If there were any yes voters who could not vote due to invalid pin numbers, please call Pam Terry on Monday as well, I'm certain it was just an oversight that she only asked for NO votes.
CWA vote in doubt
- Thread starter ONTHESTREET
- Start date
ITRADE
Veteran
Jesus. I've seen this posted on at least two different boards. Was surprised it wasn't posted to flyertalk.
I think you were all "confused" like the IAM on the last election. Maybe the company should make it simple and have just one choice on the ballot, just like the elections in totalitarian regimes. [BR]
delldude
Veteran
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE] [BR]----------------[BR] . [BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]I think you were all "confused" like the IAM on the last election. Maybe the company should make it simple and have just one choice on the ballot, just like the elections in totalitarian regimes. [BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][EM] hows about three choices?[BR] 1.) YES[BR] 2.) NO[BR] 3.) MAYBE - caution, to be used only to correct close votes.[/EM][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE] [BR]----------------[BR] . [BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]I think you were all "confused" like the IAM on the last election. Maybe the company should make it simple and have just one choice on the ballot, just like the elections in totalitarian regimes. [BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][EM] hows about three choices?[BR] 1.) YES[BR] 2.) NO[BR] 3.) MAYBE - caution, to be used only to correct close votes.[/EM][/P]
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
The vote was conducted by YOUR UNION. NOT THE COMPANY. Once the results are certified BY YOUR UNION, there is NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO. I would bet that that minor detail is already done, so you can complain all you want. Then, if you're unhappy, GO FIND ANOTHER JOB!
N513AU
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 219
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/11/2003 5:58:55 PM ISN wrote:
Dear Members,
We think that there might be a challenge to the vote by some members who wanted to vote "no" but whose pin numbers didn't work. Anyone who tried to vote "no" and couldn't because of an invalid pin number needs to contact me at 703-980-8984 by Monday morning, 1/13. Only those people that attempted a "no" vote but the telephone or the website rejected their vote should call me. CWA prides itself in being a democratic union. Any vote challenge will be seriously examined by the President's Office at CWA International.
In Solidarity,
Pam Terry President Cwa Local 2000.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you were all "confused" like the IAM on the last election. Maybe the company should make it simple and have just one choice on the ballot, just like the elections in totalitarian regimes.
----------------
On 1/11/2003 5:58:55 PM ISN wrote:
Dear Members,
We think that there might be a challenge to the vote by some members who wanted to vote "no" but whose pin numbers didn't work. Anyone who tried to vote "no" and couldn't because of an invalid pin number needs to contact me at 703-980-8984 by Monday morning, 1/13. Only those people that attempted a "no" vote but the telephone or the website rejected their vote should call me. CWA prides itself in being a democratic union. Any vote challenge will be seriously examined by the President's Office at CWA International.
In Solidarity,
Pam Terry President Cwa Local 2000.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you were all "confused" like the IAM on the last election. Maybe the company should make it simple and have just one choice on the ballot, just like the elections in totalitarian regimes.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 9:13:11 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:
The vote was conducted by YOUR UNION. NOT THE COMPANY. Once the results are certified BY YOUR UNION, there is NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO. I would bet that that minor detail is already done, so you can complain all you want. Then, if you're unhappy, GO FIND ANOTHER JOB!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Good point. But, has the union certified the vote yet?
----------------
On 1/12/2003 9:13:11 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:
The vote was conducted by YOUR UNION. NOT THE COMPANY. Once the results are certified BY YOUR UNION, there is NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO. I would bet that that minor detail is already done, so you can complain all you want. Then, if you're unhappy, GO FIND ANOTHER JOB!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Good point. But, has the union certified the vote yet?
A320 Driver
Veteran
Anyone believing that their Union vote was improperly conducted may contact the Department of Labor after first challenging the conduct of the vote to their respective Union.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/...s/lmrda-act.htm
Bill of Rights--(29 U.S.C. 411)
SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.-- Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to parti****te in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.-- Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining
http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/handbook/unions.htm
Employee Rights--Title I of the LMRDA guarantees certain rights to all union members. These include the right to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums, to attend membership meetings and to parti****te in the deliberations and vote upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in the organization's constitution and bylaws.
Compliance Assistance Available--Additional compliance assistance materials appear on the Internet. OLMS field office staff members are available to answer questions about the LMRDA and to help individuals and organizations affected by the law.
Penalties/Sanctions--The LMRDA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to investigate "in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate" any provisions of the Act (except the Bill of Rights of Union Members and amendments made by the LMRDA to other laws), and to "enter such places and inspect such records and accounts and question such persons" as may be necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred. The Secretary may issue subpoenas to compel testimony or to obtain records and other materials needed to complete an investigation.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/...s/lmrda-act.htm
Bill of Rights--(29 U.S.C. 411)
SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.-- Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to parti****te in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.-- Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining
http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/handbook/unions.htm
Employee Rights--Title I of the LMRDA guarantees certain rights to all union members. These include the right to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums, to attend membership meetings and to parti****te in the deliberations and vote upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in the organization's constitution and bylaws.
Compliance Assistance Available--Additional compliance assistance materials appear on the Internet. OLMS field office staff members are available to answer questions about the LMRDA and to help individuals and organizations affected by the law.
Penalties/Sanctions--The LMRDA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to investigate "in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate" any provisions of the Act (except the Bill of Rights of Union Members and amendments made by the LMRDA to other laws), and to "enter such places and inspect such records and accounts and question such persons" as may be necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred. The Secretary may issue subpoenas to compel testimony or to obtain records and other materials needed to complete an investigation.
here is the latest rumor.
There were several gate agents who tried to vote no but couldn't. Something happened to the automation of the no vote and for some reason the arbitration group doing the vote didn't correct it but did notify the union of the problem. The automation of the yes vote went through and there weren't any complaints.
Supposedly there are over 100 complaints that were filed by no voters before the cut off. And the rumor in PIT is that the cwa is actually going to do another vote because it was advised and aware of the problem. If they didnt then they would risk being sued for damages for the next 6 years.
Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised to read thisin the newspaper in 24 hours.
My question is why would they do another vote? Why not just allow those who couldn't vote to vote and add to the count?
Somebody who knows want to jump in?
There were several gate agents who tried to vote no but couldn't. Something happened to the automation of the no vote and for some reason the arbitration group doing the vote didn't correct it but did notify the union of the problem. The automation of the yes vote went through and there weren't any complaints.
Supposedly there are over 100 complaints that were filed by no voters before the cut off. And the rumor in PIT is that the cwa is actually going to do another vote because it was advised and aware of the problem. If they didnt then they would risk being sued for damages for the next 6 years.
Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised to read thisin the newspaper in 24 hours.
My question is why would they do another vote? Why not just allow those who couldn't vote to vote and add to the count?
Somebody who knows want to jump in?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 1:39:49 PM steelersrule wrote:
here is the latest rumor.
There were several gate agents who tried to vote no but couldn't. Something happened to the automation of the no vote and for some reason the arbitration group doing the vote didn't correct it but did notify the union of the problem. The automation of the yes vote went through and there weren't any complaints.
Supposedly there are over 100 complaints that were filed by no voters before the cut off. And the rumor in PIT is that the cwa is actually going to do another vote because it was advised and aware of the problem. If they didnt then they would risk being sued for damages for the next 6 years.
Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised to read thisin the newspaper in 24 hours.
My question is why would they do another vote? Why not just allow those who couldn't vote to vote and add to the count?
Somebody who knows want to jump in?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Honestly Mr. Lotto official.....I really did mean to play the winning numbers but while waiting in line I got an uncontrolable need for a candy bar. I bought the candy bar and didn't have enough for the ticket but that doesn't matter! I MEANT to play those winning numbers! Can I have my check now?
----------------
On 1/12/2003 1:39:49 PM steelersrule wrote:
here is the latest rumor.
There were several gate agents who tried to vote no but couldn't. Something happened to the automation of the no vote and for some reason the arbitration group doing the vote didn't correct it but did notify the union of the problem. The automation of the yes vote went through and there weren't any complaints.
Supposedly there are over 100 complaints that were filed by no voters before the cut off. And the rumor in PIT is that the cwa is actually going to do another vote because it was advised and aware of the problem. If they didnt then they would risk being sued for damages for the next 6 years.
Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised to read thisin the newspaper in 24 hours.
My question is why would they do another vote? Why not just allow those who couldn't vote to vote and add to the count?
Somebody who knows want to jump in?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Honestly Mr. Lotto official.....I really did mean to play the winning numbers but while waiting in line I got an uncontrolable need for a candy bar. I bought the candy bar and didn't have enough for the ticket but that doesn't matter! I MEANT to play those winning numbers! Can I have my check now?
Good Lord people. Give it a rest already. The vote has been cast....lets move on with it and do our best to make this work!
To those of you questioning the validity of the vote or complaining that you did not have a chance to vote No - well, I am sure that if voting was so darned important to you you would have found a way to do it!
Being upset about not casting your NO vote tells me one thing - you don't want to try and make this work! With that, I say to you, QUIT, move on, try and get a job somewhere else, and leave this company you apparently want to see fail!
To those of you questioning the validity of the vote or complaining that you did not have a chance to vote No - well, I am sure that if voting was so darned important to you you would have found a way to do it!
Being upset about not casting your NO vote tells me one thing - you don't want to try and make this work! With that, I say to you, QUIT, move on, try and get a job somewhere else, and leave this company you apparently want to see fail!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 1:39:49 PM steelersrule wrote:
Something happened to the automation of the no vote and for some reason the arbitration group doing the vote didn't correct it but did notify the union of the problem. The automation of the yes vote went through and there weren't any complaints.
Sounds fishy to me. ONLY THE NO VOTES WERE REJECTED. The yes votes all were OK. Everyone who voted yes, had a PIN and had to make an entry. Suddenly there are 100's of NO voters who's PIN's did not work or the system rejected them. What are the chances that 100% rejects were all NO votes. I like my chances of winning the powerball better than this outcome.
Some people will do anything to get what they want.YES[ even lie!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------
On 1/12/2003 1:39:49 PM steelersrule wrote:
Something happened to the automation of the no vote and for some reason the arbitration group doing the vote didn't correct it but did notify the union of the problem. The automation of the yes vote went through and there weren't any complaints.
Sounds fishy to me. ONLY THE NO VOTES WERE REJECTED. The yes votes all were OK. Everyone who voted yes, had a PIN and had to make an entry. Suddenly there are 100's of NO voters who's PIN's did not work or the system rejected them. What are the chances that 100% rejects were all NO votes. I like my chances of winning the powerball better than this outcome.
Some people will do anything to get what they want.YES[ even lie!!!!!!!!!!!
This is really bad, I meant to vote No but instead my vote went for Pat Buchanan, who do I contact? ;-)
