Teamsters bosses resist calls to reopen UPS contract after 'no' vote

[KOG72]

Opt out!

I have thought about it but as soon as I do it I would need them.

 

[Wally]

I have thought about it but as soon as I do it I would need them.

They dont fear us at all. Maybe they will fear loss of income?

Can every state opt out?

 

[Wally]

Only RTW can opt out, however, one can request that their union dues be redirected to a religious organization of their choice.

So the leadership can ignore its memberships voting no, but not your dues.

 

[Blackstream]

“The national agreement was rejected by approximately 24% of the eligible membership. No union can successfully conduct a strike with the support of only 24% of the bargaining unit,” she said in an email Tuesday.

I love how they do everything they can to spin this. Twisting the numbers to make it seem like the people against this contract are a small minority, and that the only two options were strike or pass the contract, despite the fact that both previous contracts proves this is not true, and UPS's statement shows that not only was going back to the table a possibility, but they were totally ready to go back to the table too (or at least they claimed they were).

Basically what I've learned from this contract is that if the union wants something to happen, they don't give a what the members want unless there is absolutely no way out legally speaking. The best part is that I bet you we'd be renegotiating the contract right now and not striking if we had gotten the numbers we needed because that's how Hoffa would have interpreted the constitution in that eventuality. My guess is they never outright stated it was the final contract but left enough clues it might be so that they had this schrodinger's offer that both was and wasn't final up until they needed to decide which answer suited them best.

I guess my vote next election cycle goes to the people who are ready to bring the fight to UPS.

 

[RealPerson]

Ask @hellfire.... my previous opinion on that subject.





What's "real" seniority ?

2 or 3 years, I would say. You know what I am getting at, so just stop, you look stupid.





They did.

Because, members are to lazy to vote.... the IBT is to blame ?

NOPE, Then why was the last contract not pushed to pass????



Ask TDU.

They were instrumental in having it "inserted" into the IBT constitution.


Like I previously stated;


The power was in the hands of the members by voting.

But, they had butter fingers.... and dropped the ball.


Don't cry about it now.



-Bug-

So wrong,
If the UNION and UPS would of sent out nice colored spam that informed people about the vote and the rule, informed them about this is the last and final offer, informed them that under a year they have a right to vote.
You can't keep saying members member members, when even the BA's are so afraid of losing their cush jobs by going against the union they don't say crap.

 

[RealPerson]

Thirty thousand more UPSers voted on the contract in 2018 than five years ago—an increase in voter participation of nearly 50%

The real number I want to see is how many eligible voters there were in 2013 and how many in 2018, plus how many voted. Another number to look at is how many in each contract had under 1 year with UPS.

 

[panther]

UPS Freight has only worked under 2 contracts.... and on their 3rd one

they have managed vote it down with a majority vote.

How many part timers does freight have?

 

[Mooseknuckle]

How many part timers does freight have?

Exactly!

 

[panther]

The point remains that almost any idiot can drive a truck and do customer service, and as you know some drivers are dumb as rocks and not very good with people and still have jobs.

Same can be said to some of those highly intelligent management einstiens also.

 

[Brownslave688]

I have thought about it but as soon as I do it I would need them.

Legally they still have to represent you.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Only RTW can opt out, however, one can request that their union dues be redirected to a religious organization of their choice.

So the leadership can ignore its memberships voting no, but not your dues.

If you are not in a RTW state, you can petition to deauthorize the union. Doing so will likely get you kicked out of the union. But, if the vote to deauthorize went through, you could opt out.

 

[Wally]

If you are not in a RTW state, you can petition to deauthorize the union. Doing so will likely get you kicked out of the union. But, if the vote to deauthorize went through, you could opt out.

That ain't going to happen. I think it would be easier for UPS Teamsters to go independent.

 

[Wally]

Thirty thousand more UPSers voted on the contract in 2018 than five years ago—an increase in voter participation of nearly 50%

The real number I want to see is how many eligible voters there were in 2013 and how many in 2018, plus how many voted. Another number to look at is how many in each contract had under 1 year with UPS.

A non-vote is a "I don't care" vote, a "whatever you decide is ok with me" vote.

Well, those that did decide said no. For our leadership to ignore that is wrong to the core! They have to go!

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Only RTW can opt out, however, one can request that their union dues be redirected to a religious organization of their choice.

Never heard of such a thing.

Well, those that did decide said no. For our leadership to ignore that is wrong to the core!

They followed the IBT Constitution.

Remember, the 50% 2/3 provision that TDU and Ron Carey helped implement.

Even with strike authorization (a pitiful turn out) the writing was on the wall.

It's hard for me to grasp, why people don't understand that.



-Bug-

 

[Wally]

Never heard of such a thing.





They followed the IBT Constitution.

Remember, the 50% 2/3 provision that TDU and Ron Carey helped implement.

Even with strike authorization (a pitiful turn out) the writing was on the wall.

It's hard for me to grasp, why people don't understand that.



-Bug-

Bug, isn't the word "may" in there?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Bug, isn't the word "may" in there?

Nope.


"(2) If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a two thirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such final offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the final offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating committee to accept such final offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it."


https://teamster.filecamp.com/0/teamster/binary/25np-re7bjk5k.pdf


And, that's exactly what they are doing.



-Bug-

 

[Wally]

Nope.


"(2) If less than half of the eligible members cast valid ballots, then a two thirds (2/3) vote of those voting shall be required to reject such final offer and to authorize a strike. The failure of such membership to reject the final offer and to authorize a strike as herein provided shall require the negotiating committee to accept such final offer or such additional provisions as can be negotiated by it."


https://teamster.filecamp.com/0/teamster/binary/25np-re7bjk5k.pdf


And, that's exactly what they are doing.



-Bug-

What section is that from Buggie?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

What section is that from Buggie?

Article xii section 2d. There is no requirement to ratify, as is clearly stated in that section, because we authorized a strike with over 2/3 of the less than 50% who voted. Doesn't matter the turn out, like you said Wally, everyone else said they were ok with whatever the rest decided. The NNC wants to pick and choose when they apply the 50% 2/3 rule, but then say they are bound by the constitution to do something the constitution clearly does not require them to do under the circumstances. Sounds like fraud in my book.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

There is no requirement to ratify, as is clearly stated in that section

I'm glad, you are such an expert on the IBT constitution.

The NNC wants to pick and choose when they apply the 50% 2/3 rule, but then say they are bound by the constitution to do something the constitution clearly does not require them to do under the circumstances.

Ask TDU.

Why were they in support of that provision.... back in 1987.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I'm glad, you are such an expert on the IBT constitution.





Ask TDU.

Why they were in support of that provision.... back in 1987.

I'm no expert, which is why the leadership should know better. From what I read, TDU introduced the under 50% portion, because the votes used to require 2/3 of all eligible members period to reject an offer, not just if the turn out was under 50%. I'm sure they would have gone with simple majority regardless of turn out if they could, I'm guessing the 50% was a compromise. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it's disingenuous of you to say the 50% 2/3 rule was all TDU's doing.