Yellow | YRCW Violates "Equal Sacrifice" Provisions Of MOU?!

Freightmaster1

TB Legend
Credits
575
It does appear that YRCW is in violation of sections of the original (2009) MOU and a later (2013) extension of the MOU by starting to match non-union hourly and salaried employees 401K plans. I'm sure that Tyson Johnson will be putting a stop to these shenanigans asap?


BpLvCcJ.jpg


HGp2Zl6.jpg


:busted:
l7D1I62.jpg
 
Last edited:
th
I know I'll take flack. But if you REALLY read what the highlighted portion on page 3 says you would realize that it does not apply! That ONLY applied while we were not receiving pension contributions!
But why would anyone bother to READ the MOU?
the west coast has NO, ZERO, NADA TO PENSION CONTRIBUTION
 
th

the west coast has NO, ZERO, NADA TO PENSION CONTRIBUTION
The word is that the west coast's contributions are going into a 401K and that the fund does not recognize them as fund contributions. You're saying it isn't so?
 
ok , but does page 3 apply to yellow pig ONLY paying in 25% not the full 100% into the broke CSF ???? but REALLY it does NOT matter as the union we not say one word to yrcw and they have pretty much washed there hands of the freight industry .................................
 
I know I'll take flack. But if you REALLY read what the highlighted portion on page 3 says you would realize that it does not apply! That ONLY applied while we were not receiving pension contributions!
But why would anyone bother to READ the MOU?

There is nothing in the MOU that requires anyone read and understand the MOU. So if it's not required contractually, no one should be forced to read and understand that document. If anyone is being forced or pressured by the company to understand the MOU, that person should contact his steward or business agent and immediately file a grievance. Where does this all end? :hide: :438: :lmao:
 
There is nothing in the MOU that requires anyone read and understand the MOU. So if it's not required contractually, no one should be forced to read and understand that document. If anyone is being forced or pressured by the company to understand the MOU, that person should contact his steward or business agent and immediately file a grievance. Where does this all end? :hide: :438: :lmao:
Well Toto I just hope it's not Kansas! :emoticon digging:
But maybe it'll be "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" :dance:
 
its pretty funny when you read some of this . Its like i know im being screwed and im ok with them shoving a little harder
It's even funnier when they're OK with it and they're not the ones getting screwed.
 
"During the Non-Permanent Pension Contribution Termination Period" (the time period when NO contributions were made to union employees) how does anyone see ambiguity in that quote? The language is from 2009. It is specific to the time it was adopted. Once YRCW resumed our (25%) pension contribution, the prohibition on contributing to non-union 401k plans CEASED! Many don't like it, it doesn't matter. There is no violation of the CURRENT MOU.
 
its pretty funny when you read some of this . Its like i know im being screwed and im ok with them shoving a little harder
It's even funnier when they're OK with it and they're not the ones getting screwed.
Neither of you are CURRENTLY employed at ANY YRCW company. And I find that to be HYSTERICAL that you would EVEN broach the subject of WHO has the right to express opinions on the current state of YRCW's Teamsters.
 
Neither of you are CURRENTLY employed at ANY YRCW company. And I find that to be HYSTERICAL that you would EVEN broach the subject of WHO has the right to express opinions on the current state of YRCW's Teamsters.
Putting aside whether or not they broke the terms of the mou, doesn't it tick you off at least a little bit, that Yrc always seems to find the money for things they want; like cameras, uniforms, intermecs and now 401 contributions for nonunion. How about restoring our week of vacation or giving maybe 5% of our money back instead? But we all know that's not going to happen because when it comes to teamsters, well they're always broke.
 
Putting aside whether or not they broke the terms of the mou, doesn't it tick you off at least a little bit, that Yrc always seems to find the money for things they want; like cameras, uniforms, intermecs and now 401 contributions for nonunion. How about restoring our week of vacation or giving maybe 5% of our money back instead? But we all know that's not going to happen because when it comes to teamsters, well they're always broke.
Of course it does. But fight when you're right. And, not surprisingly, YRCW in not in violation in this particular instance.
 
Neither of you are CURRENTLY employed at ANY YRCW company. And I find that to be HYSTERICAL that you would EVEN broach the subject of WHO has the right to express opinions on the current state of YRCW's Teamsters.
Triplex will be right along to back you up on this...oops, he's already on it. Lives here and accuses others of having no life outside of here. :hysterical:

Now where's his other sidekick?
 
Putting aside whether or not they broke the terms of the mou, doesn't it tick you off at least a little bit, that Yrc always seems to find the money for things they want; like cameras, uniforms, intermecs and now 401 contributions for nonunion. How about restoring our week of vacation or giving maybe 5% of our money back instead? But we all know that's not going to happen because when it comes to teamsters, well they're always broke.
You guys have new uniforms ???
 
Top