Crazy Trucker
Busting Clowns daily!!!!
- Credits
- 247
None of this ^ has anything to do with us don't know why your harping on it, won't have a national contract anytime soon.
This is probably the most truest statement you've ever made!!!won't have a national contract anytime soon.
This is probably the most truest statement you've ever made!!!
I only mentioned it because the topic has drifted to something that belongs in the union discussion thread. And, respectfully to my friends on both sides of the argument here, I believe we ought to guide it back to Red's original question of how the notice represents new work rules.I agree for the most part but it's not uncommon for a thread to morph into something else. I do feel like it's a subject worth discussing we could start a new thread which doesn't seem to always be popular or move it to the union thread where it maybe should have been to start with. I know you too well to think your trying to change or avoid the subject but many on here play the off topic card when they're losing. Just my perspective.
The most truest?, man you are one funny SOBThis is probably the most truest statement you've ever made!!!
Southern slang....He was mopping up what I was spillingThe most truest?, man you are one funny SOB
It's quite possible it's all political spin, just depends on which side you believe!!
I'm guessing with LOU being the largest world hub in the US, their 5% would carry a lot more leverage than the other 95% IMO...just my two cents.
Our LOU center is NOT FXFE's largest "World Hub", let alone our largest US hub, therefor, they wouldn't hold any more leverage than the current four hold.Just be sure to maintain that position when LOU is the 1 center holding up the wishes of the other 370, at FedEx Freight...
Oh, and get back on topic, per the Canadian's advice.
Our LOU center is NOT FXFE's largest "World Hub", let alone our largest US hub, therefor, they wouldn't hold any more leverage than the current four hold.
Per Canadian's advice, were still waiting on someone to answer the question.
Maybe he confused it with UPS.
He's not confused. He is saying if it was one of FedEx's terminals in that position they wouldn't hold up the other 370 terminals from making a deal. ImoMaybe he confused it with UPS.
What you don't know is the issue a national contract ,was held up .The issue was paid transport from the employee parking lot to the employee work area.That's the hold up and hold out for 6 months.General president has the right to intervene any rogue local.On be half of the ruling majority.Tell that to the UPS employees in Louisville, KY when 94% voted NO and Hoffa Jr and Ken Hall ratified their contract anyways!!
http://www.tdu.org/news_hoffa-and-hall-secretly-changed-constitution-impose-ups-deal
"Hoffa and Hall have finally revealed how they secretly changed the Teamster Constitution to impose the UPS contract over No Votes by the members"
"Hoffa and Hall had to lie to apply this clause to the Louisville Air Supplement, because critical local issues were on the table, in that case, and because the company had actually made their “final” offer worse than their earlier offer."
I fully understood this but that was only part of the holdup, there were other issues at play (ones that I'm not going to lookup again at this time). Again, UPS could've easily settled the remaining supplements regarding this local but instead they chose to give them the shaft....and the teamsters stood behind UPS, NOT their members!!What you don't know is the issue a national contract ,was held up .The issue was paid transport from the employee parking lot to the employee work area.That's the hold up and hold out for 6 months.General president has the right to intervene any rogue local.On be half of the ruling majority.
Cool. I wanna be the parking tram driver. With a microphone.The issue was paid transport from the employee parking lot to the employee work area.
Are you that big of an idiot in real life, or do you just play one on Trucking Boards?I fully understood this but that was only part of the holdup, there were other issues at play (ones that I'm not going to lookup again at this time). Again, UPS could've easily settled the remaining supplements regarding this local but instead they chose to give them the shaft....and the teamsters stood behind UPS, NOT their members!!
I fully understood this but that was only part of the holdup, there were other issues at play (ones that I'm not going to lookup again at this time). Again, UPS could've easily settled the remaining supplements regarding this local but instead they chose to give them the shaft....and the teamsters stood behind UPS, NOT their members!!
I fully understood this but that was only part of the holdup, there were other issues at play (ones that I'm not going to lookup again at this time). Again, UPS could've easily settled the remaining supplements regarding this local but instead they chose to give them the shaft....and the teamsters stood behind UPS, NOT their members!![/QUOT Its not about the few it's about the many.UPS members ratified the national contract and others settled their suppliments but one hold out.The IBT has a right according to our constitution in intervene in such matters .If you are so knowledgeable you would have stated the difference.Your just shovling against the tide
What you don't know is the issue a national contract ,was held up .The issue was paid transport from the employee parking lot to the employee work area.That's the hold up and hold out for 6 months.General president has the right to intervene any rogue local.On be half of the ruling majority.
Yeah if you consider highest pay, best insurance, and best retirement getting the shaft.