Results 1 to 10 of 23
-
08-16-2017, 03:36 PM #1UnregisteredGuest
PBA continues to hurt us even when they're gone
IUPA tried to fight to fix the promotion system where even if you score in top tier the Sheriff can pass you by and pick behind you. The Sheriffs team only had to present a PBA newsletter from years back saying they were ok with this. IUPA tried to claim they are gone and employees have a new Union that wants fair promotions.
Arbitrator took sides with the Sheriffs skip/shuffle promotion system saying the old PBAs "newsletter" is now enshrined as official interpretation of this system.
Thanks again PBA, even gone you still hurt us all
-
08-16-2017, 04:37 PM #2UnregisteredGuest
Sounds like the PBA finally got us off "the Sheriff can pick wherever off the list" to the current system where he has to stay in top 5. Now it is IUPa job to fix it even more. It is called progessive labor negotiations.
-
08-17-2017, 03:30 PM #3UnregisteredGuest
IUPA could have gone to impasse on the promotional process. That would have cost money to hire lawyers to argue in front of
the legislative body, the county commission. Lets see. IUPA supported Commissioner Gellar's opponent. IUPA supported
Commissioner Nan Rich's opponent in the Weston race.
NOT looking good so far.
SJI, the political powerhouse would prevail at this hearing without a doubt.
IUPA =No Juice
The best is IUPA, who is ranked 7th in America for fraudulent fundraising is now having local fundraising raffle. Follow the $ to
Sarasota?
Ask Deputy PP about the local charity!
-
08-17-2017, 03:35 PM #4UnregisteredGuest
-
08-17-2017, 05:22 PM #5UnregisteredGuest
-
08-17-2017, 06:00 PM #6
-
08-17-2017, 06:13 PM #7UnregisteredGuest
Read the actual judgement people.... the aribitrator says that since iupa didn't bother to change the "rule of 5 language" in subsequent contacts with BSO it's their fault and said the IUPA can not achieve through arbitration what it it could not get at the bargaining table.
Bottle line... stop shifting blame to the pba and own it iupa. If it was that big of a deal you should've changed the language in the contract or gone to impasse.
-
08-17-2017, 08:05 PM #8UnregisteredGuest
Let me get this right. The PBA screwed us by writing this into existence during Lamberti and it's IUPA's fault some how? Hey PBA. Who was the bargaining unit that allowed the undefined rule of five to be implemented in the first place? Who was the bargaining unit that allowed fuel fees to be implemented? Find a way to reach the members other than lies. You guys destroyed the membership for years now you think you have clean hands? But you guys would never admit to being screw ups. And that is your biggest problem.
-
08-17-2017, 11:57 PM #9UnregisteredGuest
Yup, let's go to impass and hold up raises for 1300 when only 1 person was completely skipped last test. Typical PBA mind set. If Brickman did not intentionally change the agreed rule of 5 language to pass a contract for his buddy Lamberti and say it would be corrected, we would not be arguing about this
-
08-18-2017, 03:16 AM #10UnregisteredGuest
Bookmarks