These people have to be joking right?
- Thread starter forrest
- Start date
It was regional conference, any member could have attended. Although, no one likes getting a surly attitude. Especially from our union peeps. And the union wonders why we are bleeding membership. People skills matter.
Joe Reeser
Well-known member
I dunno what the big deal is as he's just being open about it. You know none of these people have any intention of ever touching the mail again. Why would anyone take a pay cut like that, for one thing.
And he's not young. He's well over retirement age now. I don't want to deliver in the heat anymore.I dunno what the big deal is as he's just being open about it. You know none of these people have any intention of ever touching the mail again. Why would anyone take a pay cut like that, for one thing.
I don’t have a surly attitude with any carrier. Member or not. I have never had a carrier leave the union in my district because of our current union leadership. It has happened with our past DR but there’s a reason they’re no longer a DR.
clown car carrier
Well-known member
i think my favorite part of rrecs implementation was getting my new route eval on april first that's really the best april fools joke ever they really got us all good
forrest
Well-known member
I don't think anyone was complaining about those on the district level I have in the past and still feel they should have seen the blood bath coming but not on this post. I think its much more about those big shots that get to rack up those l frequent flyer miles jet setting to area conferences they aren't even in the area off.
If we want any hope of saving this job as one of the few goid jobs remaining not requiring a degree we must.
1. Get rid of De'jerk
2. Get rid of every single member of the board and any candidate running who has kept quiet and let the rank and file get screwed. I said it before and still
stand firm the people listed above have blood on their hands. Suicides were absolutely predictable given what they all allowed to happen or even had an active part in happening. 3. Get rid of table 2 in the current labor market table 2 wages are just not enough to retain subs in a job that has little guaranteed hours, no set schedule including forced work on Sundays, no set hours they may be sent back out to work other routes until all hours of the night. How is someone who has kids or any other responsibility supposed to do that without the extra buffer from table 1 wages. All this while working in hard freezes and 130° llvs.
Dominator
Well-known member
The Union's constitution has got to be one of the worst reads I've ever come across. Fortunately, the heavenly bodies rarely allign to birth such a moronic masterpiece.
Whatever the Board's imagination desires is what happens. They'll prompt their cheerleaders to pressure others to vote a certain way so the Board can flee by the "this is what the body wanted" escape hatch.
If the cheerleaders are rejected, the Board will just flee with some ignorance "this is what we thought it meant... oopsie doodle!" escape hatch.
Consider how ineffective this article is to an officer with a one-year term.
This particular section is all sorts of backwards.
Presuming the target officer is sanctioned, note that there are two sanctions levied against the target officer.
- Target is "suspended" (with pay)
- Target is "removed from office"
So what is the effect of "suspension"?
One "principle of interpretation" within Robert's Rules of Order ("RNOR") §56:68 is:
If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.
I realize the principle identifies "bylaws", but in RONR...
So... back to "effects of suspension".
Of the five membership classifications of Article 3, Section 2 (Bargaining Unit Member; Retired Member; Associate Member; Retired Associate Member; Honorary Member), only Bargaining Unit Members in good standing are elegible to hold a seat on the National Board.
While a "suspension" normally knocks a general member out of good standing, it appears that Article 5, Section 7 grants National Officers a pass in that a National Officer remains elegible to hold elective office (an continue receiving pay during his/her "suspension") despite no longer being in "good standing"
This isn't to give any credibility to the "suspension". The Board sometimes just makes stuff up and rely on cancel-culture rhetoric from their cheerleaders to carry out whims against those who stand up to bullies.
Back to your original question though, "What [are] the consequences are of breaking [the social media] policy?"
The officer might be "suspended" (depending on political rivalries) yet remain on the board and remain on payroll until the next convention. The elegibilities associated with "good standing" may or may not matter (depending on political rivalries).
- In my experience, whether this or any "policy" has any actual force or effect is irrelevant to the Board's direction or decisions.
- In my experience, imagination qualifies as reality when it comes to NRLCA policy enforcement. I.e., they make it up as they go along.
- If the National Board plans to "suspend" an officer, whatever the reason behind it (legitimate or not), it will happen.
As seen above, the 3-member committee reports their findings and recommendations to the National Convention, not to the National Board or any particular officer. The "hearing" has no influence as to whether the officer is (or remains) suspended. The Committee's only task is to "report its findings and recommendations to the next National Convention."
It looks to me that the Board activates the suspension immediately, then has a "hearing"
within 30-days of suspension to give the 3-member committee something to talk about at the next convention.So... does the 3-member committee have any influence on the decision to suspend the media-slinging rebel? I don't believe so. If they do, it's not stated in the relevant section.
Additionally, the whole "officer has no right to appeal" is redundant. The officer (who is also a member) can only appeal in their member capacity, not their officer capacity.
The appeals procedure is both a comedy and tragedy. The officer could appeal (in their member capacity) against those who allegedly wronged him/her, then wait to receive their decision letter where the Board agrees with its own righteousness, and the appealing member has been entirely wrong in life since before birth.
Then take that appeal to the National Convention where the National Appeals Committee will write a slanted and prejudicial argument against a strawman version of the original complaint. - If you're able to get a straight answer from the Board, it won't be in writing.
- If the answer is in writing, it will be voided by a "misunderstanding".
- If there is no "misunderstanding" then the meaning given will have limited application, but not to your case.
- If the application is to your case, then it will be recognized as having no remedy and the argument will be terminated.
- If a remedy does exist it will be too late to apply the remedy
- If it's not too late, the issue will have to go through the appeals process.
- If it goes through the appeals process, you can count on a backwards presentation of the issue and having no time to correct the record (presuming the President doesn't just refuse to call on you...
)
Last edited:
@Dominator Okay. Here's what I did. After reading your post, I separated the written language from your language and have come to the determination that you are speaking from first hand ( not to be confused with the ACTUAL number of times ) experience. Which, in a pathetic and ironic way at the end of it all, made YOUR language the official written language.
forrest
Well-known member
So more circular logic just like is being used to keep our evaluations down. Evaluations can only go up if your numbers go up but if your numbers go up you must be doing something to benefit yourself so we will investigate it and you. If or investigation we unilaterally take finds that you did break the rules we came up with then we will not allow you to do that.The Union's consitution has got to be one of the worst reads I've ever come across. Fortunately, the heavenly bodies rarely allign to birth such a moronic masterpiece.
Whatever the Board's imagination desires is what happens. They'll prompt their cheerleaders to pressure others to vote a certain way so the Board can flee by the "this is what the body wanted" escape hatch.
If the cheerleaders are rejected, the Board will just flee with some ignorance "this is what we thought it meant... oopsie doodle!" escape hatch.
Consider how ineffective this article is to an officer with a one-year term.
This particular section is all sorts of backwards.
Presuming the target officer is sanctioned, note that there are two sanctions levied against the target officer.
Levy #2 indicates that the target officer remains "suspended" (with pay) until no earlier than when the National Delegates vote to determine whether the target officer is "removed" from office (possibly on what already synchronizes with their scheduled last day of office).
- Target is "suspended" (with pay)
- Target is "removed from office"
So what is the effect of "suspension"?
One "principle of interpretation" within Robert's Rules of Order ("RNOR") §56:68 is:
If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.
View attachment 10874
I realize the principle identifies "bylaws", but in RONR...
View attachment 10875
So... back to "effects of suspension".
Of the five membership classifications of Article 3, Section 2 (Bargaining Unit Member; Retired Member; Associate Member; Retired Associate Member; Honorary Member), only Bargaining Unit Members in good standing are elegible to hold a seat on the National Board.
View attachment 10877
While a "suspension" normally knocks a general member out of good standing, it appears that Article 5, Section 7 grants National Officers a pass in that a National Officer remains elegible to hold elective office (an continue receiving pay during his/her "suspension") despite no longer being in "good standing"
This isn't to give any credibility to the "suspension". The Board sometimes just makes stuff up and rely on cancel-culture rhetoric from their cheerleaders to carry out whims against those who stand up to bullies.
Back to your original question though, "What [are] the consequences are of breaking [the social media] policy?"
The officer might be "suspended" (depending on political rivalries) yet remain on the board and remain on payroll until the next convention. The elegibilities associated with "good standing" may or may not matter (depending on political rivalries).
But when does the "suspension" take place?
- In my experience, whether this or any "policy" has any actual force or effect is irrelevant to the Board's direction or decisions.
- In my experience, imagination qualifies as reality when it comes to NRLCA policy enforcement. I.e., they make it up as they go along.
- If the National Board plans to "suspend" an officer, whatever the reason behind it (legitimate or not), it will happen.
As seen above, the 3-member committee reports their findings and recommendations to the National Convention, not to the National Board or any particular officer. The "hearing" has no influence as to whether the officer is (or remains) suspended. The Committee's only task is to "report its findings and recommendations to the next National Convention."
It looks to me that the Board activates the suspension immediately, then has a "hearing"
So... does the 3-member committee have any influence on the decision to suspend the media-slinging rebel? I don't believe so. If they do, it's not stated in the relevant section.
Additionally, the whole "officer has no right to appeal" is redundant. The officer (who is also a member) can only appeal in their member capacity, not their officer capacity.
View attachment 10878
The appeals procedure is both a comedy and tragedy. The officer could appeal (in their member capacity) against those who allegedly wronged him/her, then wait to receive their decision letter where the Board agrees with its own righteousness, and the appealing member has been entirely wrong in life since before birth.
- If you're able to get a straight answer from the Board, it won't be in writing.
- If the answer is in writing, it will be voided by a "misunderstanding".
- If there is no "misunderstanding" then the meaning given will have limited application, but not to your case.
- If the application is to your case, then it will be recognized as having no remedy and the argument will be terminated.
- If a remedy does exist it will be too late to apply the remedy
- If it's not too late, the issue will have to go through the appeals process.
- If it goes through the appeals process, you can count on a backwards presentation of the issue and having no time to correct the record (presuming the President doesn't just refuse to call on you...
The next contract I expect to read:
Last edited:
Dominator
Well-known member
Dominator
Well-known member
Precisely.
They'll "control the narrative" through...
- Arguing in a circle... ad nauseum
- Strawman the opponent's arguments
- Red herring the delegates
- Appeal to authority (i.e., presume that those holding officer titles are correct because they hold... officer... titles)
- Appeal to tradition (i.e., revere that "we did it this way before, so we must repeat what we did before, regardless if 'what we did before' was a mistake." OR if what was done before worked against the narrative, then damn the tradition and invent/support the "new and better" narrative-compatible solution
- Speak in lofty jabberwocky...
- Round up their cheerleaders with a fresh supply of ego strokes
- Minimize the issue
- Deflect blame to the opponent and label the opponent anything generally offensive
- Gaslight those with weak attention spans and faulty memories knowing that if they ever catch on, you can just explain it away. No worries if you can't explain it away though, the damage is already done and would take years to reverse, if reversal is even possible
Take note of the behavior of those with titles. In my experience, I've seen a lot of...
Last edited:
Dominator
Well-known member
It's a mess. I've asked for constitutional interpretation in writing, but all I basically got was "we don't answer academic or theoretical questions involving constitutional interpretation".
They pound their chests claiming they control interpretation (as though Marbury vs. Madison has any effect on the NRLCA Constitution) but refuse to give it when specifically asked? This is the mark of a dime-store hustle.
It's not like I asked them to define the word "woman" or anything.
I know word travels through secret channels in the shadows of NRLCA government. As I've presented before, I don't mind helping to "straighten the ship" behind the scenes without credit or limelight.
Thing is, a closet full of skeletons make certain folks unwilling to trust a soul. Yet, no society can thrive without trust.
forrest
Well-known member
If I ever get up there they will be right not to trust me. I won't be going to make friends and play nice. They all need a good swift kick in the pants and that place desperately needs some sun light. While I get things like disciplinary issues require discretion and privacy, things that affect the whole craft should be in view of the whole craft. I do wonder if this is an unexpected result of the non strike clause. If a strike was possible the workforce would have to be kept in the loop enough to know if a strike was likely inorder to prepare.It's a mess. I've asked for constitutional interpretation in writing, but all I basically got was "we don't answer academic or theoretical questions involving constitutional interpretation".
They pound their chests claiming they control interpretation (as though Marbury vs. Madison has any effect on the NRLCA Constitution) but refuse to give it when specifically asked? This is the mark of a dime-store hustle.
It's not like I asked them to define the word "woman" or anything.
I know word travels through secret channels in the shadows of NRLCA government. As I've presented before, I don't mind helping to "straighten the ship" behind the scenes without credit or limelight.
Thing is, a closet full of skeletons make certain folks unwilling to trust a soul. Yet, no society can thrive without trust.
We all know from Tommy who used to work on the docks. That when the union's been on striked. People are down on their luck, it's tough, so tough!
Dumbassclerksyndrome
Well-known member
record (presuming the President doesn't just refuse to call on you...The Union's constitution has got to be one of the worst reads I've ever come across. Fortunately, the heavenly bodies rarely allign to birth such a moronic masterpiece.
Whatever the Board's imagination desires is what happens. They'll prompt their cheerleaders to pressure others to vote a certain way so the Board can flee by the "this is what the body wanted" escape hatch.
If the cheerleaders are rejected, the Board will just flee with some ignorance "this is what we thought it meant... oopsie doodle!" escape hatch.
Consider how ineffective this article is to an officer with a one-year term.
This particular section is all sorts of backwards.
Presuming the target officer is sanctioned, note that there are two sanctions levied against the target officer.
Levy #2 indicates that the target officer remains "suspended" (with pay) until no earlier than when the National Delegates vote to determine whether the target officer is "removed" from office (possibly on what already synchronizes with their scheduled last day of office).
- Target is "suspended" (with pay)
- Target is "removed from office"
So what is the effect of "suspension"?
One "principle of interpretation" within Robert's Rules of Order ("RNOR") §56:68 is:
If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.
View attachment 10874
I realize the principle identifies "bylaws", but in RONR...
View attachment 10875
So... back to "effects of suspension".
Of the five membership classifications of Article 3, Section 2 (Bargaining Unit Member; Retired Member; Associate Member; Retired Associate Member; Honorary Member), only Bargaining Unit Members in good standing are elegible to hold a seat on the National Board.
View attachment 10877
While a "suspension" normally knocks a general member out of good standing, it appears that Article 5, Section 7 grants National Officers a pass in that a National Officer remains elegible to hold elective office (an continue receiving pay during his/her "suspension") despite no longer being in "good standing"
This isn't to give any credibility to the "suspension". The Board sometimes just makes stuff up and rely on cancel-culture rhetoric from their cheerleaders to carry out whims against those who stand up to bullies.
Back to your original question though, "What [are] the consequences are of breaking [the social media] policy?"
The officer might be "suspended" (depending on political rivalries) yet remain on the board and remain on payroll until the next convention. The elegibilities associated with "good standing" may or may not matter (depending on political rivalries).
But when does the "suspension" take place?
- In my experience, whether this or any "policy" has any actual force or effect is irrelevant to the Board's direction or decisions.
- In my experience, imagination qualifies as reality when it comes to NRLCA policy enforcement. I.e., they make it up as they go along.
- If the National Board plans to "suspend" an officer, whatever the reason behind it (legitimate or not), it will happen.
As seen above, the 3-member committee reports their findings and recommendations to the National Convention, not to the National Board or any particular officer. The "hearing" has no influence as to whether the officer is (or remains) suspended. The Committee's only task is to "report its findings and recommendations to the next National Convention."
It looks to me that the Board activates the suspension immediately, then has a "hearing"
So... does the 3-member committee have any influence on the decision to suspend the media-slinging rebel? I don't believe so. If they do, it's not stated in the relevant section.
Additionally, the whole "officer has no right to appeal" is redundant. The officer (who is also a member) can only appeal in their member capacity, not their officer capacity.
View attachment 10878
The appeals procedure is both a comedy and tragedy. The officer could appeal (in their member capacity) against those who allegedly wronged him/her, then wait to receive their decision letter where the Board agrees with its own righteousness, and the appealing member has been entirely wrong in life since before birth.
- If you're able to get a straight answer from the Board, it won't be in writing.
- If the answer is in writing, it will be voided by a "misunderstanding".
- If there is no "misunderstanding" then the meaning given will have limited application, but not to your case.
- If the application is to your case, then it will be recognized as having no remedy and the argument will be terminated.
- If a remedy does exist it will be too late to apply the remedy
- If it's not too late, the issue will have to go through the appeals process.
- If it goes through the appeals process, you can count on a backwards presentation of the issue and having no time to correct the record (presuming the President doesn't just refuse to call on you...
)Been there… done that
Ineverslice
Well-known member
Absolutely!
forrest
Well-known member
I apologize that's on me. I figured since I was now a "keyboard warrior" I would gather Intel via covert operations aka her post history, Google, and Facebook since I got it wrong guess I wasn't much of a keyboard warrior after all
. I forgot the fallout would be on you. So once again sorry RI.
gerl2
Well-known member
You are definitely part of the problem within the union. My look on this on a retirement perspective and having many years in as a carrier, the good times and now the bad times, and I have dealt with this weak sell out union about in order to change mantra blah blah blah. If the union was doing their job, we wouldn't need a site like this, our union makes sure we are in the dark about everything, and its been this way for a long time, EX: look at Facebook, we all thought what a great thing they are actually reaching out to its members, only to find out we get pictures of mailbox's and can't even reply because chat is turned off(clearly the union telling its members SHUT UP we don't want to hear from you). I don't know who or why this weak associate thinks its going to stay a float with treating its members the way they have or even speak to them like a dog who has no voice even on a free members site. You clearly have stated you are a union person(not sure of your title) In my personal opinion you shouldn't be on this board arguing with folks, you are making the union look just like folks calling out our union leaders, just saying, you yourself is making the union look just how people already feel about it. You are being paid to represent the carrier craft whether they are a paying or nonpaying member, maybe just maybe if our union would reach out to the people and change their dialogue, keep members updated on things like all other unions maybe you wouldn't be seeing such a mass exodus, you have a lot of pissed off carriers more so than ever now is not the time to fuel the fire.
Ineverslice
Well-known member
Very well stated! I left the union this past February after paying dues for 17 years because I watched them do nothing about the influx of Amazon the past 5+ years. I even told my steward that I would gladly come back to the union if they show a backbone and fix this Rrecs mess. It’s not looking likely
