Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

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

Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

John Musumeci
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Review Officer Dennis Walsh monitors this blog, he emailed me and would appreciate having member feedback on this question. Lets give it to him, I urge my fellow brothers and sisters around the country to participate in this important discussion. What happens in New York will have significant ramifications throughout the entire UBC. So please help Dennis and answer the question:

Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

bill lebo
I spoke with Dennis about this at the forum and I brought it up at the UBC hearing. Council employees should not be eligible to be delegates. It's far too easy to control their votes and to keep them quite. That is one of the reasons why we're in the position we're in now. Delegates have to be free to speak their minds and question authrity. The system failed us miserably for the very reason that delegates were affraid of losing their jobs or having their locals wiped out by Forde if they spoke out against him or Thomassen. This must change if the delgate body is to work.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Pete Corrigan
Absolutely not how can the delegates be a no biased representative of the rank and file when they work for the men that may be setting policy. If the EST signs your check, it would put you in a bind to vote against his wishes. In no case what so ever should a delegate be an employee of the council for the precise reason that it would be a direct conflict of interest.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Donny Arana
This is a key issue to be adressed at rally.That is why the rally is scheduled on the same day the delegates to the nycdcc are to have their meeting in the district council. We will see them walking in and they will see us.This is one of the main reasons we are in the pickle we are in.The rubber stamp committee never has put the memberships interest before their personal intersts.This is a no brainer"CONFLICT of INTEREST".I think we can all agree on this one.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

michael new 157
In reply to this post by bill lebo
I dont think anyone should hold two positions. The more people involved, the less chance for coruption. It is harder to corupt 10 than 1
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

anonymous
Additionally:

Delegates should be subject to recall upon a referendum vote, initiated by a petition of Local members.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Tomas Pain
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Mr. Walsh,

You have 12 years of proof that delegates employed by the District Council have a conflict of interest.  Once members are employed by the district council they are expected to fall in line with the agenda of the UBC.  Regardless of what these employees think or feel about the issues concerning the members of the union, they are not expected to raised concern or disagree with the people that employed them.  This is not written anywhere, but it the precedent established by the UBC.  Mr. Walsh, if you would had attended the UBC convention, you would need no further proof about how detrimental employees/delegates are to the membership.  You also have the proof on how this system works throughout the country.  A system that allows the parent union to operate without the input, concern, or majority rule of the rank and file.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

levi
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Employees of the District Council should not be eligible to serve as delegates to the District Council. It is an obvious  conflict of interests that needs to be corrected immediately. They cannot vote with their conscience or speak their minds for fear of losing their positions, so they must become "team players". This is one of the most important issues we face. I have never met a carpenter who disagrees with this position, on the contrary, informed members have been saying this for a very long time.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Ted
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
For RO Walsh to fully comprehend the UBC's tactics under GP McCarron (given his argument of how well everything is working in the other 49 States, re: Mobility etc) Mr. Walsh needs to see & read the current NERCC CBA (contract), the NERCC Bylaws & the Local Bylaws.

Once he does that, he can do a line item review of these Documents to see exactly where & how they directly conflict with the NLRA as written & amended, as well as how it directly conflicts with known & longstanding landmark/precedent caselaw (ala NLRB, Appellate Courts & the United States Supreme Court).

He will also have to line these documents out and compare to the LMRDA & PLMS requirements & the progeny of caselaw behind them.

Once all of this is done, it will become readily apparent to him the Doug McCarron & the UBC and its subordinate 38 Regional Councils and the EST's all fall directly under his unfetterred dictatorial control and rule via autocratic fiat - all of which is facially unlawful and is patently against the entire purpose behind which the NLRA was first put into law.

Moreover, all Regional Council employees within the UBC are "at will" Employees (puppets) beholden only to the EST or risk being terminated (with or without cause) by the very nature of being an at will emplyee of the Council(s) they allegedly serve.

Under known NLRB precedent which has not been overturned (no stare decisis either), Council Employees and Business Agents are Supervisors / Managerial Employees under the Act.

Given the competing loyalties - do I serve the men or do I serve the EST & do what I am told when told, once in the Club....they become lackees, yes man and will do nothing to defend the rank & file should it risk the UBC's new Corporatism philosophy, raiding other trades, eliminating RTW laws via decree of one man (as opposed to State Legislatures).

Allowing the NYCDCC Regional Council to appoint Delegates through an autocratic EST would be akin to taking a trip to DC & letting your dog take a whizz on the Lincoln Memorial & then go into the Whitehouse & take a shit on the rug, or in Bermans Court for that matter.

Your due diligence in reviewing these documents is thus owed to the rank & file Mr. Walsh.

more food for thought:

Should retruning US Veterans who stood & fought for Iraquii citizens to have the "right to Vote" as was demonstrated there time & again by their "purple thmbs", should those same Vets who were subsequently fighting & dying for that right there, when brought aboard  and into the UBC via the Internationals "HELMETS TO HARDHATS" campaign, then be subjected to a UBC Carpenter Union who denies them that very same right....the "RIGHT TO VOTE" as guaranteed by the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT?

You have the staff, the investigators, the time and the equipment needed (funded by NYCDCC MEMBERS) to obtain & review these documents and the caselaw supporting the members right to vote - so the due diligence owed the men has been established and is thus owed to them without delay.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Steward
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Of course not...It's a no brainer..it's a subject that's getting beat to death...It's now becoming a platform for our self-serving members.Wiil the real Slim Shadys ..please stand up..
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

DISSAPOINTED
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
THANKS FOR THE ADVICE BROTHER BUT ALSO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT BESIDE NYC EMPLOYEE DELEGATES THERE ARE ALSO A FEW THAT ARE ACTIVE FORMAN FOR CONTRACTORS  WHO ARE ALSO  DELEGATES AT THE SAME TIME SO NOW THE QUESTION SHOULD CONTRACTORS FORMAN BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A DELEGATE?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

T. Scott Brineman
In reply to this post by Ted
Good points Ted.......I'm replying from WA. State......we have had this continuing argument for years and I have always been an advocte of staff NOT being allowed as delegates.......the "Conflict of Interest" is obvious.....We have just gone through(3-22-11), a mass consolidation of Locals here in the PNWRCC......the majority of appointed interim Officers and Delegates at the newly chartered Locals are staff.......we have been promised elections in the near future (????) or at such time as the GP deems us "ready"......my concern at this point is, with the delegates being overwhelming staff, what motions will "they" try and pass at the next Delegates Meeting in May????......time will tell.......on the issue of staff being "at will" employees, we have also had a long standing debate......the R&F have urged the staff to seek representation but to no avail.....and the UBC seems to discourage organizing within itself......ironic isn't it......
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

listman
Can I reach out to you, contact iamlistman@yahoo.com. I will povide further contact info. Have members throughout the country in my speed dial and need to add you. Ask for references if you haven't seen my posts.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

listman
In reply to this post by T. Scott Brineman
T. Scot Brineman contact iamlistman@yahoo.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Pat Nee
In reply to this post by listman
I could fill a page on why not, but that would be pointless.
The actions of the last delegates body speaks for itself.
The last delegate body was not accountable, half were council employees.
If we are to be forced to rely on a system which failed so completely and utterly, then there needs to be some explanation given as to why it failed so utterly and why we should tolerate anything close to the same formula.
I think it has gone beyond whether simply barring council employees is sufficient. This system allowed such a level of abuse, crony-ism and incompetence that I do not feel that it should be treated as a given that it be reinstated.  







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

listman
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
1)NO
2)NO
3)NO, - NOT AT ALL NOT A ONE !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

anonymous
In reply to this post by DISSAPOINTED
If there is a question of whether Contractor's Foremen should be eligible as Delegates, then there definitely should be a question of whether Employers can be Members.
 
Employers should be barred from Union Membership.

Members who become temporarily self-employed may retain their membership or apply for withdrawal cards, which are issued to those who must withdraw when they become employers.

There is a historical problem of corruption with UBC officers representing the interests of the employers over the members. Changes must be made in Union policy to ensure the interests of the workers are never confused with those of the bosses.  
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Ted
Your getting into the dual agency status test.....

They have competing Loyalties, both to the Union & to the Employer.

The test is whther they can "hire & fire", if so, the NLRB & its caselaw from the Board states that they are clearly Supervisors & Mnagers under the NLRA and thus can clearly not run or be elected.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

2287 member
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
NO way. WE need working members to keep an eye on them
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should employees of the District Council be eligible to serve as delegates of the District Council?

Ted
In reply to this post by T. Scott Brineman
T. Scott Brineman - thank you....below is a direct excerpt from the DOL's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS).

2. Who must be elected and how often
 
Offices to Be Filled by Election
The act requires that all officers be elected. But what does "officer" mean? The act defines the term as "any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body." A constitutional officer is any person holding a position identified as an officer by the constitution and bylaws of the union. All constitutional officers must be elected, even if they do not perform any executive functions. The major union offices (the president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and members of executive boards or similar governing bodies) must be filled by election.
In addition, any person who has executive or policymaking authority or responsibility must be elected even though he may not occupy a position identified as an officer position under the union’s constitution and bylaws.
 
Scott - my suggestion is simply this, FILE A PRE-INJUNCTION ELECTION REQUEST with your Local OLMS Office, predicated upon this portion (it is a major qualifier, legally speaking) and also read/reasearch Harrington v. Herman and Harrington v. Chao, particularly the diseenting opinion.

Also, cc: the appropriate Officials in Washington DC at the NLRB's General Counsel and the Office of Inspector General & the United States Attorneys Office.

UBC Council Employees are "at will" paid positions, they are Executive/Managerial positions & they have the clear aouthority to hire, fire, make & set policy, etc. The key qualifier here - which is patently obvious is the very last sentence, which unequivocally disqualifies UBC Council hacks from running for or serving on any Locals Executive Board in any capacity....warden, trustee, barkeep, janitor etc. It most assuredly includes the Constitutional Officer positions.

The UBC willfully & wantonly ignores the laws at will, as they see fit.

Remember one thing - OLMS does not typically employ competent Attorneys on there staff, so when you do this, ask the clerk or intake officer for their name, rank serial number and if they are a liensed and practicing attorney. If they say yes, ask for their bar card number. Don't take no for an answer - whether from a Lawyer and especially from a clerk, file the Injunction request and file a charge with the NLRB on the same day.
12