CC4D/bylaws

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

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
  Richard, I think you're jumping to the conclusion that the Workers' Rights Slate and CC4D are now, and have been from the start, one in the same. Having been to many of the CC4D meetings I can tell you first hand that is not the case. Many people from other slates and Independent candidates along with other involved members have taken part in the CC4D meetings. CC4D had become a hub of activity for concerned members. It's natural that a slate was formed by the time we were ready for nominations.
  I don't deny or hide the fact that the Workers' Rights Slate has been formed by some of the people involved with CC4D and Kary/Cane. On the contrary, I'm proud of the work we're doing.

                                     VOTE WORKERS' RIGHTS SLATE
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
Well let me ask you seriously is Carry Kane not the Lawyer for Workers Rights Slate???

 Also I am not knocking you personally, although you insist I cant talk about cc4d without insulting you, but you say"I'm proud of the work we're doing." How do you shake off the shadow of what happened with the CC4D

 Do you sincerely claim that the the pettion/application many signed under false pretense gives you the right to act on behalf of 560 NYC members without so much as consulting them??
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Levi
Levi..Your saying CC4D had become a hub of activity for concerned members.Which just like the claim Cary Kane represented 550 members is a bit of a stretch

 It's natural that a slate was formed by the time we were ready for nominations. So the name of this slate is Workers Right Slate with the same law firm as the CC4D and they are not one and the same. They are not made up of what was left of the CC4D after members drifted away from the group or refused to be on your slate and you filled in the slots?? I am confused

"Many people from other slates and Independent candidates along with other involved members have taken part in the CC4D meetings." That does not mean they are CC4D members and Kane has the right to claim they represent them. You had some that attended one meeting and walked away.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
    1. I don't get insulted that easy.
    2. I disagree with your assertion that anybody signed anything under false pretenses. The application/petition was an agreement among the signers of things we wanted and didn't want. I think they expected us to act on it. We said we would act on it and we followed through. No shadow to shake off.
    3. The Workers' Rights Slate hasn't had the need for legal services thus far.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
   Nobody has walked away angry or regretful of their involvement, and no we aren't made up of what was left after the others drifted away. I could've been on any slate I chose.
    I don't understand your motive for criticizing the work we're doing. It's always the people who act that get roughed up. This document  we sent to the Judge was a good thing for the entire membership and I would like to see you acknowledge that.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
"Nobody has walked away angry or regretful of their involvement" Sorry Levi bu this is just not true. I talked to the people who attended you meetings and walked away because I quote" they are not what they are pretending to be"

"I disagree with your assertion that anybody signed anything under false pretenses." Are you kidding? Many members questioned what the hell was going on when you lawyer claimed to represent these members after they signed what was first presented as a petition and then changed to an application One of your members Bill Davenport the only one who would answer questions told member if they wanted their paper they signed under false pretenses back they could have it..But tell us what Cary Kane said when that subject was discussed at you meetings about giving the signed papers back

3. The Workers' Rights Slate hasn't had the need for legal services thus far.... Are you sure you want to say this?????


This is not making you look good Levi
NYC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

NYC
why don't you focus some of your attention on your own local and your own council, you are nothing but a ubc rat who wants to keep the members out of power. go blow frank spencer one more time and  stop trying to pretend that you are anyting but a mccarron suck ass. with all of your fucking talk, what have you ever done but criticize, insult and pick holes in everything. go fuck yourself.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
   Richard, all this discussion has been about what I've been doing. I haven't been at this union activism as long as you have so can you bring me up to date on what you've done?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
"Richard, all this discussion has been about what I've been doing"

Actually no it is not. This conversation is about your slates candidate for President Pat Nee having an agenda to destroy the locals and turn them over to the corrupt council.
 
This conversation is also about the rather less than democratic actions of the CC4D and if it has evolved into the Worker Rights Slate.

You said "Nobody has walked away angry or regretful of their involvement"

You Said""I disagree with your assertion that anybody signed anything under false pretenses.

You Said "Cary Kane is not your slates attorney"

Let me refresh your memory and I will not post the MANY posts that are on here. Just enough to show your rather forgetful

Bill Lebo Feb 26,2011

I'm also a part of this committee. We've only just met with the lawyers last week. The petition is there to give creedence to the movement. The information asked for was so that members can be contacted to let them know whats going on hopefully via email. Mike Biello was invited to the next meeting with the attorneys on this friday. He assured me he'd be there. I insisted this not be any kind of political movement to back anyone for office, but only to move for our rights as union members, or I wouldn't be a part of this. Seems someone was told it was a petition

Donny Arana Feb 26,2011Sounds like a good cause, I got the flier last night.  I did not sign the flier or join the movement because there weren't any names attached to it or any info on who's behind it.  I believe if there are good honest men or women behind a movement they should be proud to attach their name to it.  I find this kind of odd.

anonymous Feb 26,2011
Thanks, William-- for your offer-- but I signed the petition previously at a local meeting, where it was announced during good of the order. I'm relieved to hear the petition

I agree with Brother Arana's sentiments; I am troubled by the Carpenter's Committee for Democracy and Workers' Rights asking for a member's name, phone number, e-mail address, home address, local number, and signature, without even providing contact information, or identifying names of its own. While members are invited to join, there isn't suggestion of how the rank and file may participate in the group. Working for democracy and workers' rights means practicing what we preach, from the onset.

Bill Lebo June 9,2011
 I agree Rich the members that they claim to have were not notified. I know I wasn't and I signed, although I left the core group for reasons I have stated in the past.We will let Brother Lebo explain

You Said "Cary Kane is not your lawyer" I will save my proof on that one for a later day but let me ask you .Were you alone in the room at the meeting for your slate??
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Levi
  Richard, thanks for the interesting discourse. You are one funny guy. Good luck tearing up anybody that does anything. Maybe you can convince everybody to do nothing. You don't have much work to do to accomplish that though. The saddest part of this discussion is that you're the greatest participant instead of the people from NYC. That's who I was hoping for. It sure has been a learning experience.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

try again
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
I haven't been at this union activism as long as you have so can you bring me up to date on what you've done?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Levi
"Maybe you can convince everybody to do nothing."  

My only intention was to raise awareness of the agenda of your Presidential Candidate and get members to ask questions. Good Luck with your election. I believe you are convinced that the agenda is to either empower the locals or to declare the Council a local so it can be better controlled and accountable under the LMRDA. Noble thought

  I dont think that is the agenda of your Presidential candidate at all and if he wins watch what he will do to 157 if he can. He does not want to empower the locals and he does not care if the council he wants to feed them to is corrupt. He has made his agenda clear from day one Pat Nee:"My Plan is to "axe the remaining locals" and make the Council the Local". We wont even mention his calling any brother or sister on the out of work list scum bags and unskilled or his ridiculously short time in the Union.Lets not talk about his total lack of knowledge of the UBC Constitution and his willingness to mislead the membership as he did when he ran his mouth about the Pro Tem rules.This is NOT about Pat Nee the little tykes punk who many others besides me detest. This is about Pat Nees politics and his danger to the rank and file member struggling to throw off the yoke of the UBC and Doug McCarron. The policy's and agenda he supports.
 
Despite you denial the CC4D did pull some shady BS and it cannot be ignored.

Perhaps you should have hitched your horse to a different wagon
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

Ted
Rich - exactly, and here is why......

Question to CC4D supporters -

1) How did Cary-Kane miss these simple points?

2) How did the 560 members they allegedly notified miss these points. { This one is easy, 99% of the people were not Notified and were unaware that this was taking place, or what the content of their letter was....but it does not explain question 1.
__________________________________________________________________________

PROPOSED BYLAWS, May 26, 2011 RESTRUCTURING PLAN

Section 20, pg 16

“Following recommendation by the Executive Committee, the Council Delegate Body shall have the exclusive power and authority to ratify & execute Collective Bargaining Agreements for an on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions, except to the extent that the International Union exercises its jurisdiction or authority."
________________________________________________________________________

"except to the extent that the International Union exercises its jurisdiction or authority."
This is precluded by the Garlock Doctrine, as the International and/or NYCDCC cannot exercise a veto power over Local Union autonomy, & "the Council Delegate Body shall have the exclusive power and authority to ratify & execute Collective Bargaining Agreements for an on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions" is summarily negated by in full by:

the language at 8, page 4 and more fully by Section 5, page 3 which states:

POWERS & DUTIES OF THE DELEGATE BODY

(A) The Council Delegate Body shall have the exclusive authority to consider, vote upon and finally make decisions on all matters affecting the Council, as provided for in the By-Laws

(B) Review, approve or reject in advance, all CBA following a recommendation from the Executive Committee. If a CBA is rejected, the Delegate Body shall promptly inform the Executive Committee in writing of any provisions that cause, or will cause as indicated by a “non-binding vote”, in whole or in part the rejection
___________________________________________________________________________

The power to ratify the contract by vote is granted and then summarily taken away via a non-binding vote, rendering it – and the transparency & restoration of Democracy meaningless. The so called Council Delegate Body (CDB) of democratically engaged and empowered Delegates is watered down to a group of 5, controlled by a group of 1; the EST.

At page 8, item (I) – The EST power to appoint & remove all Trustees, is unchecked and goes without saying further, given the 21-year history that it is too much power unchecked. No specifics were provided on how or when the Council Delegate Body shall vote on this matter....oh wait, that's right - the Qualifier "as provided for in these By-Laws" took care of that, with what.... a "non-binding Vote".

Aside from the cash kickbacks taken by Forde, Greaney, Oliveri, crooked Stewards, the real theft occurred where? Oh yeah, that would be a) screwing the man in the filed by paying him less than the contracted for wage rate, and b) defrauding the Benefit Funds of tens of millions of dollars.

So much for transparency, restoration of democracy, Conboys democratic enagement, and the elimination of corruption.

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CC4D/bylaws

fuck you
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
who you kidding? you are nothing but spencers little cock sucker, what have you ever done except knock everyone else? be a man and stop taking it up the ass.
12