Somebody posted on this forum that Donny Arana from (Carpenters for Solidarity) agrees with Carpenters Committee for Democracy letter to Dennis Walsh regarding proposed bylaws. This statement was made without consulting me, which is really no big thing but I just want to correct the person who said so by saying their statement is false. Although I do agree that paid employees of the District Council should not be allowed to also serve as delegates to the district council because this is a clear conflict of interest. Since this is a obvious conflict of interest no % of paid employees of the district council also serving as delegates are acceptable. The part of the letter that I disagree with is on page 2 and 3. I believe there was to much emphasis on why the locals should be dissolved rather than why they shouldn't be dissolved. For example............. quote by Carpenters Committee for Democracy - "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" ....... A whole paragraph on page 2 and all of page 3 was written on why locals are no good (agreeing with UBC and Judge Conboy) and only one sentence on page 2 (1-the Local Unions should be given real power and authority to function as labor organizations) was written on what you should have keyed in on and emphasized why we need locals and why rightfully so they should be granted proper authority and power to better serve the membership. Also on page 3 the point was made by The "Carpenters Committee for Democracy" ... quote.... "Under the latter alternative, the District Council would become a single local union with internal divisions representing different sections (trades/crafts/locations) of carpenters. This structure (disolving all the current NYC locals and creating one mega local) is common among many large unions within New York City, including the Trasnsport Workers Union, Local 100 and locals 1199 and 32 B-J, Service Empoloyees International Union." I do not want the NYCDCC be structured and mirrored by the likes of local 100 Transit Union (MTA) or 32 B-J (Maintainence union). What I don't want is for us to end up like these 2 unions that the CC4D has used as model unions. If any member agrees or promotes this, they should not be running for any of the Local 157 Executive positions on June 22nd. If they are running for an Executive position at Local 157 their number 1 concern should be to empower the local and better serve the members of the local.
Perhaps you should lead by example Donny. Do you realize that you did not list one single reason in your post as to why we should fight to save the locals?
Do you think it enough to attack what others are doing when you do not offer any alternatives?
I have no problem acknowledging that I am far more interested in the members rights than any powerless locals which do not meet any of the criteria under federal law to be classified as a local. I am running for office,not to maintain the status quo but to challenge a system which has us back in the same place every ten years.
What I think is important is that the members be able to participate in their union, what do you feel is the most important thing?
What do the locals do in either the current setup, or in the proposed structure which benefits the members?
I am running for office because I believe that first and foremost the most important thing in this union is its members and that they should have a voice in this union.
It is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize others, it is much more difficult to actually try and do something about the real issues facing us.
I would love to read your submission to Dennis Walsh, would you mind posting it? It must be choc full of brilliant points and suggestions.
Candide Nee "What I think is important is that the members be able to participate in their union, what do you feel is the most important thing?"
How would appointed/DC paid eboards allow members to participate ?
Participate in a process whereby only the minority of the Executive officer positions are voted for and the majority of delegates are paid spots. How does a membershipm participate when the general rule is not to allow them said participation.
Being a local Pres. does that give you enough clout to push back against the UBC & or the Council after the trusteeship ends. How & by what means Mr. Nee dom you intend to guarantee the membership whatr the UBC does not want, MEMBER PARTICIPATION ????
"Do you think it enough to attack what others are doing when you do not offer any alternatives?" Pat Nee Where have you been Pat Nee thats all Donny and Jerry have ever done blame and attack others theres no more eboard to blame so they blame someone else no leadership qualities at all sorry though Pat I am not voting for you either I have a tool bag that has 20 more years in the union than you do I`m going to vote independant BK