D
ABF | ABF Lawsuit
- Thread starter truxforever
- Start date
Maybe they will answer this question in the roundtable????
Very insightful post.
D
Docker
Guest
That's one question that I would like to hear their reply on...whether ABF wants to force the union for both ABF and YRC Teamsters to vote as one for what YRC already has. Although they have answered if ABF was trying to impose the terms of YRC’s concession deal on ABF drivers without giving them a vote on their legal site but as far as I know...they never answered that question and since I never go to the roundtable...I don't know if it was ever asked there or not but I sure wish that I could hear their answer to that because IMO...that could very well be their intention.
Its a fact, read the lawsuit that was filed.
It was ABFs intention to "force" the YRC deal on ABF employees, the court said no. Their second intention was to have the YRC giveback plan voted on by all NMFA employees, again the court said no "your not part of the deal". Due to the amount of YRC employees who voted yes the ABF votes would have little to no impact on the outcome.
Since ABFs court "loss" they have released a statement saying "we are negotiating our own deal, no NMFA or TMI, were on our own"..... Have you seen the Union make one statement about what ABF said ? Nope, all they do is send out some lame questionnaire which they should already know the answers for. ABF won the day they filed the lawsuit, it was a win win no matter what.
D
Docker
Guest
I did read the lawsuit...did you? Since you read the lawsuit and know for a fact that it was ABFs intention to "force" the YRC deal on ABF employees...please provide where it states that fact. In case you don't have a copy of the lawsuit...here it is:
http://abflegalaction.com/category/2010-court-documents/files/2010/11/SECURED-ABF-v-IBT-Complaint.pdf
Also...will you show where the courts said no to ABFs intention to "force" the YRC deal on ABF employees? Again...in case you don't have Judge Wrights ruling...here it is:
http://abflegalaction.com/files/2012/08/JudgeWrights08012012ruling.pdf
Some of the greatest minds are conniving to either hear this case or throw it out. And all they had to do was come to TB for the Legal answer.
D
Docker
Guest
Some of the greatest minds are conniving to either hear this case or throw it out. And all they had to do was come to TB for the Legal answer.
I see that you are trolling around again...so since you now decided to post a reply just to disrupt our thread...would you be kind enough to state what the reasoning was behind this post except the fact that it serves no purpose but to get a negative response from me...this way you get to cry and whine on how I attack poor little wolfie again.Muler was kind enough to make a thread especially for trolls such as yourself so as not to disrupt our main forum and keep from having other members put up with our nonsense so may I suggest that you just stay on that thread unless your purpose is to agitate all the members with our personal BS. That's only if you do care about the other TB members like you stated before.
Because I can at the moment. And don't take it so personal Docker I never even took a side on the issue.
Just pointed out we ain't gonna settle it here in a way I felt it was appropriate
D
Docker
Guest
Because I can at the moment. And don't take it so personal Docker I never even took a side on the issue.
Don't take this personal wolfie...since we obviously don't get along...your opinions don't hold water with me at all.
Read the #60s & 90s section. ABF is saying either void the deal or make it "one" with the NMFA (force). ABF is saying we are with YRC in bargaining so the deal either applies to all or none. The dollar amount ABF is asking for is no different then if you or I have a car accident caused by someone else. Our insurance companies are not going to seek replacement of our 2010 Chevy Malibu, they are going to ask for a cash settlement to replace our Chevy. ABF is putting the dollar amount of damages they think was caused to them by the IBT and YRC with the separate deal, in reality they want the same deal not the cash. Either YRC pays full rate or the new deal is voted on by all, including ABF employees.
Our opinions are going to differ and thats fine, I respect that we are able to converse without calling each other names which seems to run rampant here at times. We dont see the situation the same and probably never will, at this point it does not matter much since ABF got what they wanted anyway... a separate deal.
Cheers my friend
D
Docker
Guest
Read the #60s & 90s section. ABF is saying either void the deal or make it "one" with the NMFA (force). ABF is saying we are with YRC in bargaining so the deal either applies to all or none. The dollar amount ABF is asking for is no different then if you or I have a car accident caused by someone else. Our insurance companies are not going to seek replacement of our 2010 Chevy Malibu, they are going to ask for a cash settlement to replace our Chevy. ABF is putting the dollar amount of damages they think was caused to them by the IBT and YRC with the separate deal, in reality they want the same deal not the cash. Either YRC pays full rate or the new deal is voted on by all, including ABF employees.
Our opinions are going to differ and thats fine, I respect that we are able to converse without calling each other names which seems to run rampant here at times. We dont see the situation the same and probably never will, at this point it does not matter much since ABF got what they wanted anyway... a separate deal.
Cheers my friend
You are right…are opinions do differ…but they are just that…opinions…yours and mine. IMO…there is nothing concrete that states that is what they were asking the courts.
You said to read the #60s & 90s section…which I did…and the 60’s were taking about the amendments and what all the concessions that were given to YRC and the 90’s were talking about how the NMFA works and that all covered which is employees,employers,unions and associations under the NMFA and supplements shall constitute one bargaining unit. That is in no way stating as in your words…” either void the deal or make it "one" with the NMFA(force)”.
And as for your statement…”ABF is saying we are with YRC in bargaining so the deal either applies to all or none”…Again…it’s stating that is how it works under the NMFA but there is nowhere in the lawsuit or the decision itself that actually states that they are asking the courts to "force" the YRC deal on ABF employees.
You will see that on Page 26 of the lawsuit where they mention the eight ways they ask the courts to grant them relief…the only one that is very vague and could lead one to think of just what ABF’s intentions were was No.8 which states:
“Entry of order granting such further relief as the courts deem just and proper”
Now that is what leads me to believe that ABF wouldn’t mind at all if the courts ruled that the ABF and YRCW Teamsters would have to vote on the concessions together…thus being accepted or declined by all companies involved.But there is no way that the courts could force ABF into YRCW’s concessions without a vote.
So...this is why I would like to see how ABF would have answered the question...because I believe that could of been their intentions as well but they did not come right out and ask the courts.Sorry...I'm just a stickler for facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
61. this revised plan is incorporated by reference into and part of the NMFA - ABF is saying you (YRC & IBT) changed the plan we all signed.
62. wage and mileage rate increases in Article 33 of NMFA shall be reduced by 15% - ABF is saying we signed the NMFA too
65. are to be included as part of the first 39 articles of the NMFA and cover the entire NMFA bargaining unit - ABF is saying we are part of the entire bargaining unit
66. for the employers bound by the NMFA - ABF is saying we are one of those employers
67. Read 67 in its entirety, ABF is flat out saying you did not include us (ABF)
68. States the IBT & YRC violated their (ABFs) rights in the NMFA
92. IBTs own rules state that any deal applies to all to be voted on by all - ABF is saying we were excluded and should negotiate and vote also.
93.Again IBTs own rules state that any amendments will be voted on by the master negotiating committee - ABF is saying we are part of that master committee and did not have that chance to vote.
96. Again IBTs own rules say there is only one bargaining unit and one contract - ABF is saying that is not the current case with the separate deal.
97. ABF is saying you favored YRC and not us
Now this is where the force part comes in ( I do not mean to imply that ABF wants the court to shove the deal down our throats, ABF simply wants the deal to be voted on by all knowing that with 2/3 of YRC employees voting yes ABF employees votes would do nothing to change the votes outcome..hence the "force" part of a revote ABF knows would pass again.
110. States that there is one and only one agreement and will be binding to each and every Teamster unit that signed the NMFA - ABF is saying we signed that deal
ABFs intentions were never to have the court force the deal on us but to force a revote by all NMFA employees. ABF was saying the deal YRC signed separately is void under the IBTs and NMFA own rules. Once ABF failed with their own attempt at wage concessions, its only option was to seek other ways to get the reduction. The lawsuit was ABFs second attempt.
D
Docker
Guest
I know that you didn't mean to imply that ABF wants the court to shove the deal down our throats and you believe they want to force a revote by all NMFA employees...there's no argument there...after all...I feel the same way. The argument is that this is just our opinions.
You can post all the 60's...90's and 100's that you want...but when you add that "what ABF is saying"... you are stating your opinion and not a fact. You and I read those statements you posted very different...and both of us are merely stating our opinions on what ABF is saying..the whole thing is to let everyone read those statements and come up with their own opinion...not tell them what "ABF is saying" and trying to pass your opinion off as a fact. IMO...there is nothing that you posted that states it as a fact that ABF wants to force a revote by all NMFA employees.
And as I also stated...that on Page 26 of the lawsuit where they mention the eight ways they ask the courts to grant them relief…there is not a one of them that clearly states that ABF wants to force a revote by all NMFA employees...
Gosh Docker is there an echo in here? Read the lawsuit and draw your own conclusions? Everyone is going to have their own opinion? Thanks. YOUR NEW BEST FRIEND FOREVER!
D
Docker
Guest
That's right...not state your opinion as fact there albag...I'm beginning to think that you just might be catching on.But that is not what our debate was about...it was about the fact that you first implied it as a fact...then refused to show just what exactly led to your conclusion after you were asked to show proof.Then ...you even went as far as an all out lie in stating that I want to blame YRC teamsters for ALL the problems in the union...which again...you refused to post proof.Your problem is that you just can't back up your statements...then get insulted and upset when you can't.
And if you want to continue on with our little disagreement...how about let's taking it to the thread that was made for these kind of exchanges so not to disrupt this thread anymore than we already did? This way you can try and back up that statement of yours that I want to blame YRC teamsters for ALL the problems in the union.
Last edited by a moderator:
truxforever
TB Regular
- Credits
- 66
Docker: It is really fun how the other guys come here to tell us how bad ABF is doing. They know more than the people who work here. Well read # 5&6 of this link and you will see how bad off we are. (Arkansas Best Corporation: Mid-Quarter Update Confirms Long-Term Buying Opportunity - Seeking Alpha. Damm we are really bad off. Like Mrs. McReynolds said in #6 we are not in a 34 billion market any more but now in a 200 billion market, ABF is sitting there with upward of 120 mill in the bank and growing. So there is a lot of room to grow.
Who came here to do that? No one. Albag"s posts were comments on the judge telling them to follow the greivance procedures. My first comment was about Judge Wright. We've all praised ABF. What we've comaplined about wasn't ABF, but Muler's blabbing about a pm he received.
D
Docker
Guest
Did he mention albag...no! Try and pay attention before spouting off...OK?
And there are posters that come here to do that...again...and if you took the time reading some more of the posts in this forum...you would know this...instead of just spouting off of something you know nothing about!
Keep fanning the flames, its what you do. Your belligerance, lies and made-up BS I can ignore. I'm just here for Muler to post that he asked Jeff if he was wrong, and the Response. Yes/OK, or No/Wrong. Either way- Mules can end this with one post.