717, CWA, and Meeting Requirements
I'd like to read some feedback about the issue surrounding union election rights. Historically, 717 has only allowed members to run for office if they have attended a "majority" of membership meetings in the calendar year prior to accepting nomination. One day after nominations we find out that there was a ruling on this issue, over-ruling our 717 constitution, that allows any dues paying member in good standing to vote.
At a meeting in September, a few high ranking officials thought it was joke to be concerned about how the law could impact the past practice of 717 and our constitutional election guidelines. Eboard was told with confidence that you must have 5 meetings to be able to run for office. Four days later we found out that our constitution was out of compliance. This is the danger that we face when we don't encourage discussion and think out of the box.
As a financial officer and the chairman of the constitution committee, I need to be prepared in the event that someone legally challenges our constitution. This is a perfect case and point. I don't care if people heading out the door vote for their representatives. If they're working in the shop for one day when these representatives take office, they have an interest in who represents them. If they're retiring they should have an interest in who represents their interest as a retiree. My concern is more about votes decided by voters with absolutely no legal obligation or stake in the legal contract subject to ratification. We have a responsibility to protect the rights of those who are staying and ensure that the democratic voting process isn't exploited.
Once again my decision to not yield to the judgment of others has been validated. Our constitution isn't fail safe and as we have just found out, there are conflicts and problems that need addressed. All I asked for was a discussion.
Nobody in their right mind would allow me to have a say by signing any legal agreement that effects their rights but does not legally name me as a person liable and obligated to honor that agreement. Why? because I am an uninvolved party without legal interest on or after the effective date of legal applicability.
I think we may need to amend the constitution to speak to the specific rights of dues paying members that have agreed to sever ties with the employer; members that will be ex-employees and non-members in the effective time scope of the contract that guarantees the terms of employment. The effective date will more than likely be on or after 1/1/2007. A ratification vote is essentially a signature of agreement. How many contracts have you seen that has the signature of someone uninvolved with no obligation as an obligee or obligor?
Thoughts?
I'd like to read some feedback about the issue surrounding union election rights. Historically, 717 has only allowed members to run for office if they have attended a "majority" of membership meetings in the calendar year prior to accepting nomination. One day after nominations we find out that there was a ruling on this issue, over-ruling our 717 constitution, that allows any dues paying member in good standing to vote.
At a meeting in September, a few high ranking officials thought it was joke to be concerned about how the law could impact the past practice of 717 and our constitutional election guidelines. Eboard was told with confidence that you must have 5 meetings to be able to run for office. Four days later we found out that our constitution was out of compliance. This is the danger that we face when we don't encourage discussion and think out of the box.
As a financial officer and the chairman of the constitution committee, I need to be prepared in the event that someone legally challenges our constitution. This is a perfect case and point. I don't care if people heading out the door vote for their representatives. If they're working in the shop for one day when these representatives take office, they have an interest in who represents them. If they're retiring they should have an interest in who represents their interest as a retiree. My concern is more about votes decided by voters with absolutely no legal obligation or stake in the legal contract subject to ratification. We have a responsibility to protect the rights of those who are staying and ensure that the democratic voting process isn't exploited.
Once again my decision to not yield to the judgment of others has been validated. Our constitution isn't fail safe and as we have just found out, there are conflicts and problems that need addressed. All I asked for was a discussion.
Nobody in their right mind would allow me to have a say by signing any legal agreement that effects their rights but does not legally name me as a person liable and obligated to honor that agreement. Why? because I am an uninvolved party without legal interest on or after the effective date of legal applicability.
I think we may need to amend the constitution to speak to the specific rights of dues paying members that have agreed to sever ties with the employer; members that will be ex-employees and non-members in the effective time scope of the contract that guarantees the terms of employment. The effective date will more than likely be on or after 1/1/2007. A ratification vote is essentially a signature of agreement. How many contracts have you seen that has the signature of someone uninvolved with no obligation as an obligee or obligor?
Thoughts?
posted by JimMartinJr at 11:22 PM
1 Comments:
To discourage the political spin artists, I have to draw attention to the difference between uninvolbed parties and involved parties. I DO NOT have a problem with anybody voting for me if they're still at work for 1 day when I take office. My argument has nothing to do with voters that actually have a legal interest in the results of the vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home