I am doing my best to remain objective here, because I really do believe that each side is doing what they think is right and I respect that. However, I want to set the record straight about one issue. It has been stated on numerous posts that the LBF offer had removed the Teamster pension. This was one of the first issues that the company gave up on during negotiations once the bargaining committee made it very clear that there was no way they were going to give up the Teamster pension. If the company had in fact changed that back to a 401(k) instead of the pension in the LBF that would be a ULP offense. The Teamsters have been very quick to file any and all ULP complaints that they feel might have a chance at sticking. Why hasn't there been a regressive bargaining ULP filed? If the LBF actually DID take out the pension this would be a blatant offense by OAKH which would stick.
I would like to hear from both sides of the fence on this one and have a discussion, so go and play somewhere else kids, it's time for the grownups to talk. No name-calling, flaming, or trolls, please.
I would like to hear from both sides of the fence on this one and have a discussion, so go and play somewhere else kids, it's time for the grownups to talk. No name-calling, flaming, or trolls, please.