imported_DayWalker
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Holland | Vote Yes...i Did Today
- Thread starter slipperysleuth
- Start date
Benny Hill
I'm Back (kinda)
- Credits
- 0
I hope, if the contract is ratified, that you're both correct and I'm wrong. Like I've said before I'm not sure who is right and who is wrong. If things at least stay the same or better yet, get better I'll be the one saying thanks everybody for seeing what I couldn't see. If I'm right and you guys are wrong, all "we" have to do is sweat it out for 5 years. People do more time than that in prison all the time. I guess I'll have to change my name from Benny Hill to something like 103578949 or Cool Hand Luke and learn to call my bosses at Holland "Captain".
It keeps coming back to the point that a) you trust the companies and the union to make the best of the situation or b) you mistrust the companies and the union and want everything possible spelled out in black and white.
Whichever way the vote goes, we still have to, as I like quotes (and won't make the mistake of quoting Reagan again), so here is one from Patrick Henry "hang together or we will surely hang separately." Keep the disagreements in the family and present a united front to outsiders.
Whichever way the vote goes, we still have to, as I like quotes (and won't make the mistake of quoting Reagan again), so here is one from Patrick Henry "hang together or we will surely hang separately." Keep the disagreements in the family and present a united front to outsiders.
Boilerpeddle
Drawing found in trailer
- Credits
- 12
The fact is that benny posted what's IN THE PROPOSED CONTRACT that both parties agreed on and that the updates are an interpretation that does not agree with the language in the contract. The contract is the "Contract". Like it or don't, trust the union/company or don't.
I don't want to make anyone mad but I don't think Benny can be said to be hammering home an anti contract message by posting the language of that contract.
I don't want to make anyone mad but I don't think Benny can be said to be hammering home an anti contract message by posting the language of that contract.
The anti contract language is probably to strong of words. Benny knows I mean no disrespect to his beliefs. His position at his barn and the circumstances his terminal has been put through lately might have a lot to do with his stern views. Hang in there brothers, its got to get better. GRIZZ
Hockey Puck
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 1
Help me out here please.
The boards are full of comments that have nothing but bad things to say about the proposed utility driver position. I'm trying to figure out why it is so bad.
1) Take work away from Linehaul and City - Could happen, but it is still a Teamster job that pays more than a city position. It is still Teamster work. What's wrong with that?
2) It is targeted at new business, not existing business. That adds job security.
3) If a hostler is around, they do the work, not a utility driver. protects their positions.
4) Because of the $1.00 premium, there is incentive not to use a utility driver over a city driver.
5) 4 ten hour days would be very appealing to lots of folks. I'd love working 4 days a week and having 3 days off.
What am I missing?
The boards are full of comments that have nothing but bad things to say about the proposed utility driver position. I'm trying to figure out why it is so bad.
1) Take work away from Linehaul and City - Could happen, but it is still a Teamster job that pays more than a city position. It is still Teamster work. What's wrong with that?
2) It is targeted at new business, not existing business. That adds job security.
3) If a hostler is around, they do the work, not a utility driver. protects their positions.
4) Because of the $1.00 premium, there is incentive not to use a utility driver over a city driver.
5) 4 ten hour days would be very appealing to lots of folks. I'd love working 4 days a week and having 3 days off.
What am I missing?
No disrespect but have you actually read the contract?Not the freight updates, but the actual contract?
YELLOW CTI
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Vote No Save A Teamsters Job And Maybe Yours, You're Fell Better
freightpimp
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
most of the yes votes are yes men on the job. read there posts. they are only thinking of themselves and not the guy at the bottom who is going to be gone.
repost
Exactly, the contract reads the same. In the end we get the contract, NOT THE PROMISES
And frankly at this point I trust no one with five years of my life based on a
“take our word for it” propaganda letter from anyone, Hoffa or Yrc. VOTE NO
Back to the table and lets get this right.. its FIVE YEARS people, could have and
Should have for FIVE YEARS, do it now.
Exactly, the contract reads the same. In the end we get the contract, NOT THE PROMISES
And frankly at this point I trust no one with five years of my life based on a
“take our word for it” propaganda letter from anyone, Hoffa or Yrc. VOTE NO
Back to the table and lets get this right.. its FIVE YEARS people, could have and
Should have for FIVE YEARS, do it now.
Benny Hill
I'm Back (kinda)
- Credits
- 0
ctroadrunner
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
pleASE DONT MAKE ME VOMIT- VOTE NO.
You won't like my answer Grizz. I think it was a two fold plan;
Stage one was try and scare Road drivers into a Yes vote because they are laid off. This also helps their bottom line by paying less benefits, since alot of the guys will be forced to get other jobs.
Stage two is if this contract goes through, with the shiny wheel provisions the way they are, the company can start outsourcing a significant core percentage of long distance trailerloads, without incurring additional layoff expenses. The percentage of drivers they no longer need, will already have other jobs or partially exhausted their unemployment benefits. This eliminates paying what would amount to essentially/partially double unemployment and benefits.
Regular342
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
How do you figure? Even if every Teamster registered on this board voted NO, we would be a long waaaaaaaay from the votes needed to shoot this down. that is the problem. Truckingboards represents such a small % of all the freight teamsters.
Waggs to be honest, I haven't seen an answer from you I do like, try answer the question instead of rattling on about shinny-wheels. Why is the road to be the first ones laid-off, not just this contract year. This is a common throughout history. Holland apparently as taken up some off Yellows layoff practices. I've been at Holland 19 years and for the first time I've seen frt from the night before not moved with men laid off. This doesn't concern Holland, but I can't see the difference in running frt on the rail or a shinny-wheel. Aren't the % equal. GRIZZ
None of these links work?
After much thought and investigating the matter... Go To These Links, These Memo of understanding ARE legal and binding.
Here are 5 .pdf documents
http://www.usawarez.org/notes/Keegal.pdf
http://www.usawarez.org/notes/Tyson's_Love_Notes_1.pdf
http://www.usawarez.org/notes/Tyson's_Love_Notes_2.pdf
http://www.usawarez.org/notes/Tyson's_Love_Notes_3.pdf
http://www.usawarez.org/notes/Tyson's_Love_Notes_4.pdf
http://www.usawarez.org/notes/Tyson's_Love_Notes_5.pdf
http://www.usawarez.com/notes/ABF_Memo_Verified.pdf
:smilie_132:
No Grizz, they aren't even close, for more than one reason. I have explained different aspects as to why, in several posts, in various forums, for the past two or three weeks. If you haven't understood it yet, its a waste of time to go through it all again as to why, because I'm sure you won't understand my repeating myself. I will explain one additional thing here though. The percentage of drivers laid off this year is about double what it has been in previous years. They are laying guys off and running out of drivers in the same
terminals, during the same weeks.
freight2008.org: Proposed NMFATentative National Master Freight Agreement and Supplements
Here I added a good link.