Holland | Vote Yes...i Did Today

Pretty interesting Slippery. If I read the one Tyson love letter correctly, only 10% of the purchased transportation (shiny wheels) will be nonunion. That is 10% of 4% right? For the record I have not made up my mind yet on the vote!!:1036316054:
 

Thanks for all the hard work researching this. I plan to sit down with the printouts tonight or tomorrow and try to read between the lines. Great work get it tho!
 
These notes prove it will cost 2 to 4 linehaul jobs, for each trailer run.
It says they can pickup at any terminal where there is no driver domiciled or available. This will result in a loss of 1 to 2 hub linehaul jobs lost at pickup and 1 or 2 more at delivery. That 2 to 4 hub linehaul jobs lost for every trailer run by an outside carrier!!! There is no run a Yellow, Hooland or Roadway sleeper cannot do as fast or faster than an outside company. Don't vote to give away my job!!! Vote NO!!!
 
After much thought and investigating the matter... Go To These Links, These Memo of understanding ARE legal and binding.

I don't know where you got the info that "Memo of understanding ARE legal and binding". Its been shown in the past several times that they ARE NOT. When taken to the grievance committee's, they do not honor them. They go by whats written in the contract, period. If you don't believe me ask around and you'll see for yourself. I voted NO because there needs to be more control on the Utility Employee, 4 Hour Casuals and the road/rail outside carrier issue. I wish everybody would vote NO but what ever any one votes is up to them. Right or wrong vote what you feel is right for everybody in the Union not just the top or the bottom of the seniority. If you turn in your vote you have done your duty as a Teamster, if you don't, then you have no right to complain about anything that happens to you later.
 
I don't know where you got the info that "Memo of understanding ARE legal and binding". Its been shown in the past several times that they ARE NOT. When taken to the grievance committee's, they do not honor them. They go by whats written in the contract, period. If you don't believe me ask around and you'll see for yourself. I voted NO because there needs to be more control on the Utility Employee, 4 Hour Casuals and the road/rail outside carrier issue. I wish everybody would vote NO but what ever any one votes is up to them. Right or wrong vote what you feel is right for everybody in the Union not just the top or the bottom of the seniority. If you turn in your vote you have done your duty as a Teamster, if you don't, then you have no right to complain about anything that happens to you later.


According to what I have been reading, here and elsewhere, SSleuth is correct. "Memorandums of Understanding" are legally binding documents that can be used to show the intent of the parties signing a contract.

Something about that had been bothering me as I read and reread the "memos" posted on this board. You finally helped me put my finger on it Benny. "Memorandums of Understanding" are legally binding if enforced in a court of law. Nowhere did I read that a grievance committee, at any level, felt bound by those agreements not included in a contract.

If you read the cases where "memorandums" were upheld and enforced, it was thru lawsuits being filed, cases presented in court and a decision reached by a judge. Can we depend on the Teamsters Union to file those lawsuits if the companies decided to hew to the letter of the contract but violate the spirit of the contract? Maybe.

The best way to ensure that our internal system, the grievance system, works is to vote NO and send the proposed contract back to negotiations in order to clear up those areas that are currently address by the "Memorandums".
 
According to what I have been reading, here and elsewhere, SSleuth is correct. "Memorandums of Understanding" are legally binding documents that can be used to show the intent of the parties signing a contract.

Something about that had been bothering me as I read and reread the "memos" posted on this board. You finally helped me put my finger on it Benny. "Memorandums of Understanding" are legally binding if enforced in a court of law. Nowhere did I read that a grievance committee, at any level, felt bound by those agreements not included in a contract.

If you read the cases where "memorandums" were upheld and enforced, it was thru lawsuits being filed, cases presented in court and a decision reached by a judge. Can we depend on the Teamsters Union to file those lawsuits if the companies decided to hew to the letter of the contract but violate the spirit of the contract? Maybe.

The best way to ensure that our internal system, the grievance system, works is to vote NO and send the proposed contract back to negotiations in order to clear up those areas that are currently address by the "Memorandums".

I'm not a lawyer by far but when I post info on this site I try to put it in terms of use by anybody that works in the real freight world. There are laws and regulations to protect all of us but there are all so some common sense and life rules that we all experience from time to time in our lives. Its the combination of all of these things that make us what we are today, Teamsters. I always have an open mind, thats why this site is so great. If you ask something someone will answer your question and then someone else will either agree or disagree with them. After all is said and done its up to everyone to make their own decision on what they have read. The only issue that I have is when the hot heads get to running people down and trying to start problems and then they take away from the board. Everyone should remember at Truckingboards, its all right to argue your point but its not right to argue over a point. Which ever way the vote goes I just hope everyone will stay just as interested in the Unions future business, as to what is going on, as they are now.
 
The contract clearly says it wont effect day to day ltl freight,it wont effect city or line haul.If you dont wont to be utility then dont bid on it.All of this talk of not needing line haul anymore is crap.If you can read and understand what you are reading then this is clear.I voted yes Holland has to be able to compete with non union.O well see you on the pickit line.I just hope we dont end up like RedStar,go on strike and Holland say o well just close it down we arent making any money anyway.I wonder if those RedStar boys would take this contract?Easyest 22.23 a hour ive ever make.:stirthepot:
 
The contract clearly says it wont effect day to day ltl freight,it wont effect city or line haul. If you can read and understand what you are reading then this is clear.

Establish Utility Employee positions at any facility at its discretion as-needed.

There shall be no retreat rights for employees who transfer to the local cartage operation to bid an open Utility Employee position.

The Utility Employee shall work across all classifications as assigned and as necessary to meet business needs, and there shall be no restrictions on the type of freight or work handled.

A Utility Employee’s duties during a tour of duty may, at his/her home terminal, include performing Utility-related dock work, P&D (local cartage) work, hostling/yard work (drop & hooks), and any driving work.

A Utility Employee shall perform all local cartage functions at his home terminal.

The parties recognize that most, if not all locations will have Utility Employees regardless of facility size, geographic and/or service area.


Well, I think that we all read and comprehend what we read very well. Its pretty simple to me. I hope others think so as well. VOTE NO!
 
tnt516

I was a redstar driver and i voted no it's crap there is still time to put another contract together . I can live with the money it's not great but there is to much language in it that will hurt us down the line.
 
confused

Establish Utility Employee positions at any facility at its discretion as-needed.

There shall be no retreat rights for employees who transfer to the local cartage operation to bid an open Utility Employee position.

The Utility Employee shall work across all classifications as assigned and as necessary to meet business needs, and there shall be no restrictions on the type of freight or work handled.

A Utility Employee’s duties during a tour of duty may, at his/her home terminal, include performing Utility-related dock work, P&D (local cartage) work, hostling/yard work (drop & hooks), and any driving work.

A Utility Employee shall perform all local cartage functions at his home terminal.

The parties recognize that most, if not all locations will have Utility Employees regardless of facility size, geographic and/or service area.


Well, I think that we all read and comprehend what we read very well. Its pretty simple to me. I hope others think so as well. VOTE NO!
Benny you are really hammering your anti-contract message home. My question to you is are the updates that are posted on the Union board at our barn not worth the paper its wrote on? Nearly every point you highlighted is a direct contradiction to the updates I recieved in the mail. Benny I know you keep preaching for more clarity and to me the updates are doing so. Benny I believe a no vote will spell doom for the regional group. Apparently your willing to risk that possibility, I'm not. On a good note, my sales rep seem very upbeat on the new regional VP. Good luck buddy and again we will agree to disagree ---GRIZZ
 
Benny you are really hammering your anti-contract message home. My question to you is are the updates that are posted on the Union board at our barn not worth the paper its wrote on? Nearly every point you highlighted is a direct contradiction to the updates I recieved in the mail. Benny I know you keep preaching for more clarity and to me the updates are doing so. Benny I believe a no vote will spell doom for the regional group. Apparently your willing to risk that possibility, I'm not. On a good note, my sales rep seem very upbeat on the new regional VP. Good luck buddy and again we will agree to disagree ---GRIZZ


For my anti contract update, I just made a post and poll in the union forum. If its true, it has the potential to eliminate thousands of linhaul jobs. You'll appreciate it Grizz, it uses the update received today and Tyson's notes in addition to the actual NMFA.
 
Benny you are really hammering your anti-contract message home. My question to you is are the updates that are posted on the Union board at our barn not worth the paper its wrote on? Nearly every point you highlighted is a direct contradiction to the updates I recieved in the mail. Benny I know you keep preaching for more clarity and to me the updates are doing so. Benny I believe a no vote will spell doom for the regional group. Apparently your willing to risk that possibility, I'm not. On a good note, my sales rep seem very upbeat on the new regional VP. Good luck buddy and again we will agree to disagree ---GRIZZ

I don't know the correct answer, thats why we all get to vote. I know you and I don't let our disagreement on this contract subject get in our way of being friends. I may be wrong and you may be right, I'm not positive that I'm voting correctly by voting NO. But, with everything that I've read and my own beliefs about things I decided to VOTE NO. As far as the letters and the paper I don't think they are worth much, in my opinion. I've never seen our Union leaders ever go to this much trouble to sell us on something before. They know that we know a good or bad deal for ourselves, it frightens me to see something like this being pushed on us. I myself would have voted to take a wage freeze as long as the health and welfare would have been taken care of. I don't like the 4 hour casuals but we may have to have them to compete. As far as the rail issue its the same thing, I just would like to see more language spelling out what can and can't happen, period. We have two boards at our barn and if this goes through then road men can bump city men off their bids over a period of time. They have all had a chance to crossover and didn't so why should they get to now. Our local supplement doesn't allow for anything but going to the bottom of the seniority board if you crossover to either the road or the city. The 4 hour casuals benefits go by the local supplements so why not the Utility Employee bid too?

Thats my main reasons for voting NO.

The new V. P. is going to be in Louisville tomorrow for a visit with us, I'll let you know what I hear, if he speaks to us, lol.
 
Point Blank

to the point, the customer.
They are the ones watching and they will divert freight, fail to re-new contracts, and all that business will go to the non-union lines because they don't want to gamble.
End result, no more YRCW when they have to beg to get customers back. Wake up and look across your fuel tank while taking a leak, and all you see runnin up and down the road is Con-way, fed-ex. (not to mention the other non-union carriers. Oh, and make sure your not caught in Arkansas takin a leak cause they will fine your butt off.:funky:
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE DIESEL SMOKE
 
Has anyone been reading what the nonunion people are putting on the boards.The conway people are afraid of getting shut down.There trucks are getting turn down and they are slow.
 
Has anyone been reading what the nonunion people are putting on the boards.The conway people are afraid of getting shut down.There trucks are getting turn down and they are slow.

The unofficial version I got from an associate that drives there was its related to logging in part. He said there were drivers actively logging speeds in violation of posted limits. Evidently this was encouraged at several terminals for many years. The current administration is evidently trying to discourage this everywhere by the lower speeds. I also think its to save fuel. Running most trucks above 1700 or so RPM, puts them outside their fuel economy zone. On long runs this will save a fortune.
 
Top