Decker Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) Interpretations of the Constitution of the International Union Page 185 (2) Convention Delegates Failing to Follow Locals Instructions There is no authority in this or any other section of the constitution for perferring charges or trying Convention Delegates who fail to vote at the convention in accordance with "instructions" of their local union. Delegates to the convention meet to legislate on matters affecting the entire International Union and they are not bound, either legally or morally, to follow "instructions" of their particular local unions relative to their voting.They are entitled to base their judgement and their votes upon facts and considerations persented to them at such conventions-matieral which may not been previously within the knowledge of themselves of the membership of the locals which they represent. (philadelphia, 10/22/43) See Article 8. (Page 9) With these loop holes there is no accountability. If you take time to look into this document the holes are many. Decker Edited June 6, 2014 by Decker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) No , Wild One,your immature response is!Add something constructive or move on. Edited June 6, 2014 by Fatso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Interpretations of the Constitution of the International Union Page 185 (2) Convention Delegates Failing to Follow Locals Instructions There is no authority in this or any other section of the constitution for perferring charges or trying Convention Delegates who fail to vote at the convention in accordance with "instructions" of their local union. Delegates to the convention meet to legislate on matters affecting the entire International Union and they are not bound, either legally or morally, to follow "instructions" of their particular local unions relative to their voting.They are entitled to base their judgement and their votes upon facts and considerations persented to them at such conventions-matieral which may not been previously within the knowledge of themselves of the membership of the locals which they represent. (philadelphia, 10/22/43) See Article 8. (Page 9) With these loop holes there is no accountability. If you take time to look into this document the holes are many. Decker A delegate should be allowed to vote as he or she wishes and not at any urging by anyone. And they should not have to have a roll call or any other open form of voting as that can lead to intimidation, not just being dumped the next election. I'd prefer not to have some of the angrier people knowing how they voted as there will eventually be threats to person or property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailfndr Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 If the UAW would take care of the current members, NO ONE would be angry..The apparent corruption and back door deals are what make people angry. Add the lack of real representation, and sooner or later, members will revolt. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 MI451 I don't get your reasoning unless what you are trying to say is that the UAW is an un-democratic company union and so be it.Your fear of reprisal is a passive-aggressive move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 MI451 I don't get your reasoning unless what you are trying to say is that the UAW is an un-democratic company union and so be it.Your fear of reprisal is a passive-aggressive move. No, that's not what I am saying at all. My fear as you call it is not fear but an acknowledgement of a reality, that ballots should not be public knowledge. This limits potential intimidation which can come from more than one side, whether it be union, membership, company or even outside. This is how a democratic union should work with a right to vote without being told who or what to vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailfndr Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) MI451, You sir, live in a dream world. Even our Congress and Legislature use a roll call vote so that the Voters (Me and You) can determine if we want that person to remain in office the next term. It is our right as dues paying members to know how the people we send to do our business vote on our behalf. The ONLY time that a vote should be kept secret is when you vote on your own behalf. When you represent ME...I have every right to know how you vote. If you honestly believe for even one moment, that the IUAW does not tell delegates how to vote, then I have some swamp land in Arizona that I will happily sell you. Wake up Brother...this Union is CORRUPT, and has been for a very long time. Edited June 7, 2014 by trailfndr 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) MI451, Why hide from your vote on matters that directly effect members pockets? Those that did not want a roll call vote on the most controversial resolution at this years Con Con are cowards plain and simple. I'm not going to argue the need for a healthy strike fund, but the Delegates were elected to represent the voice of the members that can not voice their vote, I know as an elected rep myself I have to answer for the decisions I make so why shouldn't the Con Con delegates be held to the same expectations as our daily reps ? Edited June 8, 2014 by lquidspine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 MI451, You sir, live in a dream world. Even our Congress and Legislature use a roll call vote so that the Voters (Me and You) can determine if we want that person to remain in office the next term. It is our right as dues paying members to know how the people we send to do our business vote on our behalf. The ONLY time that a vote should be kept secret is when you vote on your own behalf. When you represent ME...I have every right to know how you vote. If you honestly believe for even one moment, that the IUAW does not tell delegates how to vote, then I have some swamp land in Arizona that I will happily sell you. Wake up Brother...this Union is CORRUPT, and has been for a very long time. Did you ever figure out the issue with your math? I figure we should address that first then discuss my supposed dream world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 MI451, Why hide from your vote on matters that directly effect members pockets? Those that did not want a roll call vote on the most controversial resolution at this years Con Con are cowards plain and simple. I'm not going to argue the need for a healthy strike fund, but the Delegates were elected to represent the voice of the members that can not voice their vote, I know as an elected rep myself I have to answer for the decisions I make so why shouldn't the Con Con delegates be held to the same expectations as our daily reps ? That made me laugh and then throw up in my mouth a bit. If you expect me to believe that elected officials are subject to any sort of roll call vote for their actions behind closed doors then perhaps I'm not the naive one. Winnable grievances get withdrawn while certain losers get paid off. Members are told this or that was argued while the truth is that it wasn't. The last group of people that should be held up as honest brokers held to a standard is our elected officials. I made the case for voting one's conscious free of intimidation and that is all. If you feel they should be subject to rigorous standards then may I suggest recorded transcripts for all dealings with labor by elected officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 WRONG----A democracy works when the majority rule.What you describe is an autocracy;This is the UAW;This is your union;We decide what is best.Try to present an alternate view and it is the "UNION PEOPLE" who act like thugs with noise makers.Well Michigan is a Right to Work state now and while I have no plans to leave the union I don't blame and I understand those who no longer wish to be a member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Have another "FREE" donut and enjoy your paid holiday at the convention MI451! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Have another "FREE" donut and enjoy your paid holiday at the convention MI451! Yes, everyone who disagrees with you must be some union official. LOL. I would love some free donuts however. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Ok MI451 I do not believe this has changed since 2006 and I will check later today when I check my 2010 Constitution book. Article 8 section 15 Copies of all resolutions and constitutional amendments to be considered by the Convention must be approved by the Local Union membership and sent to the International Secretary - Treasurer not later than six (6) weeks prior to the date set for the Convention. Please enlighten me on any Locals were the membership approved the resolution for a dues increase, I simply have not heard of One Member that was in favor of the resolution to increase our dues at this time. Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word Delegate, and if the members desire accountability for those Delegates they elected to be their voice makes you puke in your mouth then all I can say is all hope is lost and this Union is in worse shape than I thought, and that's sad because I love my Union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Ok MI451 I do not believe this has changed since 2006 and I will check later today when I check my 2010 Constitution book. Article 8 section 15 Copies of all resolutions and constitutional amendments to be considered by the Convention must be approved by the Local Union membership and sent to the International Secretary - Treasurer not later than six (6) weeks prior to the date set for the Convention. Please enlighten me on any Locals were the membership approved the resolution for a dues increase, I simply have not heard of One Member that was in favor of the resolution to increase our dues at this time. Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word Delegate, and if the members desire accountability for those Delegates they elected to be their voice makes you puke in your mouth then all I can say is all hope is lost and this Union is in worse shape than I thought, and that's sad because I love my Union. You are arguing two different points as if they are the same. Delegates are not membership approval votes for resolutions to the convention are they? Don't confuse the two or the issue we are discussing. We still disagree on the matter of delegates voting their position and if it should be recorded. I doubt either of us is going to change the others opinion. Just so we are clear you should be electing delegates that will use sound judge and vote their conscious. If you want a delegate to go to the convention with a hardline preformed opinion not open to hearing the other side then our union is in rough shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 WRONG----A democracy works when the majority rule.What you describe is an autocracy;This is the UAW;This is your union;We decide what is best.Try to present an alternate view and it is the "UNION PEOPLE" who act like thugs with noise makers.Well Michigan is a Right to Work state now and while I have no plans to leave the union I don't blame and I understand those who no longer wish to be a member. Democracy is 2 wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner. That said, a union is not a democracy. Neither is government. Both are representational systems where you select someone to vote/manage on your behalf. At no time are they legally obligated to vote how you wish. Only morally obligated. A true democracy is every member voting on every matter. As far as the public release of voting results, you are into a different kettle of fish. A Union is a member driven organization, not a public one. Secrecy is one of the laws/rules of the organization. You can accept it, try to change it over time, or leave the organization. Pretty much the same thing as a private golf club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 If the Delegates are not going to vote in the manner that the membership that they represent want, they are not a true representation of the voice of the membership and from what I knew that's what the Delegates were elected to be. Blame whoever you want; IUAW for not getting the message and financial realities out to the membership prior to the Con Con, but again I ask do you know even one member that was in favor of a dues increase at this time? let alone 75% of the members in favor of a dues increase. I highly doubt had the vote gone to the locals ( 1 man/women 1 vote) that even 30% of the members would have been in favor of a dues increase. So it should be easy to understand why the members feel the disconnect between the plants and the IUAW, the feeling is that our leadership does not listen to what the membership desires. The Delegates may have done what is needed at the Con Con but the majority of the Delegates did not represent the wishes of the membership, yet another example of leadership positions ignoring the wishes of the members they represent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 They are a true representation because they were ELECTED by the membership. The membership was given a chance to pick their delegates and did so correct? Perhaps they choose poorly, but they still choose them. Maybe the membership should be forced to a roll call vote so we can all know who choose the delegates that voted for it too and hold them accountable. See, I'm picking up what you're laying down, make every vote public knowledge so we can punish voters for being unwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 How about you answer my questions and I will then answer yours. I have asked repeatedly; do you know any member that was in favor of a dues increase at this time? Do you honestly believe that 75% of the members were in support of a dues increase at this time? I can only guess that you are not answering because you know the answer will not support your argument on these boards, and I will follow that up with; knowing in your heart what the answer are to those two questions can you honestly believe that the Delegates represented the membership they were elected to be the voice for at the Con Con this year? Or you can continue to try and fool yourself, but understand you are not fooling anyone else here with your diversions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I realize that you haven't figured out yet that I am not arguing for or against the dues raise but solely against the notion of "forcing or recording" the vote. It doesn't matter to me or my argument whether or not any member wanted the raise. That's history. The answer to your questions is, I don't know and I don't care. I haven't asked anyone their opinion and now it is reality. What you're arguing is that the membership elected their delagates poorly and now we should be able to punish the delegates for the memberships mistake. Or worse that we should elect people who are merely placeholders for predetermined decisions. Either way it removes the membership from it's culpability for their choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordd Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 All I can say is that at the plant I work at, the people who got elected as delegates were all in favor of a dues increase. Everyone that voted knew it and they still got elected. The ones who were against it were clear about it as well. However, I did not speak to one person on the floor who was in favor of an increase. Perhaps name recognition played a part as it was all the same names that were in favor. Either way, majority ruled for my plant whether the people liked it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailfndr Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I will still contend that if Every member has the right to vote, it should be a secret ballot, but when any sort of elected representation votes for something that the membership at large can not vote for or against, that vote should be a roll call vote. Just as our Congress, and Senate, the roll call vote allows the constituents, (read membership) to decide if that person actually represents the intrests of the members, and allows the members to insure that if the delegate does not represent us, we can make sure that person does not get elected again. Anything less, leads to the corruption we all now have to deal with. And there is NO WAY IN HELL, that opinion will ever change. If its good enough for the government, its good enough for our Union. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 I will still contend that if Every member has the right to vote, it should be a secret ballot, but when any sort of elected representation votes for something that the membership at large can not vote for or against, that vote should be a roll call vote. Just as our Congress, and Senate, the roll call vote allows the constituents, (read membership) to decide if that person actually represents the intrests of the members, and allows the members to insure that if the delegate does not represent us, we can make sure that person does not get elected again. Anything less, leads to the corruption we all now have to deal with. And there is NO WAY IN HELL, that opinion will ever change. If its good enough for the government, its good enough for our Union. We can just leave it at that then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Thought I have made it clear I was not arguing for or against the dues increase either, I am sure I have even spelled that out several times perhaps some reading comprehension would do you some good .But trailfndr has said it best in his last post, and really nothing more needs to be added. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlecountry Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 A 2% raise would bring in MORE than the 1/2 hour additional dues. Math is simple, using 28.85 per hour as a base wage. 28.85 /2 +14.425 x 12 months = 173.10 per year per Ford worker 28.85 + 2% =29.427 /2 = 14.713 x 12 months = 176.56 Or 3.46 more yearly per Ford Worker, multiplied by 40,000 members, at Ford alone, = $138480.00 more per year from Ford workers alone. That's not as small a difference as you think. That's ALOT of money when you add in GM, Chrysler, and all the others that the UAW represent. All ford plants don't have a base wage of $28.85. Some tier 1 make less at other assembly plants! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.