Can someone show me where it says in the bylaws the CA has to be voted on by the membership? It's a Local Agreement and can be voted upon or not the discretion of a majority of the union board is my read. if a IUE-CWA lawyers says that's so, ITS SO
15 replies (most recent on top)
What’s it matter who supports it or not at this point. Most workers on the floor know through experience that it’s trash and doesn’t work. I’m assuming the company now knows it’s not working since they were the ones who requested to make changes. Get over your strange obsession.
Who is “little one?” Funny how you attempt to belittle that person while showing everyone how intimidated you are by the one you call “little one.” Does that make you his “Mini One?”
@2bwg+1gkK8yGV, 100% lost, you object to something the membership approved?
But the CA WAS voted on by the membership. The officer/executive board vote which was supposed to happen prior to it being presented to the membership was skipped. And nobody knows what went on during negations behind the scenes. The investigation will find if all was fair and legal or not. You seem incredibly worried about losing the CA for someone who insists it was negotiated and implemented fairly and legally.
You’re in denial or simply refuse to understand what’s going on here. You’re oddly consumed with the CA. RH and LH did NOT investigate anything, it was smoke and mirrors. They thought they could make us go away by pretending to look into things and saying everything looks good. They were very wrong and actually made things worse, bringing attention to themselves. A real investigation consists of (at the very least) speaking to the individuals with complaints and taking a look at what those individuals claim to have. None of that was done. Nobody except the subjects of said complaints were talked to. Nothing was given to RH and LH except for what the subjects wanted them to see. There was no real investigation. There was a fake investigation with a fake audit by an individual not qualified to perform audits where fraud or embezzlement is suspected. She chose to take exBA’s word on where thousands upon thousands of unaccounted for funds went. She wrote up a letter listing multiple violations (many considered illegal) and then tried to gaslight with a sentence claiming no concerns were found. Very contradicting, only the fools were fooled. I can tell you that that particular “audit” was not received well by the head criminal investigator with the U.S. DOL. In fact, it raised bigger concerns for multiple reasons. It turned the spotlight not only on the local but on the IUE as well. What started 3 years ago as small, local concerns of a few individuals quickly snowballed into much larger, broader, and more complicated major concerns of many. JC from the IUE was not fooled after having just recently worked close with this particular person from the local. He was more than willing to help. He wanted to hear everyone’s concerns about everything, he wanted to see what members had and wanted to show. And that is why he was taken off the investigation and LH took over. From what I can see, one man from the local was able to convince a few from each place (company, IUE) to trust him and only him to the point that nobody else was to be trusted or believed. One person who is known to be especially close with him, from the IUE, took his word and didn’t speak to anyone or look at anything because she believed it to be an unfair campaign against that man and she trusted. She told others at the IUE (and higher) that there was nothing to worry about. Company people listened to that one man as well and trusted him. I promise, every single person who listened to this one man and trusted that he was being truthful and honest will soon regret doing so. It’s a shame they chose to listen to him and his flying monkeys instead of giving the collective a chance to speak and present what they had. You don’t have to believe anything I say, I have no reason to lie. It will make sense when the investigation is complete and made public.
The CA is great it saved my job and I’m a T rate
Anyone, anyone, what's wrong structurally with CA?
Oh it’s true it’s Dam true! WWE this place is like school all over again. Baby T’s crying everyday the big D’$ got everything we wanted. Now the T’s are ruining it and crying all the time. This place is looking like toilet water every time I push the lever on the clean water tank.
Is the little around today?
Maybe RH (a lawyer which your not) and LH considered all to be hunky dory?
BTW - how does the CA harm members. Rates of pay didn't change correct? Jobs
just got consolidated increasing GE's flexibility (and productivity)
If I were a company HR I'd INSIST the CA was a classification change pursuant to local rules, cut a deal (a better deal than if they were to vote on it) with union to include not voting on it. Simple.
Guess what, classification CAN 100% for sure be done w/o a vote
Also, you keep saying should have been dealt internally. You really have no idea how many people tried and what happened, do you? The union brought this on themselves, literally. I know for a fact that at least 3 people, maybe more that I don’t know, brought formal charges against the union internally. Went through proper procedure and waited for the next step in the process. All 3 were completely ignored. Not acknowledged at all. The National said the IUE would handle it, the IUE made promises to have the Local handle it, and not one thing was done by anyone. They claim to have investigated but their investigation consisted of LH and RH coming and only speaking to exBA RM and P SF. They did not meet with speak to anyone else, not even the individuals who wrote the complaints. If any of the people who brought charges were talked to by the IUE, if any of the people who claimed to have evidence of wrongdoing was interviewed by LH and allowed to show what they had then it very well might have stayed internal. Instead, here we are. And one man is still being blamed as the cause of this, which could not be further from the truth. Rest assured the truth is going to come out. They thought they did everything they could to prevent that from happening but ironically, their own arrogance and ambivalence led to this.
The investigation will provide all the details. I wrote what I know. The board and officers vote first on everything up for a vote, if it passes it’s then presented to the membership to vote. That is the process per Constitution and by-laws. I don’t have time to sift through and find specific areas right now. The board and officer vote was skipped with the CA and it went straight to a membership vote. Maybe it will be considered a violation per DOL, NLRB, maybe not. I don’t know. Just like maybe a check was cut, maybe promises were made, maybe gifts were given…maybe not. I don’t know. That is why there’s an investigation. The corruption has been going on for far too long, it’s too deep for anyone to fix. The exBA administration made it blatantly obvious and impossible to ignore. MANY of us spoke out and were ignored and silenced because certain people chose to believe one man’s lies instead of speaking to anyone. That one man obviously felt untouchable because he kept going and went way too far. And here we are. Why are you upset that criminals will be held accountable for their crimes. They’ve destroyed 301 and it will be apparent very soon. As long as the CA was negotiated in good faith then it will stand. To be honest, even if it wasn’t, depending on the circumstance, it still might stand. I don’t know.
@1iil+1gkK8yGV, cut and paste the part of the by-laws that says it must be voted upon. how did the CA impact membership? GE owns your a-s 8 hrs a days, if they say get your a-s off the forklift or crane and clean the toilets', you do it. especially the D rates. no entitlement to a-s time. the CBA, pre-CA protected a-s time. did any current members even lose one dollar with the CA (don't comment on OT as your entitled none).
@1iil+1gkK8yGV, show the violation of the by-laws on the no vote in the CA. the local agreement allows the board to enter into such an agreement with or w/o the memberships vote. show me, absent that all readers of this blog know you are full of BS! ! you are crazy on any deals being unwound. i don't believed it could happen under DOL or NLRB rules. assume it could happen under civil law. the smoking g-n would have to be so overt. something like an email from the company to a union official saying for example you approve the CA and I'll deposit $ 50K in your personal account.
letting them have paid union business/company paid time off, if not doing such work, while ugly, is no smoking g-n
lastly i don't discount your anger, I even admire it to a degree but the way to create change is to run for office and affect change internally. the way you've gone about it is low class.
First, the by-laws state that the MEMBERSHIP has the final say in ALL DECISIONS (one would think, especially with a decision with an impact as big as the CA, a membership vote be imperative) unless the decision must be made immediately and there’s not enough time to get a membership vote. In that case, the board and officers may vote. Second, regarding the CA, the Executive Board and officers NEVER voted prior to it being presented to the membership at Proctors. The ex BA decided to by-pass the board and officers vote despite P SF stating that the board and officers must vote first. The ex BA made the choice to present the CA straight to the membership, which was an intentional violation of our by-laws. This is a perfect example of how some in the past administration thought themselves more of a dictator than representatives of the collective. The membership did vote on the CA. However, the vote which was supposed to bring the CA to the next level (the membership) was intentionally by-passed in clear violation.