CC4D/bylaws

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CC4D/bylaws

Levi
    I, for one, am not pleased with the proposed bylaws put forth by the UBC and I'm not alone. But we can still hold our heads up because we are doing something about it. 560 rank and file carpenters have joined the Carpenters Committee for Democracy by signing the application starting back in December 2010 and they should all be proud to know that through the law firm Cary Kane LLP much work is being done regarding the issues we all agreed upon.
    Our draft bylaw rebuttal includes the following issues:
  1. Allocation of power and restructuring- The crux of our argument is to give local unions real power and authority or eliminate them.
  2. Delegate cap
  3. Negotiation and ratification of all collective bargaining agreements.
  4. Voting for dues
  5. Direct elections of all officers of the DC
  6. Checks and balances imposed on the Executive Secretary Treasurer
  7. The responsibilities and compensation of Executive Committee Members
  8. Trustees' authority
  9. Council employees as delegates
 10. Delegate and officer compensation
 11. Eligibility for office
 12. How to deal with officers who are indicted or convicted of crimes concerning the Union
 13. Monthly Delegate meetings
 14. Personnel Policy
 15. Bill of Rights
      This rebuttal was sent to Judge Berman, Dennis Walsh, Asst. U.S.Attorney Ben Torrence, Ken Conboy,Brian Quinn and Scott Weiss,Esq.
       If anybody wants more details, Ill do my best to provide them.
       
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
If anybody wants more details, Ill do my best to provide them.

Dont you think you should have provided the details to the 560 before you submitted this on their behalf. Does the so called application detail this right for you to take such action without first notifying and then getting the approval of the 560. Do the 560 now you have given yourself the right to speak for them all and submit legal documents on their behalf. Do all the 560 agree with the contents of this letter??Did you even ask them
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

william davenport for president
by proxy the 560 members support the cc4d,once they signed the letter. they knew the lawyers were going to court to protect our democratic rights.its hard to write a letter so broad as to cover every move the cc4d makes. @rd stay on point,do you agree or disagree on the points of the letter ?   i support the basic points of the communication.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
  The 560 did agree that we wanted certain things and this document reflects those things. The 560 are carpenters in NYC who are as involved as they want to be in the process.I'm not comparing it to the Magna Carta but it was something that needed to be done and we did it.  It serves us better than the UBC draft bylaws by a large margin.
   Is there anything in the document that you are against?
   If you are doing anything in the fight against the aggressive actions of the UBC leaders towards its' membership I'd like to know about it.
   Putting aside all other matters and assuming you've read it, I'd like to know what you think of the content of the document itself.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
Les look at some of your highlights:

"The local unions are legal fictions without purpose or authority, and their existence
merely creates a layer of political bureaucracy between the rank-and-file members and the
leaders at the District Council which can only do one thing, foster corruption, because it insulates
District Council leadership and the functions of a labor organization from being fully
accountable to the members.
"Either (1) the Local Unions should be given real power and authority to function as labor
organizations; or (2) they should be eliminated entirely"

Of course you reveal your true desire for a council controlled mega Union here"Its benefits include more efficient economies of scale, stronger bargaining power, more effective political lobbying, and the elimination of corrupt locals. The most important benefit of a single union is that it will allow the members to
meaningfully participate in their union affairs."

I dont know who wrote this trash but it is pure nonsense in my humble opinion.. You already have a mega council and you have no rights now.There will be no direct involvement of the members .They will be boxed out and replaced by the Walsh Delusion of Super Delegates that do not exist..Just as McCarron and Conboy are asking for.All you will have when your done is the same BS situation only this time with no pesky locals to get in the way of your corrupt, McCarron controlled,mob infested council. The same policy of the UBC and McCarron.If you are allowed to pursue this agenda there will be NO direct involvement by the rank and file at all.Not even the few souls who do show up at meetings The recent appointment by the UBC of the Members to Serve on Advisory Negotiations Committee is a fine example. Hand picked woo haa's put in place by the UBC to satisfy the judge.Right under Walshs nose with no input from the rank and file.Your idea of "members meaningfully participate in their union affairs" is paid and bought delegates. Who wrote this Bullshit.
 
   You of course went out of your way to quote how worthless Walsh said Locals are in his First and Second Interim Report.And then your mouth piece says "As Judge Conboy so aptly put it" The same Conboy who with the UBC is trying to screw the members of New York and your lawyer is kissing his ass
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Levi
Delegate Cap
the number of delegates
should be proportional to the number of rank-and-file members in each local union

 Agreed but for me the point is mute since I dont believe that a delegate should be speaking for any member when it is a proven fact they are corrupted, paid mouthpieces for whatever UBC rat is in control. Prime example. The newly chartered locals have had the Delegates appointed by McCarron. They are the same delegates who sold out their own locals and who have declared "we dont work for the members we work for the council" Vote them out you say. Not us. They control the ballots and voting system. Their people are election chairs and when asked to produce the ballots before the election we were told to go f..ourselves. File with the DOL. We have and so have many others. It takes either publicity or appeals to Washington to get the DOL to act just to do their job. When they are forced the end result is they find some excuse to let the Union off the hook. Why you say. Because many of the Unions lawyers work for  ERISA,the Dol or are ex government employees. So what difference does it make how many delegates you have when they do exactly as they are told. While Walsh means well for him to tell you its ok he has removed the ability to corrupt the delegates he is full of crap to say the least..When he is gone the UBC will pervert everything he has done and it will be business as usual
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Levi
Voting for Dues
The LMRDA already covers this and assessments. You Cant impose or increase assessments without a vote. How did Spencer and Forde pull off the Blue Card fiasco??Your Lawyers call for dues votes is great but again a mute point if you cant even get them to obey federal law
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Pat Nee
 should be subject to a direct vote by the rank-and-file.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Levi
Negotiation and Ratification of AH Collective Bargaining Agreements

This Committee requests that the top officer of each local
union be on the negotiating committee for all collective bargaining, and that all collective
bargaining agreements be submitted to the membership for ratification by direct vote. The
Bylaws should specify that all collective bargaining agreements affecting the members be
ratified by a vote of the members

Agree 100%  Lets remember that the UBC Constitution allows for member ratification of their collective bargaining agreement. If of course the council say its ok.Now answer me this.What if their was no council to say no?? When did we lose our ratification??
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Pat Nee
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
So you disagree with the delegate system as opposed to anything in the CC4D submission?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Pat Nee
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
So basically you agree with everything in the submission and are only spamming this site because you do not like me. Yeah, we need more radicals like you in the union.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
   True, the delegate cap is meaningless if the delegates are bought and paid for by McCarron. That's why we included the section that says no DC employees as delegates. This is probably an issue that everybody agrees on.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
  "so aptly put it" is not ass kissing, it is sarcasm. I don't believe you didn't pick up on the idea of using other people's words as an argument against them when it is so often your stock in trade. Can you not see that this section puts them on the spot to give us power one way or another or eat their words, which in the eyes of a Federal Judge is a huge black eye.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
  Can you rephrase that question?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Pat Nee
Hey little tykes piss off. When this becomes your site you can worry about spam but in the meantime STFU.Exposing your agenda is hardly spam. I dont dislike just you I also hate your BS agenda and McCarron policy to destroy our locals to feed the corrupt council .Get it right
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Pat Nee
Lest not continue to use CC4D lets use it as your lawyer submitted it the CC4D and Workers Rights.. Which we can conclude is the workers rights slates since Kane is you slates attorney
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Pat Nee
 the next step in my plan would have been to put the axe to the remaining locals, and have the council as new local ...Posted by Pat Nee March 13,2011
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Pat Nee
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Richard, get over it, you need to get a job or a hobby or something.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Levi
As Judge Conboy so aptly put it when addressing the court, "federal law makes
it clear that you cannot ask the rank and file to elect officers who have no power," U.S.A. v.
District Council, et ah, 90 Civ 5722, Transcript of Proceedings, May 16, 2011 at page 40, lines
24-25, and the Review Officer and the Court should not approve of it.

"so aptly put it" is not ass kissing, it is sarcasm. I don't believe you didn't pick up on the idea of using other people's words as an argument against them"

Its an interesting point Levi but I dont know if you can convince me its was not ass kissing when Kane also went out of his was to suck into Walshs desire to create a mega council while destroying the locals by quoting the First and Second Interim Report on how worthless the Locals are
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Pat Nee
Pat you need to shut your mouth and mind you own business. I am having a discussion with Levi at his request and you keep sticking your nose in it. I dont care what you have to say. I thought you understood that..Isnt Lilliput have a dance your supposed to be at. Quick Gulliver might be getting away.When they came up with Langer you must have been the reason
12