What's new

FedEx Freight | Paid Oganizer vs. Union Buster

EX396 said:
You mean this one, based on facts and law? Directly quoted from the NLRB website and sited below.

"If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union."

"However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties."

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table.

In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain."

Source: Employer/Union Rights and Obligations | NLRB

You really don't know how this process works, do you? Relying on what the IBT or your buddies told you?
Click to expand...

so you think you know? that conway would declare impasse, and make a contract based on their final offer? not the way it works, you've obviously been on both sides of the table. please ennlighten everyone why a company that DOESNT want a contract would implement one. and while you're at it, explain why the union would agree to it.

impasse is impasse, nothing comes from it.
 
Something tells me that responding is just going to lead to more disagreement as you seem to read things that aren't there.

I didn't say ConWay WOULD declare impasse. I said they could/would/might depending on where you read it.

Once good faith negotiations between the company and the union begin, whatever offer was last presented by the company when impasse was declared is the new "contract" and will remain in effect until the NLRB rules on whether or not a true impasse was reached.

Impasse doesn't mean "nothing" comes from it. Impasse means "deadlock" or "no further progress is possible".
 
EX396 said:
Something tells me that responding is just going to lead to more disagreement as you seem to read things that aren't there.

I didn't say ConWay WOULD declare impasse. I said they could/would/might depending on where you read it.

Once good faith negotiations between the company and the union begin, whatever offer was last presented by the company when impasse was declared is the new "contract" and will remain in effect until the NLRB rules on whether or not a true impasse was reached.

Impasse doesn't mean "nothing" comes from it. Impasse means "deadlock" or "no further progress is possible".
Click to expand...

no, the problem is you will insinuate something, and then backpeddle. if impasse is reached, its not a "contract". employment will remain at will, union dues will not b collected, and everything will be the same as before the vote. there wont be any union representation, as the company wont put their proposals in writing, to be signed off on by the union, as they dont want ANY rules or conditions they cant change on a whim....
 
buffalobill said:
no, the problem is you will insinuate something, and then backpeddle. if impasse is reached, its not a "contract". employment will remain at will, union dues will not b collected, and everything will be the same as before the vote. there wont be any union representation, as the company wont put their proposals in writing, to be signed off on by the union, as they dont want ANY rules or conditions they cant change on a whim....
Click to expand...

Actually the problem is misinterpretation of my posts, then when I explain to provide some clarity some call it backpedaling.

Please refrain from posting things as factual when you don't know. "EVERYTHING" won't remain the same as before the vote...you will be stuck with the last offer presented by the company while a determination is made as to whether or not a true impasse was reached.
 
....last offer is ALWAYS whatever was on the table when they came to it......more backpeddle....

i guess i need to explain this, one more time, since you dont get it. if a company doesnt accept a union, at first contract negotiations, nothing short of a full agreement is a contract. impasse doesnt mean that the companies final offer is a contract. it just means they operate as they wish, as thats their final offer...
 
"It is well settled under the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA") that, after bargaining to a good faith impasse with the union that represents its employees, an employer has the right to unilaterally implement proposals that concern mandatory subjects of bargaining. Generally, as wages are a core mandatory subject, an employer which bargains over a proposal concerning wages may, at impasse, implement its final proposal."

Quoted from the Kauff McGuire & Margolis law firm website.

Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP: About KM&M

An Los Angeles and New York based law firm that specializes in employment/labor disputes and often represents employers at NLRB hearings. I don't know how much proof you need.
 
EX396 said:
"It is well settled under the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA") that, after bargaining to a good faith impasse with the union that represents its employees, an employer has the right to unilaterally implement proposals that concern mandatory subjects of bargaining. Generally, as wages are a core mandatory subject, an employer which bargains over a proposal concerning wages may, at impasse, implement its final proposal."

Quoted from the Kauff McGuire & Margolis law firm website.

Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP: About KM&M

An Los Angeles and New York based law firm that specializes in employment/labor disputes and often represents employers at NLRB hearings. I don't know how much proof you need.
Click to expand...

You could produce a signed affidavit from Hoffa himself they don't want to hear it.
 
Not sure how or why you'd believe a buster or an organizer. My time here gives me all the wisdom and basis for my daily decisions.

Both sides are selling Kool Aid.

Drink at you own risk.
 
EX396 said:
"It is well settled under the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA") that, after bargaining to a good faith impasse with the union that represents its employees, an employer has the right to unilaterally implement proposals that concern mandatory subjects of bargaining. Generally, as wages are a core mandatory subject, an employer which bargains over a proposal concerning wages may, at impasse, implement its final proposal."

Quoted from the Kauff McGuire & Margolis law firm website.

Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP: About KM&M

An Los Angeles and New York based law firm that specializes in employment/labor disputes and often represents employers at NLRB hearings. I don't know how much proof you need.
Click to expand...
Good Faith is the key word. If there is any decreases in pay or benefits that wouldn't be considered Good Faith bargaining. I don't know everything, but I have never heard of after an impasse in negotiations a final proposal being implemented happening. And if it did happen, what would keep the drivers from striking if their final proposal was less than what they were making. And back to an earlier post a First and Last proposal could come at the same time and that wouldn't be considered Good Faith bargaining.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
30yearman said:
Good Faith is the key word.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the definition is up for interpretation. There are several tests that help determine whether or not the parties are negotiating in good faith.


30yearman said:
If there is any decreases in pay or benefits that wouldn't be considered Good Faith bargaining.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There good be certain items that are very important to one side and they are willing to make concessions in other areas. Perhaps willing to give up some vacation for higher hourly wage, or give up some portion of your hourly wage in exchange for a much better health care plan.

30yearman said:
but I have never heard of after an impasse in negotiations a final proposal being implemented happening.
Click to expand...

I don't know when the last time it's happened with a Teamster negotiation. There are several cases of it happening outside of transportation.

30yearman said:
And if it did happen, what would keep the drivers from striking if their final proposal was less than what they were making.
Click to expand...

That's certainly an option. Usually, depending on the time of the year the union will encourage the membership to delay a strike until it would have the greatest negative impact on the company. Meanwhile, you are working under whatever the company last offered if the company elects to go that route.
 
EX396 said:
"It is well settled under the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA") that, after bargaining to a good faith impasse with the union that represents its employees, an employer has the right to unilaterally implement proposals that concern mandatory subjects of bargaining. Generally, as wages are a core mandatory subject, an employer which bargains over a proposal concerning wages may, at impasse, implement its final proposal."

Quoted from the Kauff McGuire & Margolis law firm website.

Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP: About KM&M

An Los Angeles and New York based law firm that specializes in employment/labor disputes and often represents employers at NLRB hearings. I don't know how much proof you need.
Click to expand...

EX396 said:
Yes, and the definition is up for interpretation. There are several tests that help determine whether or not the parties are negotiating in good faith.




Not necessarily. There good be certain items that are very important to one side and they are willing to make concessions in other areas. Perhaps willing to give up some vacation for higher hourly wage, or give up some portion of your hourly wage in exchange for a much better health care plan.


I don't know when the last time it's happened with a Teamster negotiation. There are several cases of it happening outside of transportation.



That's certainly an option. Usually, depending on the time of the year the union will encourage the membership to delay a strike until it would have the greatest negative impact on the company. Meanwhile, you are working under whatever the company last offered if the company elects to go that route.
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty far fetched. People may forgo a raise to get better health but not take a cut in pay to get it.
So your saying if the company offered $1 an hour the employee's would have to live by that. That to me would not be bargaining in Good Faith and it wouldn't happen. I've been involved in three strikes and when the last and final offer was rejected the strike was voted on right then and implemented immediately.
 
droppingaduece said:
This is the kind of anti posts I was talking about in the other forum. But continue on with your free speech.
Click to expand...

What was anti about what I said? If anything I'm being consistent, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed. I'm simply pointing out your sides hypocrisy. You don't like him or his opinions so there is nothing he can do or say that you will accept as "proof" same goes for myself and others, yet if someone on your side of the fence posts a half truth or unsubstantiated claim they have to prove nothing and you will all pile on and attack. You brought up the other thread, ok how about refuting my statement I made? Nope not going to do that just tell me to shut up and go away, weak tea dude weak tea!
 
30yearman said:
Sounds pretty far fetched. People may forgo a raise to get better health but not take a cut in pay to get it.
So your saying if the company offered $1 an hour the employee's would have to live by that. That to me would not be bargaining in Good Faith and it wouldn't happen. I've been involved in three strikes and when the last and final offer was rejected the strike was voted on right then and implemented immediately.
Click to expand...

I had to take a pay cut for insurance and that was negotiated right into the contract, lost $.50 an hour for health insurance costs rising.
 
johndeere4020 said:
What was anti about what I said? If anything I'm being consistent, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed. I'm simply pointing out your sides hypocrisy. You don't like him or his opinions so there is nothing he can do or say that you will accept as "proof" same goes for myself and others, yet if someone on your side of the fence posts a half truth or unsubstantiated claim they have to prove nothing and you will all pile on and attack. You brought up the other thread, ok how about refuting my statement I made? Nope not going to do that just tell me to shut up and go away, weak tea dude weak tea!
Click to expand...
I have stated on here several times that I went and got answers for myself. I'm not looking to either side to convince me. I want to make s decision based on what I find out and feel would best for my family. I know the companies position so I need to hear from union to see what they say compared to company. Never said union was 100% pure, I know better ok. I also know the lies, not half truths, but out right whoppers, that the company has told. But my point was when you post on here it just seems you are anti union, and as far as I know or can remember, and I do forget things as I'm getting up in years, I never called you a liar or told you to go away. Just saying what I read from you IMO and opinion being key word is what I said earlier. So sorry I upset your cart, have a good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top