Is the membership the SUPREME Authority Here?

[CIO]

ARTICLE XIII AMENDMENTS

A. The Constitution and Bylaws may be altered, amended, or added to by an affirmative two-thirds (2/3)
Vote of the Board of Directors.
B. Any alteration, amendment, or addition to the Constitution and Bylaws shall not become effective after the two-thirds (2/3) affirmation referred to above, for one hundred (100) days after the completed vote has transpired.
If, during such one hundred (100) day abeyance period, thirty percent (30%) of the active membership petitions the Secretary-Treasurer requesting a referendum of the subject alteration, amendment, or addition, the Secretary-Treasurer shall circulate such a referendum ballot to the active membership. The ballot shall contain the proposal to be voted on and shall state a reasonable deadline for the return of the ballots.

If the membership is the supreme authority! Why is this in a Constitution?

 

[DallasConehead]

Sounds like the BOD can change the constitution/bylaws, with a 2/3s vote. It sits for 100 days awaiting a petition from 30% of the active membership. If this transpires then you have a vote.

In my limited thought processes the BOD HAS to have a mechanism to change the constitution AND they have to be the ones to move any such changes forward. I for one don't see a problem but if there is a better way, feel free to put it out there brother!

Besides this , lets look at the current TWU method for doing the same, a Las Vegas drunk fest where there is a simple yea or nea vote on the floor by the delegates in attendance. The outcome of which is determined by the ears of the person running the floor, i.e. Little

 

[TWU informer]

CIO...

..I agree with your point here and would prefer that the membership vote take place on ALL amendments without the trouble of a petition. Seems easy enough to get the AMP Constitution amended to place the membership in direct control of all amendments.

Having said that though, are you willing to openly debate the TWU vs AMP Consitution?

You want to bring a bus load of fleet service clerks and retirees to a meeting scheduled for the purposes of Constitutional Debate and process regarding change from within?

I would sure like to a attend and witness this debate.

Even while I agree with your point, I feel the chance of an AMP Constitution Amendment is 5000% more possible under this provision that the proven improbable chance of change from within and the TWU Constitution. You disagree with my point here?

 

[TWU informer]

Didn't think this offer would interest CIO. Simpleton just wants one-liners to attack AMP.

 

[Vortilon]

ARTICLE XIII AMENDMENTS

A. The Constitution and Bylaws may be altered, amended, or added to by an affirmative two-thirds (2/3)
Vote of the Board of Directors.
B. Any alteration, amendment, or addition to the Constitution and Bylaws shall not become effective after the two-thirds (2/3) affirmation referred to above, for one hundred (100) days after the completed vote has transpired.
If, during such one hundred (100) day abeyance period, thirty percent (30%) of the active membership petitions the Secretary-Treasurer requesting a referendum of the subject alteration, amendment, or addition, the Secretary-Treasurer shall circulate such a referendum ballot to the active membership. The ballot shall contain the proposal to be voted on and shall state a reasonable deadline for the return of the ballots.

If the membership is the supreme authority! Why is this in a Constitution?

Newbie CIO,

You're what we call a troll.... If this is your best gripe about the AMP constitution, I'd say were doing alright....

 

[CIO]

4 replies, not one straight answer.Typical diversion tactics?

If you have 6 Board of Director, it will take 4 to change the Constitution.

If you have 900 members it will take 300 to call for an election and 451 to correct an injustice?

 

[Birdman]

4 replies, not one straight answer.Typical diversion tactics?

If you have 6 Board of Director, it will take 4 to change the Constitution.

If you have 900 members it will take 300 to call for an election and 451 to correct an injustice?

Is there any straight answer that you would accept?

 

[TWU informer]

4 replies, not one straight answer.Typical diversion tactics?

If you have 6 Board of Director, it will take 4 to change the Constitution.

If you have 900 members it will take 300 to call for an election and 451 to correct an injustice?

I know that after being with TWU for years and NO ability to change the Constitution is your idea of a Union.

But me personally, while not perfect, at least the AMP Constitution can be changed.

Give me a ballot and the TWU is out the door.

 

[TWU informer]

4 replies, not one straight answer.Typical diversion tactics?

If you have 6 Board of Director, it will take 4 to change the Constitution.

If you have 900 members it will take 300 to call for an election and 451 to correct an injustice?

Very good post CIO.

You started the thread with the Question "Is the membership the SUPREME Authority here". And then in this post admit that a membership majority (451 of 900) would be indeed be the SUPREME Authority.

Thanks for answering your own question while complaining of there not being a straight answer. You're the best.

 

[The Goose]

Along the same line, what ever happened to the slogan:
"An injustice to one is an injustice to all." ??

Is it not a convenient rally device any longer - or was it simply unabashed BS to begin with?

How about it, TWU supporters?

 

[eolesen]

Conehead has it right. The whole reason for having a board of directors is to set direction, and that includes the constitution. I could see where the cost of holding an election for each structural change could get pretty costly.

And, as Informer pointed out, there's an adequate safety valve allowing members to petition for a referendum, which is something the TWU apparently doesn't have.


CIO might appear to be a newbie, but I suspect he's no stranger to the forums or trying to defend the TWU.

In 2003 on the PlaneBusiness forums, I offered to moderate a debate between one TWU supporter and one AMFA supporter. The rules of engagement were simple -- we'd set up a dedicated thread, and only the two named individuals could alternate posts.

An AMFA supporter stepped up immediately, but the TWU was so threatened by the possibility of not being able to defend themselves on the merits of their constitution that they went running to the Company, and demanded that I be reprimanded and forced to stop moderating on PlaneBusiness. We shut down the boards shortly after that.

I doubt we'd see someone from the TWU step forward to present their side, but maybe Ralph or one of the other moderators here would consider a similar format. If they're not management employees, they wouldn't be biased or subject to being harassed by AA HR...

 

[aapitbull]

Conehead has it right. The whole reason for having a board of directors is to set direction, and that includes the constitution. I could see where the cost of holding an election for each structural change could get pretty costly.

And, as Informer pointed out, there's an adequate safety valve allowing members to petition for a referendum, which is something the TWU apparently doesn't have.


CIO might appear to be a newbie, but I suspect he's no stranger to the forums or trying to defend the TWU.

In 2003 on the PlaneBusiness forums, I offered to moderate a debate between one TWU supporter and one AMFA supporter. The rules of engagement were simple -- we'd set up a dedicated thread, and only the two named individuals could alternate posts.

An AMFA supporter stepped up immediately, but the TWU was so threatened by the possibility of not being able to defend themselves on the merits of their constitution that they went running to the Company, and demanded that I be reprimanded and forced to stop moderating on PlaneBusiness. We shut down the boards shortly after that.

I doubt we'd see someone from the TWU step forward to present their side, but maybe Ralph or one of the other moderators here would consider a similar format. If they're not management employees, they wouldn't be biased or subject to being harassed by AA HR...

Thanks for posting what happened I am sorry you got caught in the middle but those were good times. It is interesting that they will nitpick anything that threatens the TWU but will not raise a finger against the twu constitution.

 

[Boomer]

Conehead has it right. The whole reason for having a board of directors is to set direction, and that includes the constitution. I could see where the cost of holding an election for each structural change could get pretty costly.

And, as Informer pointed out, there's an adequate safety valve allowing members to petition for a referendum, which is something the TWU apparently doesn't have.


CIO might appear to be a newbie, but I suspect he's no stranger to the forums or trying to defend the TWU.

In 2003 on the PlaneBusiness forums, I offered to moderate a debate between one TWU supporter and one AMFA supporter. The rules of engagement were simple -- we'd set up a dedicated thread, and only the two named individuals could alternate posts.

An AMFA supporter stepped up immediately, but the TWU was so threatened by the possibility of not being able to defend themselves on the merits of their constitution that they went running to the Company, and demanded that I be reprimanded and forced to stop moderating on PlaneBusiness. We shut down the boards shortly after that.

I doubt we'd see someone from the TWU step forward to present their side, but maybe Ralph or one of the other moderators here would consider a similar format. If they're not management employees, they wouldn't be biased or subject to being harassed by AA HR...

eolesen,

You have created a persona in the BB aviation labor community that is anti-union and pro-management, "in-extemis" : whether or not it was your intended message, it still rings through.

We've disagreed, sometimes I've conducted myself in a manner obscuring the lines between permissable postings, but you need to know that the AMTs' at AA wishing to change unions need what you posted about as much as a sinking ship needs ballast.

The current AMP drive maintains all of the objectives for a Union on the AA property with resepct to accountability, transparency and honor that AMFA promised but that we all saw defeated by NWA, the AFL-CIO, and the IAM.

This union will be run by AA M&R Members only accountable to same.

With all due respect: if you really want to help us; continue your diatribes against Union workers in general and Union workers at AA in specific.

Regards,
Boomer

 

[Birdman]

An AMFA supporter stepped up immediately, but the TWU was so threatened by the possibility of not being able to defend themselves on the merits of their constitution that they went running to the Company, and demanded that I be reprimanded and forced to stop moderating on PlaneBusiness. We shut down the boards shortly after that.

So there you have it CIO, that is how a real compAAny union operates. BTW, weren't you actively vocal on PlaneBusiness back in the day?

 

[Ralph]

I doubt we'd see someone from the TWU step forward to present their side, but maybe Ralph or one of the other moderators here would consider a similar format. If they're not management employees, they wouldn't be biased or subject to being harassed by AA HR...

Intriguing idea. I have forwarded the idea to the board administrators to see if it is possible with our current software. If not, I will let you know.