We all want the same thing, we all want the rank and file to have a greater voice in this Union. How we achieve this is the issues.
Both sides have merits to their views. We can debate the merits of both, what would work in NYC would not work for the rest of the country. We can disagree with each other, but I ask that we be civil and the tone of the debate restrained from name calling.
In Walsh’s report
he suggest the consolidation of all locals in NYC and “fixing the flaws in the governance of the council.”
We can all agree that McCarrons council delegate system is a failure. Walsh wrote, “that there be changes in the role of the delegates and the executive committee.” Both bodies functioned “nothing more than the barest of rubber stamps on matters placed before them.”
If we did consolidate all the locals and removed the delegate system and just had one local or council in NYC that answered to the rank and file directly, members would have the ability to participate in their conditions of employment, vote on all issues that effect their livelihood and manage the internal business of the union.
Is this direct control of a council by the rank and file even possible under the UBC constitution?
If NYC were to implement such a system how would this effect the rest of the country?
How could NYC be governed differently than the rest of the country?
Obviously there are all sorts of legal issues and questions that need to be discussed and resolved before the NYC District Council could be run effectively by elected officials for the benefit of the members.
Let me see if I have this correct. Richard Dorrough, Wayne Harley and others want a stronger local which I agree with. Anon says “under the current system locals have no power” and the rank and file should have a greater voice in the Councils, which I also agree with.