*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 16, 2021, 01:21:04 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: IO has no authority  (Read 1089 times)

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
IO has no authority
« on: June 07, 2011, 10:21:33 AM »
I had talk with local 353 Election Judge Mike Mahon yesterday and inquired about designating a place at the union hall for candidates to place their election literature for members to pick up if they desired to do so. He stated to me that he had decided that there should be no literature made available at the union hall and gave the reasoning that if he allowed it the incumbents would have the advantage in that regard because they could keep the area stocked with literature while any challenger would not be able to that as easily.

I questioned whether it was within his authority to decide what members could do in the union hall, to which he replied that he had consulted with I.O. and that he was within his authority as election judge to make such a decision about literature in the union hall. I stated to him that perhaps the business manager Steven Martin should be consulted regarding what members could and could not do in the union hall because in my opinion it was the business manger that had authority in the union hall. He said that if I could convince the business manager and if we both agreed he would consider it but said he was telling me right now that he was disinclined to reconsider it. I said to him that I would discuss it with Steve Martin and hopefully we could agree on fair plan for place where members could easily see and obtain candidates literature while at the union hall if they so desired. 



In my opinion, this Election Judge appears to be biased against the contenders.

  • The IO has no jurisdiction in regards to decisions made about the Local Union Election. The Election guide points out that the Incumbent Local Union officers are to be consulted and that they are to be reasonable to the requests of candidates and that the conditions of campaigning are to be sent out to all candidates in advance. Seems the Election Judge has already failed to do this.
  • To state that the candidates cannot display election literature in the Union Hall because the incumbents would have the advantage has already been proven wrong. On the contrary, the Incumbents literature was already posted, which shows that his decision has already given the incumbent officers the advantage.
  • The Election Judge has combined 2 dishonourable tactics. Those being the "intentional exclusion" and "illusory justice" tactics. "Intentional exclusion", in that he has actually indirectly affected the contenders ability to compete with the incumbents and the members ability to fairly receive both the incumbents and contenders literature. "Illusory justice", in that he has used the old trick of using the IO as the source to receive answers and justice. We all know too well how inaccessible the IO has been when trying to receive 'quick' answers and justice.
  • Contradiction. The Election Judge said it was his decision. The Election Judge consulted the IO and stated the the IO gave him permission to make this decision. Therefore, it was the IOs decision. It's not the IOs' jurisdiction and history has shown that the 1st District IVP is biased against Brother Speranza.
  • Complaints of "parental interference into a Local's autonomy" can be filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
.
.
.
Quote
CAMPAIGNING

It is the duty of the union and its officers to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute their campaign literature to the membership at the candidate's expense. When the local union or its officers authorize distribution of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate, similar distribution under the same conditions must be made for any other candidate, if requested. In order to avoid charges of disparity of treatment among candidates, it is advised that a local union inform all candidates in advance of the conditions under which distribution will be made and promptly advise them of any changes in those conditions.

A local union must also honor requests for distribution of literature to only a portion of the membership if such distribution is practicable. Each candidate may choose their own ways of campaigning for election according to their own ingenuity and resources.

Each candidate must be treated equally with respect to the expense of such distribution. Thus, a local union and its officers must honor a candidate's request for distribution where the candidate is willing and able to bear the expense of such distribution. However, should the candidate be unable to bear such expense, there is no requirement that the union distribute the literature of the candidate free of charge. Since local unions have an affirmative duty to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute campaign literature (at the candidate's expense), a local union rule refusing all such distributions would not be proper, even though applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion. In view of the fact that expenses of distribution are to be borne by the candidate, a local union may not refuse to distribute campaign literature merely because it may have a small staff that cannot handle such distribution for all candidates. If this is the case, the local union may employ additional temporary staff or contract the job to -a professional mailer and charge the expense incurred to the candidates for whom the service is being rendered. The local union may require candidates to tender in advance the estimated costs of distributing their literature, provided such requirement is applied uniformly.

Local Unions may not regulate the contents of campaign literature which candidates may wish to have distributed by the local union. This is left to the discretion of each candidate. The local union may not require that it be permitted to read a copy of the literature before it is sent out, nor may it censor the statements of the candidates in any way, even though the statement may include derogatory remarks about other candidates.

If the local union decides, a publication may be distributed in which all candidates are listed with a factual record of their local union activities, committee assignments performed, offices held and experience gained for and on behalf of the local union. This publication shall be prepared under the supervision of the election board.

Each bona fide candidate for office has a right, once within 30 days prior to any election in which he/she is a candidate, to inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members of the local union who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement requiring membership therein as a condition of employment. The right of inspection does not include the right to copy the list but does include the right to compare it with a personal list of members. Such membership lists should be made available for inspection at the candidates' option anytime within the 30-day period. The list is not required to be maintained continuously and may be compiled immediately before each election. The form in which the list is to be maintained may be organized alphabetically or geographically.

Offline blondliberal

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
Re: IO has no authority
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2011, 11:44:37 AM »
 ;D

interesting... very interesting

so the "election judge" was elected in 353... such a progressive move

and he is now perceived to be biased??

what a surprise!!!... bias is why people seek elected offices

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: IO has no authority
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2011, 05:12:18 PM »
Yes , gRant, it is very interesting and certainly can be discussed.

You would probably like to make it a "Black & White" scenario and conclude that electing a Judge does not prevent bias.
BUT... the world is rarely just "Black & White", especially when we delve into the 'political arena'.

Now I will discuss this a little to simply blow away what you are trying to imply.
I don't expect you to be able to keep up because you have demonstrated to everyone here that your depth of intellect isn't very deep.... but for those that may consider your take on this, I will easily explain.

First, we already have elected officers and the IO already has a history of attacking any Local Union officer that does not tow their line even when they(IO) are in violation of the Constitution. So they have already established the atmosphere "fear' if anyone dared questioned their opinions and orders.

So despite the rules, despiter being elected, the mantra that when the IO speaks you listen has already been established.
As you can see, Brother Speranza already pointed out to the Election Judge that it is the BM that he should ask and not the IO and I followed it up by showing where it is written in the IBEW Local Union Election Guide.

I could go on and on.... but I thought I keep it short... for you gRant.   ;)

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Re: IO has no authority
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2011, 05:41:43 PM »
1.  The Hall is the temple of democracy in my IBEW, or so it should be.

2.  If we can't go to the Hall and be active politically during an election, and it is verbotan on job sites, just where in hell can the civic minded union activist peddle his wares, I mean views?

3.  I believe that any and all union candidates should by right, let alone common sense, should have free access to a political soap-box, as long as they are not disruptive, and be allowed to campaign with election material at the Hall.

4.  The reason we have membership apathy, is because some people are experienced enough to realize we are slipping on a noose, and not a neck tie.

5.  It seems an obvious double standard when the Hall an peddle every piece of left wing, labour politics, PR inspired "let the citizens revolt for every other cause under the rainbow, but when it comes to our own union body politic, the Erection Judge says we can't have political paper from union candidates.

6.  For a guy who wants techno gizmo's such as UPC bar codes on erection ballots to show how modern we are in our election ways, yet he enforces the worst kind of censorship known to mankind.

Sad to admit this, there are too many people that either don't know or don't believe the Hall should and must be political. 

I was always taught that the best way to cut your teeth is to parade around and exercise that right.

We need a Code of Excellence for our own union elections.

Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Re: IO has no authority
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2011, 10:57:10 PM »
Did you address your issues to the election judge directly or are you simply using this forum to air your frustrations about what appears to be an overbearing election judge that wants to ban campaign literature from the "Temple of Democracy"? :(

How about writing a letter to Steven Martin or better yet endorse the one I wrote so i won't be the only guy in the IBEW in all of Canada that has so many issues in conflict with the appointed local union administration officers and now an elected Election Judge. :(
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline blondliberal

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
Re: IO has no authority
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2011, 11:19:50 PM »
Yes , gRant, it is very interesting and certainly can be discussed.

You would probably like to make it a "Black & White" scenario and conclude that electing a Judge does not prevent bias.
BUT... the world is rarely just "Black & White", especially when we delve into the 'political arena'.

Now I will discuss this a little to simply blow away what you are trying to imply.
I don't expect you to be able to keep up because you have demonstrated to everyone here that your depth of intellect isn't very deep.... but for those that may consider your take on this, I will easily explain.

First, we already have elected officers and the IO already has a history of attacking any Local Union officer that does not tow their line even when they(IO) are in violation of the Constitution. So they have already established the atmosphere "fear' if anyone dared questioned their opinions and orders.

So despite the rules, despiter being elected, the mantra that when the IO speaks you listen has already been established.
As you can see, Brother Speranza already pointed out to the Election Judge that it is the BM that he should ask and not the IO and I followed it up by showing where it is written in the IBEW Local Union Election Guide.

I could go on and on.... but I thought I keep it short... for you gRant.   ;)


good grief eric... you are so reinhart obsessed... 424 has always had a rocky relationship with the international

clendenning and lynn fought with them constantly... we wanted to negotiate our own presidents agreement

it took 6 months of them holding back on the io portion just to get their attention

they wanted us back in the building trades council in the worst way... we refused... until seiben capitulated

reality was... reinhart made some very dumb decisions... and had to go... so they used what they had to bounce him