Yellow | Stalemate Between UPS And Union Workers Reaches Bitter End!
- Thread starter Freightmaster1
- Start date
Baa, Baa, Baa.
Sounds like coercion and an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Coercion of employees (Section 8(b)(1)(A)) | NLRB
- Credits
- 539
Civil Rights don't apply, since when?
Next, it will probably be voting rights too.
Gee, talk about the War On Workers?
- Credits
- 539
Section 8 rights are applicable to your rights to organize a Union into your work place under The National Labor Relations Act of 1935....THESE do not apply to what you are trying to say.
What does apply is the IBT Constitution in Article XII, Section 2 (b).....while Constitutionally the IBT has the power to implement the UPS Contract even though some areas voted their supplement down, it will not morally be accepted by the UPS member who VOTED not to accept it.....KK
http://teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/constitution_June2006.pdf
Here, let me help you with this KK, because IBT rules to not supersede state and federal laws.
29 U.S. Code § 523 - Retention of rights under other Federal and State laws | LII / Legal Information Institute
29 U.S. Code § 524a - Elimination of racketeering activities threat; State legislation governing collective bargaining representative | LII / Legal Information Institute
Get it? Got it? Good.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Credits
- 539
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION...No, but I got it, you just don't get it.
Article 12 has been in the IBT Constitution since 1940. At every IBT convention the delegates that are ELECTED by the membership (who took the time to vote) are empowered to do the business of the Union by the members who elected them to act on their behalf.
Article 12, while I do not agree with it being used in the UPS Contract, gives them the right to override a NO vote if the master has been passed.
As I said, I DO NOT agree with it being used in the UPS situation, put politics, are politics.
In order to change it, the MEMBERS must make change by getting involved with the delegate process and run for a delegate and MAKE THE CHANGES.
Your ostentatious ways of posting information that does not apply to the IBT Constitution, while entertaining if one has the time to read all your damn links, does not apply to the IBT constitution, which by the way has to be monitored and approved under the Consent Decree entered on March 14, 1989 in United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et.al. 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y.) (LAP)
The International Union has to notify the members of any changes from court or governmental action.....Article 12 still lives...move on…...KK
Article 12 has been in the IBT Constitution since 1940. At every IBT convention the delegates that are ELECTED by the membership (who took the time to vote) are empowered to do the business of the Union by the members who elected them to act on their behalf.
Article 12, while I do not agree with it being used in the UPS Contract, gives them the right to override a NO vote if the master has been passed.
As I said, I DO NOT agree with it being used in the UPS situation, put politics, are politics.
In order to change it, the MEMBERS must make change by getting involved with the delegate process and run for a delegate and MAKE THE CHANGES.
Your ostentatious ways of posting information that does not apply to the IBT Constitution, while entertaining if one has the time to read all your damn links, does not apply to the IBT constitution, which by the way has to be monitored and approved under the Consent Decree entered on March 14, 1989 in United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et.al. 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y.) (LAP)
The International Union has to notify the members of any changes from court or governmental action.....Article 12 still lives...move on…...KK
Well Civil Rights are not based on politics, their based on principles. Where does it say in IBT Constitution that union representatives can coerce their own members into voting a certain way? IBT Constitution does not supersede state and federal laws when it comes to Civil Rights. Besides, the IBT is a 501c (5) non-profit charity.
Do the members get to vote on the IBT Constitution? NO, why not? Therefore, that IBT Constitution doesn't mean $***.
By the way KK, when is the IBT going to inform everyone that UPS and YRC is a 501c (6) tax exempt business through the trade commerce? Gee, since these companies are tax exempt from paying federal taxes, don't you think they could afford to pay full wages and benefits to the members?
Yeah, where is the solidarity on that BROTHER?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Credits
- 539
Read the post again.....THE MEMBERS vote for the delegates from their Local and give them proxy to handle and new business and any votes needed on their behalf...by the way, both companies pay taxes of some form....they are not exempted from taxes.....KK
You read the post again. Where does it say in the IBT Constitution that union representatives could coerce members into voting Yes or No on a contract offering?
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes it unlawful for a labor organization or its agents "to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act (voting rights recognized through state and federal laws), provided that this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein."
Use violence or threats of violence to coerce employees. This includes violence directed at nonemployees, if employees are present or will hear about it.
Breach your duty to fairly represent employees. Although your conduct is entitled to a wide range of reasonableness, you may not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith. "Bad faith" means fraud, deceit, or dishonesty.
Discipline a member for filing unfair labor practice charges.
Discipline a member for testifying against other members in a grievance meeting or an arbitration proceeding.
Coercion of employees (Section 8(b)(1)(A)) | NLRB
Now I can not suggest anyone to file a claim or not to file a claim and neither could you KK, because that would be considered 'coercion.'
The decision could only be decided on an individual or individuals free choice.
You really are confused
Confused about what?
There wasnt any coercion. You keep bringing up laws and acts that have to do with organizing and absolutely nothing to do with the UPS contract. You are not even comparing apples to oranges. Youre comparing apples to motorcycles.
Really? How do you know there isn't any coercion? Were you at the location? Your opinions are not facts.
Do this or else?
And if a union representative spoke that way to a member before or during a voting process that is called coercion.
Coercion | Define Coercion at Dictionary.com
Which by-the-way is illegal activity conducted by a union representative and a major ethics violation, if in fact that did happen according to his post.
Then, KK brings-up some IBT Constitution condoning the actions are legal, and you calling me confused?