acts of ommission', but not 'with the purpose of defrauding UPS'. Thank goodness the union negotiating team got this language.
And you are?
