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
TeamCare upgraded
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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1195147" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Ingame, </p><p></p><p>Your theory is laughable at best, but I give you credit for making an attempt at a reasonable argument. However, your opinion is flawed.</p><p></p><p>The southwest joint council will appoint the three trustees and the company will appoint the others. In your explanation, the locals appoint "employee trustees" and this is not true. The trustees on the union side will consist of officers of various locals.</p><p></p><p>Your second argument that "control" goes to the voting members, because they vote in officers and therefore can somehow "affect" the decision making progress is again, laughable.</p><p></p><p>As the administrator evaluates the financial position of the fund at large, and then discovers cost projections that exceed estimated revenue, during a board meeting this will be discussed and motions will be made. A motion is then seconded and a vote of the board members ( trustees) ensues.</p><p></p><p>If the motion carries, then the plan adjusts accordingly to the motion.</p><p></p><p>There is NO interaction with the local, the employees or any other entities. Now, the officers of the locals who get appointed by the joint council to the board of the administrator get to vote, and yes, by virtue of being elected into office of their respective locals they get to be on the board, that doesnt give ANY employee a "sayso" on benefit levels.</p><p></p><p>A benefit level can ALWAYS be amended by the trustees, but that has NOTHING to do with the members. There will be no consultation with ANY of the members of all the southwest locals before decisions are made.</p><p></p><p>To suggest or infer such is just manipulation on your part.</p><p></p><p>I gather you speak to the stinks and 407 stewards of the crowd who may believe this, but the rest of the membership understands the separation between trustees authority and employee participation.</p><p></p><p>Sure, we can vote out officers every three years and recommend to our joint councils replacement trustees, but that in NO WAY gives the employees any bargaining power.</p><p></p><p>We are just in for the ride with our fingers crossed that the IBT/Trustees/ will keep their word and maintain benefit levels.</p><p></p><p>If they had intended on protecting benefit levels, why didnt they include this into the MOU:</p><p></p><p>"benefit levels to remain the same for the duration of this contractual agreement"..</p><p></p><p>Instead, it says the opposite and furthers that NOTHING in the agreement shall stop them from changing them.</p><p></p><p>I hope you have a better understanding.</p><p></p><p>Peace</p><p></p><p>TOS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1195147, member: 17969"] Ingame, Your theory is laughable at best, but I give you credit for making an attempt at a reasonable argument. However, your opinion is flawed. The southwest joint council will appoint the three trustees and the company will appoint the others. In your explanation, the locals appoint "employee trustees" and this is not true. The trustees on the union side will consist of officers of various locals. Your second argument that "control" goes to the voting members, because they vote in officers and therefore can somehow "affect" the decision making progress is again, laughable. As the administrator evaluates the financial position of the fund at large, and then discovers cost projections that exceed estimated revenue, during a board meeting this will be discussed and motions will be made. A motion is then seconded and a vote of the board members ( trustees) ensues. If the motion carries, then the plan adjusts accordingly to the motion. There is NO interaction with the local, the employees or any other entities. Now, the officers of the locals who get appointed by the joint council to the board of the administrator get to vote, and yes, by virtue of being elected into office of their respective locals they get to be on the board, that doesnt give ANY employee a "sayso" on benefit levels. A benefit level can ALWAYS be amended by the trustees, but that has NOTHING to do with the members. There will be no consultation with ANY of the members of all the southwest locals before decisions are made. To suggest or infer such is just manipulation on your part. I gather you speak to the stinks and 407 stewards of the crowd who may believe this, but the rest of the membership understands the separation between trustees authority and employee participation. Sure, we can vote out officers every three years and recommend to our joint councils replacement trustees, but that in NO WAY gives the employees any bargaining power. We are just in for the ride with our fingers crossed that the IBT/Trustees/ will keep their word and maintain benefit levels. If they had intended on protecting benefit levels, why didnt they include this into the MOU: "benefit levels to remain the same for the duration of this contractual agreement".. Instead, it says the opposite and furthers that NOTHING in the agreement shall stop them from changing them. I hope you have a better understanding. Peace TOS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
TeamCare upgraded
Top