Teamsters get new TA for Ramp

[Kev3188]

Any member in good standing can vote. Dues objectors and the like cannot. Any member can run in theory, but they're up against the white ballot system.

 

[ORDTA]

Any member in good standing can vote. Dues objectors and the like cannot. Any member can run in theory, but they're up against the white ballot system.

Confusing several different issues here.

1. In a representation election conducted by the NMB, each and every employee, working in the craft and class is eligible to vote in the representation election regardless of whether they are a dues payor, fee payor, objector or non-member.

2. In District Lodge 141 officer elections an employee must be in good standing (paying full dues) in order to vote for their elected representative, likewise, in order to vote on contract ratification, fee payors/objectors/non-members cannot vote on any of these.

3. With regards to District Lodge 141 officer elections, in order to run for a position a "member" must be in good standing for a period of one to two years, depending on the office sought. In theory every dues paying member in good standing for a period of two years prior to the PDGC/AGC election is eligible to run for such office if they meet the local lodge nomination requirement. Endorsement of 4 locals qualifies you (not to be confused with meeting attendance, unlike local lodge meeting requirements of 50%, at the District level, believe it or not, you do not have to attend a single meeting of your local and are still eligible to run for PDGC/AGC and other positions, with the endorsement of 4 locals. However, if you oppose the incumbents, as in the case of LL 1487 member Bob Kraves, those incumbents (ND) will through nefarious and false means deny you your rightful place on the ballot despite your meeting the aforementioned requirements. Specific reference is made to the IAM Constitution, Article B, Section 3, lines 25 to 33, with a note that Brother Kraves was an employee of the District whose dues were subject to withholding by the District for payment to LL 1487, thereafter he was an employee of UAL whose dues were again subject to withholding by UAL for payment to said Local. Despite the clear and unambiguous language of Art. B, Sec. 3, the ND refused to place Brother Kraves, a 30+ year IAM member, on the election ballot resulting in Brother Kraves' protest to the United States Department of Labor (DOL) who upon investigation found merit in his protest. They made a formal request that the 2009 election be rerun and upon refusal of ND and PDGC Delaney to rerun the election, the DOL has since filed suit in United States Federal Court seeking to void that 2009 election and rerun it under their (DOL) supervision. Please note, it is your dues money, and in Federal Court lots of it, being used to deny our Brother and all of us a fair District election!

 

[gtd]

Apparently 84% of CAL....better be nice if they vote the IAM in they can vote the ND out!

Remember, it was a primative mail in ballot format. Anything can happen to ballots when they're mail in. Ask the CAL Mechanics.

 

[ORDTA]

Remember, it was a primative mail in ballot format. Anything can happen to ballots when they're mail in. Ask the CAL Mechanics.

 

[famousfreddie]

Confusing several different issues here.

1. In a representation election conducted by the NMB, each and every employee, working in the craft and class is eligible to vote in the representation election regardless of whether they are a dues payor, fee payor, objector or non-member.

2. In District Lodge 141 officer elections an employee must be in good standing (paying full dues) in order to vote for their elected representative, likewise, in order to vote on contract ratification, fee payors/objectors/non-members cannot vote on any of these.

3. With regards to District Lodge 141 officer elections, in order to run for a position a "member" must be in good standing for a period of one to two years, depending on the office sought. In theory every dues paying member in good standing for a period of two years prior to the PDGC/AGC election is eligible to run for such office if they meet the local lodge nomination requirement. Endorsement of 4 locals qualifies you (not to be confused with meeting attendance, unlike local lodge meeting requirements of 50%, at the District level, believe it or not, you do not have to attend a single meeting of your local and are still eligible to run for PDGC/AGC and other positions, with the endorsement of 4 locals. However, if you oppose the incumbents, as in the case of LL 1487 member Bob Kraves, those incumbents (ND) will through nefarious and false means deny you your rightful place on the ballot despite your meeting the aforementioned requirements. Specific reference is made to the IAM Constitution, Article B, Section 3, lines 25 to 33, with a note that Brother Kraves was an employee of the District whose dues were subject to withholding by the District for payment to LL 1487, thereafter he was an employee of UAL whose dues were again subject to withholding by UAL for payment to said Local. Despite the clear and unambiguous language of Art. B, Sec. 3, the ND refused to place Brother Kraves, a 30+ year IAM member, on the election ballot resulting in Brother Kraves' protest to the United States Department of Labor (DOL) who upon investigation found merit in his protest. They made a formal request that the 2009 election be rerun and upon refusal of ND and PDGC Delaney to rerun the election, the DOL has since filed suit in United States Federal Court seeking to void that 2009 election and rerun it under their (DOL) supervision. Please note, it is your dues money, and in Federal Court lots of it, being used to deny our Brother and all of us a fair District election!

Protests are for losers.

 

[famousfreddie]

Just reviewed the official comparison put out by IAM DL 141 and notice under IAM Contract/UNITED ND makes reference to the fact that the current IAM/UAL contract was "NEGOTIATED WITH A BANKRUPT COMPANY" versus one "WITH +$9.1 BILLION IN CASH".

Talk about hypocrisy, what they are too cowardly to point out is that Canale, aka "Cornhole", led those negotiations. Negotiations which they now assert resulted in an agreement far superior to anything else out there, with the possible exception of SWA! As long as your gonna stand on his record Boys, fess up and admit ole "Cornhole" saved your collective a**es!!!

No what is asserted is "CW MacCall is worse than Cornhole." and Cornhole gave the company the store and more.

That is the major factor why, he and his crew are no longer in office. Record voter turnout if I remember correctly. The Members have spoken, once in 08 and again in 10.

 

[famousfreddie]

Ask DL 141 Educator Bob Kraves!

Don't you mean former.

 

[ezchkin]

Don't you mean former.

freddie, you seem to be quite knowledgeable with all the answers. Can you explain what the reason is that you say "former"? I mean like was he on the ballot and didn't get enough votes? Or was it that maybe not all ballots got mailed in? just asking cuz we're talking about a democratic union.

 

[ezchkin]

Protests are for losers.

Then why is the IAM protesting all of DL elections? I thought you were pro IAM.

 

[famousfreddie]

Then why is the IAM protesting all of DL elections? I thought you were pro IAM.

EZ,

Your logic never ceases to amaze me and is quite entertaining.

If you want to play..................... you gotta pay.

Happy New Year

 

[ORDTA]

No what is asserted is "CW MacCall is worse than Cornhole." and Cornhole gave the company the store and more.

That is the major factor why, he and his crew are no longer in office. Record voter turnout if I remember correctly. The Members have spoken, once in 08 and again in 10.

According to the numbers published in the District 141 Messenger, just over 3000 members participated in the District officers 2010 election. The same election that the DOL has mandated to be re-run. Is that more or less participation than the CAL representation election? Is 20-25% participation record voter turnout for the IAM?

 

[ORDTA]

According to the numbers published in the District 141 Messenger, just over 3000 members participated in the District officers 2010 election. The same election that the DOL has mandated to be re-run. Is that more or less participation than the CAL representation election? Is 20-25% participation record voter turnout for the IAM?

I stand corrected it was just over 2800 IAM members that participated in the 2010 officers election. More like 15% voter turn out with three times the members.

 

[famousfreddie]

According to the numbers published in the District 141 Messenger, just over 3000 members participated in the District officers 2010 election. The same election that the DOL has mandated to be re-run. Is that more or less participation than the CAL representation election? Is 20-25% participation record voter turnout for the IAM?

TA,

Once again just for you,

So you want to be an officer of the IAM? You gotta pay dues to be in good standing, and be in good standing to be eligable to run. It's very simple.

Just for the record the DOL cannot mandate or force a re-run. That's a job for the courts.

 

[famousfreddie]

TA or EZ

What's your beef with ND? Other than the fact you didn't back them as your candidates of choice?

Is it your intention to change unions because your candidates were defeated?

 

[ORDTA]

TA or EZ

What's your beef with ND? Other than the fact you didn't back them as your candidates of choice?

Is it your intention to change unions because your candidates were defeated?

No just the incompetent officers and agc's.