Holland | Several Reasons To Vote YES

It don't matter the one everyone is over looking is the use of out side nonunion companys.That is going to keep a lot of union brothers and sisters laided off and it will be hard as heck to keep up with.Just look at memphis at all the outside companys that come in their alone...
 
A Yellow union steward went to a second level hearing in Columbus and was having a hearing that was covered under a Memorandum of Agreement. The official ruling from the comittee was, if it is not in the contract, it does not count. The wording of the contract rules over a Memorandum of Agreement.
Horsechips! A signed "Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement" is FULL and BINDING in a court of law as an "external agreement". They just wanted to blow this guy off.
 
Stick its funny you mentioned all the shinny-wheels in ME. I had written in my last post that at any time there are as many as 30 -40 non-union trailers spotted on our yard but erased it off. Glen Moore is probably the most likely the carrier to be organized. Navojo, USA and a couple of others hauling our frt out west.
 
RoadwaySpy welcome to the boards.
Please tell the others at your barn about
us here at the truckingboards.com .
 
Food for thought....In 1994 the rail was upped to 28% and TDU said it was great. Now the proposal is 24% rail and 4% truck. What's the difference? 26% to 28% isn't a huge jump. Some here act as if this is going to put thousands of road drivers out of work. It won't. The language is there to protect those who might sit home. (I've already volunteered to sit home and collect $700.00 per week.)
 
Waggs your getting shot-down on every point. Whats next, their cheating us out of our sick days because there changing to calendar year. Man there's plenty of NO votes at HMES without all the HATE. Oh yes, don't try to crawfish out the statement about wanting Holland to be shutdown for me to lose my job. GRIZZ

I haven't been shot down yet. Not one of you has come up with anything but empty air. You are a prime example of what the company counts on, when they put a contract like this out. People who aren't smart enough to decipher what it says, unless it has to deal with your occupation, will be the reason we all lose out. They accept blindly what they don't understand.
 
Guys you are doing just exactly what corporate types love to see. They are dividing you two brothers and dozens more like you. Please debate the subject matter and stop bashing each other. Road men, city men, dock men and yard men Teamsters all. Disagree but remember when this is all over we will still be Brothers.
 
Guys you are doing just exactly what corporate types love to see. They are dividing you two brothers and dozens more like you. Please debate the subject matter and stop bashing each other. Road men, city men, dock men and yard men Teamsters all. Disagree but remember when this is all over we will still be Brothers.

Well said HBF. :1036316054:
 
wussy

vote yes because you have no nuts, worry about you, right now, not the future of the rest of us or those starting out vote yes and be just like my label "pee on"
 
Guys you are doing just exactly what corporate types love to see. They are dividing you two brothers and dozens more like you. Please debate the subject matter and stop bashing each other. Road men, city men, dock men and yard men Teamsters all. Disagree but remember when this is all over we will still be Brothers.

I think this is only the second time we have agreed to disagree, lol.

Be like Grizz and me in posts 33 and 34 of this thread. Keep it friendly between brothers. No matter what happens we need to remember that we are in this together win or loose, good or bad. I have one vote and I have used it, I myself hope the contract goes back for some work but if it doesn't I'll deal with what ever the future brings. I just hope that this contract vote is the worst thing that happens to each of us this year, worst things happen to others every day. We lost a brother in LO last week, he passed away while on his bid run, lucky for others he was able to get stopped off the highway before he caused an accident, he was a very nice man. Be glad that you have a life and a job to fight for, I don't know how long either will last, but who ever does.
 
Well said Benny. We heard about it down here and throughout all this non-since, I have neglected this loss. Sorry and my thoughts are with you guys. GRIZZ
 
Be like Grizz and me in posts 33 and 34 of this thread. Keep it friendly between brothers. No matter what happens we need to remember that we are in this together win or loose, good or bad. I have one vote and I have used it, I myself hope the contract goes back for some work but if it doesn't I'll deal with what ever the future brings. I just hope that this contract vote is the worst thing that happens to each of us this year, worst things happen to others every day. We lost a brother in LO last week, he passed away while on his bid run, lucky for others he was able to get stopped off the highway before he caused an accident, he was a very nice man. Be glad that you have a life and a job to fight for, I don't know how long either will last, but who ever does.
Sorry for your loss.
 
Horsechips! A signed "Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement" is FULL and BINDING in a court of law as an "external agreement". They just wanted to blow this guy off.

The letter of intent, which is often called by various names such as "memorandum of understanding," "heads of terms," "terms sheet" or "agreement in principle," is the near-universal precursor of the modern business acquisition transaction. These letters, or outlines of proposed terms, almost invariably purport to be non-binding, yet virtually all of them contain terms intended to be binding. This paradox has resulted in some of the most hotly contested litigation in the history of business transactions, with one case resulting in the largest judgment ever recorded for a business dispute, a $10.53 billion award against Texaco, Inc. by Pennzoil ($7.53 billion in
Is Your Letter of Intent a Binding Contract?
 
The letter of intent, which is often called by various names such as "memorandum of understanding," "heads of terms," "terms sheet" or "agreement in principle," is the near-universal precursor of the modern business acquisition transaction. These letters, or outlines of proposed terms, almost invariably purport to be non-binding, yet virtually all of them contain terms intended to be binding. This paradox has resulted in some of the most hotly contested litigation in the history of business transactions, with one case resulting in the largest judgment ever recorded for a business dispute, a $10.53 billion award against Texaco, Inc. by Pennzoil ($7.53 billion in
Is Your Letter of Intent a Binding Contract?

Thank you pj, you researched this better than I would have and found some interesting stuff. Several posters have commented on the fact that a "memorandum of understanding" was read and widely quoted to members at the information meeting(s) but was not allowed out of the presenter's hands or to be copied.
Should copies of the memorandum be widely distributed, it would be easy to make the case when conditions of the understanding were violated. Rank and file members could, with a copy of the memorandum, have possible legal standing and the potential to make a strong case that the memorandum was "binding" to some extent.
Without copies of the memorandum being distributed beyond the levels of management and union executives (who voted overwhelmingly to ratify the proposals), rank and file members would not have access to the information nor the ability to prove that portions of the "memorandum of understanding" very being violated.
This is further reason to send in your NO vote on the proposed contract. Put those articles addressed in the "memorandum of understanding" into the actual wording of the proposed contract for all to see and to give it unquestioned status for legal and grievance purposes.
 
Sevenn I'm not sure if this is what you are refering to but a Memorandum of Understanding for the Eastern Region Supplements was in the ballot envelope that they sent me.
 
All they sent me was a ballot, the proposed Southern Over the Road agreements, a copy of the proposed changes to the NMFA, a summary of the changes, a cover letter telling what a good job the negotiators had done and why I should vote yes, and the instructions.
I did not receive anything addressing the "memorandum of Understanding" between the union and the companies expanding on the implementation of the proposed articles of the NMFA.
 
All they sent me was a ballot, the proposed Southern Over the Road agreements, a copy of the proposed changes to the NMFA, a summary of the changes, a cover letter telling what a good job the negotiators had done and why I should vote yes, and the instructions.
I did not receive anything addressing the "memorandum of Understanding" between the union and the companies expanding on the implementation of the proposed articles of the NMFA.

Mine was only for the Central Region. If you're in the Southern Region it doesn't effect you so you didn't get it.

It simply states that they have to call people to work in the following order:

1. Regular Employees (10%)

2. Laid Off Employees

3. Casuals Hired Before 04-01-08

4. 4 Hour Casuals Hired After 04-01-08

"This adjustment will be made to allow the Employer to handle the expedited freight created by the utility employee operation in Article 3, Section 7".

Hope this helps to clear this up.
 
:nutkick:
All I'm doing is wishing you get put out of work first. You are in this for yourself and don't care about the thousands of us Road drivers, who will probably lose our jobs if this goes through. I was only expressing the same wish to you. If the contract goes through, my job will probably be gone, unless you lose yours. I voted NO, I want the contract to protect all of us. If I have to wish for something, it will be those of you who don't care enough to stand up for my job and protest, to lose their jobs, causing me to keep mine. I'm willing to stick by my brothers and fight for the good of all!!! You guys can ignore the Sell Out Clause, AKA the shiny wheel provision, we Road drivers can't. You can scream poor economy all you want, the bottom line is voting Yes is a sellout to your brothers and is simply you protecting your own job, at the expense of other brothers!!!

You don't think this contract wasn't written to divide everyones vote? You don't think they are trying to divide Road, Dock and IBT interests? Of course they are!!! The IBT sucked it up, obviously so have alot of Dock guys. You don't even care to mention all of our jobs being affected. You just want to go on about how we make to much. Did it ever occur to you the reason we make more is because we spend 10 to 14 hours extra, several times a week, sitting in a foreign city, while you get to go home and hang at the local pub w/your buddies if you want?
WE DONT WANT TO HEAR THIS BROTHER ::shit::.....YOU ROAD-DRIVERS TURNED AGAINST THE CITY DRIVERS WHEN U ELIMINATED US RUNNING THE ROADSIDE ON THE WEEKENDS......NOW U NEED US.....:hysterical:
 
Top