The United States is a "representative democracy". The US also utilizes the "Inititative, the Referendum, the Recall and Veto Mechanisms"
The irony - The UBC's McCarron claimed through the Harrington v. Chao progeny of cases that the UBC was a "representative democracy" yet, McCarron denies the rank & file members the initiative, referendum, the recall and the veto.
Evidence of this fact and of his Autocratic or Dictatorial rule if you prefer, comes by way of the UBC Constitution & Council bylaws, wherein exactly zero form of dissent is allowed, in direct contravention to UBC Platform items 1, 5 & 12
1) Municipal Service wholly divorced from partisan politics....
5) Direct legislation, through the initiative and referendum
12) Adoption of legislation requiring the election of all public officials by direct vote of the people
This leads to a very simple Question then....How do Representative Democracies like the United States elect their chosen representatives?
ANSWER - BY DIRECT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, BY SECRET BALLOT ELECTION. (2 qualifiers....citizen by birth or naturalization, and 18 years of age or older)
This leads to another question....In State or Federal Elections, Local & County as well in the U.S.A., once the two pre-requisites are adhered to, can any local, county, state or federal election body deny a person a vote, based on anything other than the 2-qualifiers? Answer - No they cannot (exception inmates like Forde) re: not for race, ethnicity, gender etc., not for the failure to pay your car insurance, income tax, property tax etc.....yet, in the UBC, they place a host of rules before you which are stricter than the requirement to vote for the President of the USA....PAYMENT OF DUES, MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING FOR 12-MONTHS etc.
At the Council level in the UBC, post Chao, we allegedly get representative democracy, yet that very notion is negated by Council Bylaws, the UBC Constitution via pro-tem appointments of preordained 'yes men' who then become fully appointed stooges & yes men - thus negating the vote, via the autocratic appoinment process, therein leaving the Rank & File union brother or sister disenfranchised and without a Vote.
At the Local level, for the few piddly issues wherein a vote may be allowed, the form used is "direct democracy" whereby a simple majority ration is required to pass a motion etc.
In summary, RO Walsh needs to take a hard look at these distinctions & discuss & make provision for Rank & File "intitatives, referendum, recall & veto motions & powers". Through the supervison of the US Attorney & the Consent Decree, Walsh has these powers and so too should the members when he is gone.
Also, RO Walsh & his team of attorneys need to have a sit-down and conduct a Comprehensive Review of the UBC Constitution & Bylaws and conduct a line by line review for all portions therein which conflict directly with the NLRA; and Walsh via filing proper Motions with the Court needs to remove every Illegally written/enforced procedure within them. Not doing so would be irresponsible and a dereliction of his duty to address every issue which will prevent the Fraud & Corruption from recurring (like before the door hits him in the ass on the way out).
Any REFORM regarding Election of Officers at the Local and Council levels have to mirror the REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY which is these United States - which require DIRECT ELECTION VIA SECRET BALLOT.
The current structure of the UBC & the Council/EST-CEO structure more resembles Hosni Mubareks Egypt or Moamarr Ghadafi's Libya or Putin's Russia as the UBC is an unfettered & out of control Dictatorship.
McCarron once called dissenters deranged loners & commies and that is only a reflection of his own subconscious views toward himself as he is for all intensive purpose running a commie type organization & he is the one loner who runs & plays by himself - away from the Building Trades Council & the AFL-CIO.
MCCARRON is the CANCER and WALSH is the CURE, along with an educated, informed body armed with the proper tools, the vote, restructuring etc.
The International Workingmen's Association (the First International), at its founding, was an alliance of socialist groups, including both anarchists and Marxists. Both sides had a common aim and common enemies. But each was critical of the other, and the inherent conflict between the two groups soon embodied itself in an ongoing argument between Mikhail Bakunin, representative of anarchist ideas, and Karl Marx himself. The Marxist branch tended to support the formation of workers' or socialist parties that participated in parliamentary politics in Western liberal democracies to advance their agendas, while anarchists tended to criticize parliamentary politics as not being sufficiently democratic "from the bottom up" and as providing no democratic control over the workplace and the means of production. In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with the expulsion of Bakunin and those who had become known as the "Bakuninists"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Vasilyevich_Zubatov ...Despite his deeply held monarchist convictions, Zubatov earnestly believed that repression alone could not crush the revolutionary movement. He therefore also promoted the organization of pro-government trade unions to channel protest away from agitation between 1901 and 1903, a practice named police socialism or lambasted by revolutionary activists as Zubatovshchina (зуба́товщина) after him, which gained support from Moscow Governor General, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich.