Members in Good Standing?

[Ken MacTiernan]

The reason the worthless incumbants are worried is because there are 10 people running and with our stupid bylaws in place there is no run off election that means it should take about 500-600 votes to get elected pres as for the other 2 so called AMFA guys running (Hayes Inman they wont get elected anyway)Stewart has a real chance thats why there worried all there going to do is look stupid as always

May I ask why you think Hayes will not be elected?

Dennis is a strong union man. Is that wrong? Or is it that this is a personal feeling?

As for the dual unionism attempt to keep people from running. There is nothing in Local 564 By-laws about this. Besides, why can't someone belong to different unions at the same time? Why do certain people fear if a twu member signs an AMFA card or becomes an AMFA Associate Member? AMFA is a craft union for AMTs. What is wrong about that?

I wish Dennis Hayes and Dave Stewart the best. They certainly will listen to the membership when elected. What is wrong with that?

 

[Chuck Schalk]

This is just the TWU keeping out people who really want change for the betterment of the members. It may not for the better of the TWU International and all the boot lickers who bow to them for their own self gain. The members who are trying to be excluded demand democracy within this union and direct election of all officers of this union from Jim Little on down. That is what scares the incumbent officers; Democracy, accountability, and listen to the members. How dare we ask for that and then try to take it through elections only to be thrown into the usual roadblock of the selfish few in power. We feed this behavior by remaining silent and allowing blatant disregard for our members basic rights. Change in the TWU can and will only be possible with the changing of the longtime ineffective leadership. If we allow them to constantly make up and enforce their own rules, we will never be afforded the possibility for change as the powers to be will never have the fear of being removed from office. "without change, there is no future"

 

[scorpian]

The reason the worthless incumbants are worried is because there are 10 people running and with our stupid bylaws in place there is no run off election that means it should take about 500-600 votes to get elected pres as for the other 2 so called AMFA guys running (Hayes Inman they wont get elected anyway)Stewart has a real chance thats why there worried all there going to do is look stupid as always

Actually the local bylaws have nothing to do with it. A motion was made to have a run off election for the presidents position but it was ruled out of order because it went against the twu's constitution that says the winner will be decided by a plurality of votes (winner take all). If these guys are denied eligibility to run for office then it will fall on the local bylaws to keep them from being on the ballot. The big question is which document has pressident because they are eligible to run for office according to the international constitution but not by the local bylaws. The deciding factor should be the membership on the ballot but that would be too democratic!

 

[Checking it Out]

Well I see nothing has changed! It has been a while!

If you read the TWU Constitution, It spells out the eligibility or ineligibility of members to hold or run for Office.

What is your opinion on members who?
A. Fill in as Supervisors in Last 12 months?
B. Embrace the FLT/ALT program (not holding a TWU elected
position)and want to run for Office?
C. Have less than 4 membership meetings?

 

[proAMT]

All three names have been taken off the ballot from what I understand.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well I see nothing has changed! It has been a while!

If you read the TWU Constitution, It spells out the eligibility or ineligibility of members to hold or run for Office.

What is your opinion on members who?
A. Fill in as Supervisors in Last 12 months?
B. Embrace the FLT/ALT program (not holding a TWU elected
position)and want to run for Office?
C. Have less than 4 membership meetings?

A, 12 months or 12 years, whats the difference? How do you feel about the fact that the head of the TWU, Jim Little, spent several years in management?

B. Whats that?

C. Membership meeting attendance was thrown out by the DOL because a unions rules can not prohibit a majority of the membership from running for office and low attendance is pretty much the norm throughout the labor movement. Most Locals dont even have the facilities to handle majority participation at union meetings. Its a fair rule, after all membership is compulsory. Lousy leaders who are successful at driving members away from attending meetings should not be rewarded by allowing that to be used as a tool to prevent competition.

 

[Bill]

This is just the TWU keeping out people who really want change for the betterment of the members. It may not for the better of the TWU International and all the boot lickers who bow to them for their own self gain. The members who are trying to be excluded demand democracy within this union and direct election of all officers of this union from Jim Little on down. That is what scares the incumbent officers; Democracy, accountability, and listen to the members. How dare we ask for that and then try to take it through elections only to be thrown into the usual roadblock of the selfish few in power. We feed this behavior by remaining silent and allowing blatant disregard for our members basic rights. Change in the TWU can and will only be possible with the changing of the longtime ineffective leadership. If we allow them to constantly make up and enforce their own rules, we will never be afforded the possibility for change as the powers to be will never have the fear of being removed from office. "without change, there is no future"

So, those individuals wanting "change" do not have to adhere by the rules of running for office??? :huh: From what I am hearing their dues are not current (merely hearsay at this point).....BY NOONES FAULT BUT THEIR OWN! Don't blame the union for their mistakes. :angry: The one thing that would keep them out of the election is the very thing that has come back and bit them in the arse! "I'm a pissed off union member so I'm not paying my dues the way I the rules say I should!!" :angry: I have absolutly NO sympathy! They've done this to themselves. But just you wait....we will hear excuse after excuse from them of why they were not allowed to run. Again....no accountability!!! :down: Merely words.

 

[scorpian]

Well I see nothing has changed! It has been a while!

If you read the TWU Constitution, It spells out the eligibility or ineligibility of members to hold or run for Office.

What is your opinion on members who?
A. Fill in as Supervisors in Last 12 months?
B. Embrace the FLT/ALT program (not holding a TWU elected
position)and want to run for Office?
C. Have less than 4 membership meetings?

It doesn't matter what my opinion of these issues are singly. The ballot box should be used to decide who should be placed in office.

 

[Bill]

All three names have been taken off the ballot from what I understand.

What's your source???

 

[Hackman]

Well I see nothing has changed! It has been a while!

If you read the TWU Constitution, It spells out the eligibility or ineligibility of members to hold or run for Office.

What is your opinion on members who?
A. Fill in as Supervisors in Last 12 months?
B. Embrace the FLT/ALT program (not holding a TWU elected
position)and want to run for Office?
C. Have less than 4 membership meetings?

Yup, your still a twu blind fog. How did the burns heal? 🙄

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Attn: Bill

Don't you find it rather coincident that this bylaw was put in place only in Tulsa approximately 6 months prior to the election. I was suspended from running for office for three years which took me just past our next elections and that makes my suspension really 5 years till I am able to run again. Just coincidence Bill? Believe me when I tell you that the TWU likes the people they have in place. There is also talk of keeping the negotiating comittee entact even if some are not re-elected to their position.
Just coincidence Bill? Please wake up and look past the obvious. You sound like an intelligent guy, research the facts and get your info from the people who you speak about themselves not hearsay. Let me know what they say.

 

[ch53D]

Attn: Bill

Don't you find it rather coincident that this bylaw was put in place only in Tulsa approximately 6 months prior to the election. I was suspended from running for office for three years which took me just past our next elections and that makes my suspension really 5 years till I am able to run again. Just coincidence Bill? Believe me when I tell you that the TWU likes the people they have in place. There is also talk of keeping the negotiating comittee entact even if some are not re-elected to their position.
Just coincidence Bill? Please wake up and look past the obvious. You sound like an intelligent guy, research the facts and get your info from the people who you speak about themselves not hearsay. Let me know what they say.

Chuck, this must be the document your referencing.

III. Separate Negotiations

B. There shall also be at least one representative from each title group covered by the contract. No changes or substitutions shall he made in Committee Members once negotiations have commenced except in extreme circumstances, and then only by two-thirds vote of the Committee.

http://local567.twuatd.org/uploadpages/negpol.htm

 

[proAMT]

So, those individuals wanting "change" do not have to adhere by the rules of running for office??? :huh: From what I am hearing their dues are not current (merely hearsay at this point).....BY NOONES FAULT BUT THEIR OWN! Don't blame the union for their mistakes. :angry: The one thing that would keep them out of the election is the very thing that has come back and bit them in the arse! "I'm a pissed off union member so I'm not paying my dues the way I the rules say I should!!" :angry: I have absolutly NO sympathy! They've done this to themselves. But just you wait....we will hear excuse after excuse from them of why they were not allowed to run. Again....no accountability!!! :down: Merely words.

The bylaw is a farce and the TWU will be lucky if they don't get sued. I've never heard of a bylaw that punishes people five years after the fact. Now there is the possibility of the TWU having to pay for another election if these guys pursue the matter and win, probably about the same time the TWU is in negotiations with the company. The membership is already ready to vote out many of the "old hands" and this little stunt will more than cost them a few more votes.
Once again the Einsteins at the hall stepped on their dicks.

 

[ICEMAN]

This is just the TWU keeping out people who really want change for the betterment of the members. It may not for the better of the TWU International and all the boot lickers who bow to them for their own self gain. The members who are trying to be excluded demand democracy within this union and direct election of all officers of this union from Jim Little on down. That is what scares the incumbent officers; Democracy, accountability, and listen to the members. How dare we ask for that and then try to take it through elections only to be thrown into the usual roadblock of the selfish few in power. We feed this behavior by remaining silent and allowing blatant disregard for our members basic rights. Change in the TWU can and will only be possible with the changing of the longtime ineffective leadership. If we allow them to constantly make up and enforce their own rules, we will never be afforded the possibility for change as the powers to be will never have the fear of being removed from office. "without change, there is no future"

The Bylaw which excluded these three individuals was enacted by the membership and has been in effect for several years. In fact, while I am not sure, I believe the 514 membership added it in the late 1990s. The Election Committee is not authorized to ignore Bylaws enacted by the members and Local 514 is not required to have the same rules on eligibility as your Local.

 

[The Goose]

The Bylaw which excluded these three individuals was enacted by the membership and has been in effect for several years. In fact, while I am not sure, I believe the 514 membership added it in the late 1990s. The Election Committee is not authorized to ignore Bylaws enacted by the members and Local 514 is not required to have the same rules on eligibility as your Local.

This is more allong the lines of "all we want is a vote".

There were rules there, also. Sufficient interest had to be shown, and according to those counting the cards there was not. All parties are subject to the same rules. No exceptions.

Yet, some actually believed the rules should be ignored - the same rules that, without a doubt, would be quoted to the letter had things gone a different way.

No special treatment, no special consideration. That's why we have rules. They're there to be followed. Some can't handle that concept.