rat tales
Senior
- Oct 3, 2007
- 266
- 13
Link it baby. I will certainly bow.
Show us the link!!!
Goggling is when you have your beer goggles on.
Googling !
IAM Fleet Service topic 28June-
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
Link it baby. I will certainly bow.
Show us the link!!!
Goggling is when you have your beer goggles on.
Googling !
Jester
Veteran
Chit Howdy! I am sure glad those sleazy tactics of Boss Canale's days are gone now that the New Direction Team is in charge! I love the accountably of these executives... the Plantiff perfomed his due diliegence in verifying his eligibility to be a candidate in the elections, received written notification from the Secretary-Treasurer confirming elibgibility, and then told he was not eligible three week later and blamed the Plantiff for not knowing the Company failed to take-out union dues from 14 months ago? So typical of the IAM "Leadership" to give out bad (or malicious?) advice, and then refuse to accept responsibility... sounds so much like LAS being given wrong information to those being involutarily furloughed and refusing to accept responsibiity.
Okay, now the New Direction Team apologists on cue... Let's hear how this is the fault of the prior IAM leadership and the CBA for which you all "warned" us about how it would lead to these type of outcomes. There is a TL on the PHX ramp who tells people "man-up" with all the crying about something, and maybe it is time for the IAM leadership to "man-up" by treating the Plantiff fairly, accept responsibility for their error, recognize he was dealing in good faith and realize the membership sees these tactics as sordid behaviors which just re-affirms the general public's dislike and distrust of organized labor. The New Direction Team thinks it is all that much different than the prior leadership, then it better act as if it is all that different.
So Advocates Jester.
rat tales
Senior
- Oct 3, 2007
- 266
- 13
8. By a letter to the complainant, XXXXXX, dated March 24, 2010, Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer, informed XXXXXXX that he met the nomination requirement to be considered a candidate for the office of Assistant General Chairman and accordingly requested that XXXXXX provide defendant’s Secretary-Treasurer with a notice of acceptance or rejection of the nomination.
How did you get all that? I read that he was notified that he met the nomination requirement. That simply means that he met the minimum nomination requirement of four locals. His nomination requirement and his eligibility are two separate issues. Nowhere in the complaint that I read did he receive a confirmation of eligibility. Get it right Jester.
Did I miss the bow?
roabilly
Veteran
- Feb 17, 2008
- 2,136
- 2,355
Glad to see you back “Tales”!
The eligibility scenario remains relevant regardless of someone’s position, or aspirations. We have individuals here in CLT who were not able to vote on the last agreement because of the same eligibility deficiencies.
Everyone is treated the same in those regards...bylaws are bylaws.
It’s amazing how some folks salivate at the prospect of discrediting the IAM leadership. Could this be a consequence of begrudging, or simply a desire to instill doubts regarding the integrity of our institution?
I would like to submit that both are realistic...
So dons the poncho...
BroBilly
Jester
Veteran
Tales,
Okay, step by step...
Quick review... Jester: "... the Plantiff perfomed his due diliegence in verifying his eligibility to be a candidate in the elections, received written notification from the Secretary-Treasurer confirming elibgibility, and then told he was not eligible three week later and blamed the Plantiff for not knowing the Company failed to take-out union dues from 14 months ago?"
Jester: "the Plantiff perfomed his due diliegence in verifying his eligibility to be a candidate in the elections,"
Paragraph 8: "Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer, informed XXXXXXX that he met the nomination requirement to be considered a candidate for the office of Assistant General Chairman"
Jester: "received written notification from the Secretary-Treasurer confirming elibgibility,"
Paragraph 8: "By a letter to the complainant, XXXXXX, dated March 24, 2010, Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer, informed XXXXXXX that he met the nomination requirement.
Jester: "and then told he was not eligible three week later and blamed the Plantiff for not knowing the Company failed to take-out union dues from 14 months ago?"
Paragraph 10: "XXXXXX was later declared ineligible to run for office in an undated letter signed by the Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer and received by XXXXXX on April 19, 2010, informing him that he did not meet the two-year continuous good standing qualification for eligibility to run for union office because he had a lapse in his dues payment in November 2008, December 2008, and January 2009."
So you now telling me that one can meet the nomination requirements to be a candidate, but not the requirements to be a candidate? Something stinks and it isn't just the lav truck.
So Dissects Jester.
Okay, step by step...
Quick review... Jester: "... the Plantiff perfomed his due diliegence in verifying his eligibility to be a candidate in the elections, received written notification from the Secretary-Treasurer confirming elibgibility, and then told he was not eligible three week later and blamed the Plantiff for not knowing the Company failed to take-out union dues from 14 months ago?"
Jester: "the Plantiff perfomed his due diliegence in verifying his eligibility to be a candidate in the elections,"
Paragraph 8: "Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer, informed XXXXXXX that he met the nomination requirement to be considered a candidate for the office of Assistant General Chairman"
Jester: "received written notification from the Secretary-Treasurer confirming elibgibility,"
Paragraph 8: "By a letter to the complainant, XXXXXX, dated March 24, 2010, Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer, informed XXXXXXX that he met the nomination requirement.
Jester: "and then told he was not eligible three week later and blamed the Plantiff for not knowing the Company failed to take-out union dues from 14 months ago?"
Paragraph 10: "XXXXXX was later declared ineligible to run for office in an undated letter signed by the Lodge 141’s Secretary-Treasurer and received by XXXXXX on April 19, 2010, informing him that he did not meet the two-year continuous good standing qualification for eligibility to run for union office because he had a lapse in his dues payment in November 2008, December 2008, and January 2009."
So you now telling me that one can meet the nomination requirements to be a candidate, but not the requirements to be a candidate? Something stinks and it isn't just the lav truck.
So Dissects Jester.
libertybell
Senior
- Jan 5, 2003
- 320
- 9
Roa,
Amen brother!
The complainer used to be a former Canale guy and also a former educator you think he would be smart enough and pro active to Check his dues before he went thru the nominations in Feb. He is now going to cost us all our own dues to go thru court costs because of his stupidity in not checking before thinking of running for office....
ByLaws are Bylaws thats why we have them....
He thinks its ok to be in the rears while we all pay each month.....
Jester
Veteran
My Dearest Mr. Roabillly,
Point of question, did you, in fact, imply these underhand, suspect actions against a political opponent by the New Direction Team supports the idea of "integrity of our institution"? I am now under the impression based upon Mr. Rat Tales explanation by which one could be eligible for nomination, but not eligible for the election? Begs the question... Why would someone present themselves for nomination if not for the purpose to place themselves on the ballot? Was there evidence to suggest Mr. XXXXXXX deliberately withheld his dues? Was Mr. XXXXXXX given an opportunity to correct the dues error? Was Mr. XXXXXXX notified of the problem well in advance before the cut-off date for names to be submitted to the ballot?
What standard are you using to define "integrity of our institution"? The actions of the IAM and its New Direction Team as they relate to Mr. XXXXXXX are more akin to something out of a Banana Republic or Tammany Hall. If you are going to play the game of "integrity" then remember that Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach. Otherwise, there still might be some sealed and unopened copies of "Enron Employee Ethics Handbook" available on Ebay for you to use as your guide on "integrity".
So Chastises Jester.
Jester
Veteran
I think that's another website to be "in the rears"... if Mr. XXXXXXX was in arrears, then he should have been told instead of being given the implication that Mr. XXXXXXX was in good standing because he could be nominated for an elected position, but could not actually win the election as he was not in good standing to be on the ballot. It was a cute trick by the IAM's New Direction Team against a political opponent.... I hope we all enjoy paying for it out of our dues.
So Reminds Jester.
ChockJockey
Veteran
- Dec 18, 2008
- 1,393
- 1,350
I for one am pleased with guile thus demonstrated, if we are indeed talking about good old fashioned American underhandedness and political wrangling. It means that somebody knows how to play the game, go for the jugular, shoot from the hip. grease the wheels, throw the hardball, get the goods, the ol' one-two. Yeah!
Morality/integrity usually end up getting sidelined as philosophical curiosities in arguments concerning the minutiae of democracy and law in action. The system is the system. Those that can better maneuver within it and wield it at whim are those best positioned to pursue their interests, and this is why lawyers exist. Wars are fought over interests, not ideals. Take a look over at the pilots' thread, either side is claiming to have the most integrity and are willing to use the most cunning of legal trickery and demeaning language to prove it.
So what if some union dues go to lawyers fees, they were probably just going to be spent on pocket calendars or something.
roabilly
Veteran
- Feb 17, 2008
- 2,136
- 2,355
Dear desert dwelling gnome...
The assumption that one can accept a nomination, and thus be eligible for election is ludicrous. Why would it be the responsibility of the Union to expend resources based on a hypothetical?
This would be similar to a fourteen year old walking into a grocery store and walking to the beer cooler and getting a six pack. The youth can walk all over the store for quite some time but... the kid will eventually have to go to the front check-out. Of course... we all know this where he/she will get carded (eligibility) and denied the purchase.
What your argument implies is that we should have a clerk policing the cooler and the check-out.
Mr. XXXXXX got carded at the check out... his six pack still sits on the counter!
So inserts...
BroBilly
My sincere apologies for stating the case had been ruled on. So, it has been filed but not heard yet. Does anyone know how long it takes before it will be heard?
Question for Rat Tails...
No member whose dues have
been withheld by his employer for payment to such organization
pursuant to his voluntary authorization provided for in a
collective bargaining agreement shall be declared ineligible to
vote or be a candidate for office in such organization by reason of
alleged delay or default in the payment of dues
Is this refering to the fact that if you sign a dues check-off form and the employer allegedly delays or defaults in the payment of dues that no member shall be declared ineligible to vote or be a candidate for office? Is this what the DOL is alluding to?
Question for Rat Tails...
No member whose dues have
been withheld by his employer for payment to such organization
pursuant to his voluntary authorization provided for in a
collective bargaining agreement shall be declared ineligible to
vote or be a candidate for office in such organization by reason of
alleged delay or default in the payment of dues
Is this refering to the fact that if you sign a dues check-off form and the employer allegedly delays or defaults in the payment of dues that no member shall be declared ineligible to vote or be a candidate for office? Is this what the DOL is alluding to?
roadtrip
Veteran
I know for a Fact in past elections one candidate was in arrears, he understood the BYLAWS being it was his responsibility to CHECK with his local lodge BEFORE Nominations began. He paid any of his back dues and when nominations happened the District under Canale checked to see if the Candidates were "members in good standing" after the Nominations Phase. Don't think for a minute that if the Candidate didn't check his Dues before nominations which is his responsibility, Canale would have voided him as a Candidate and he would not been able to run....
This member understood the BYLAWS........Mr XXXXXX a former Canale candidate was aware of this and is now playing a game costing us all...
mike33
Veteran
- Nov 7, 2007
- 2,252
- 1,128
- Status
