| Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up |
From: Bill Walsh Local 157
email:
Date: 16 Aug 2011
Time: 08:58 PM
At our local 157 meeting last night, many issues were brought up including the bi laws. If one is interested in really doing something about this issue, get a copy of the old 1999 bi laws and the current proposed bi laws. Sit down and spend some time comparing the two side by side and insert your ideas and changes. Then send them to Dennis Walsh and Judge Berman. This is how you can help to make a changes like many have done over the last two months. Its not too late to send the Judge your thoughts. He appears to be a good man and for the workers of tour union. I guess we will see this soon enough. Bill Walsh Local 157 After weeks of reviewing the current draft of the Bylaws presented by the UBC and the old Bylaws from July 20th, 1999, I have come to a conclusion. They two are very different from each other and the important changes will stand out, like they should. I thought it was extremely helpful to have a copy of the old Bylaws to have as a reference to actually see the imposed changed to be implemented. The UBC is counting on members not to be aware and pragmatic enough to pick up on these significant up-dates that they wish to impose on the membership. “The Preamble” has not changed besides adding the words “Whereas and Therefore” so I think “The Preamble” could be left as is. “Name and Title” has not changed and is acceptable. Section 3; for some reason, someone felt the need to remove the sentence “to reduce the hours of labor”. These words have been in our Bylaws as far back as I can find and is stated the UBC Constitution. This is one of the fundamental principles of what helped to form our union today as we know it. I feel this line should remain in the Bylaws and the UBC Constitution as it is part of our heritage. This is at the core of the posture that uncompromising modern industry and our leadership are trying to achieve, to work more hours for less money. Our society has been formed with this concept in mind. To spend time with your family and friends is very important. In many European countries, one is required to take vacations and time off. After all, if it weren’t for the unions, we wouldn’t have weekends as we know them today. This is a very important point of order and should be noticed. Section 4 (A). The change to this section that I see could be a problem is not to give to much authority to the council for all the hires, fires, disciplines and to promote. The NYCDCC Personal Department should have at least equal authority if not more then the Council and its leaders. Notice that I use the word “authority” not the word “power” that the UBC’s new draft inserted and changed from the old Bylaws. They use this word often and I prefer the word authority or influence instead. (B). this section bothers me mostly because of the way the council has vested itself to be in full control without an input from the Delegate body. These changes are straying from the UBC’s own Constitution and structure to apply only to New York City. This is only a way for the international to keep a firm hand on who will be in the seat of Delegate and help run the union in N.Y.C. I believe this could open the door for corruption to sneak its way back into influencing Delegates and others to control the membership. All members need and deserve representation. A 20 Delegate cap is wrong and doesn’t allow proper representation for the membership. At one court hearing, Mr. Conboy said it would be too “unruly to control and organize too many Delegates”. This concept is limiting our capacity for democracy and in my opinion is false. Many other organizations have hundreds of delegates and shareholders. How do they manage to get around this perplexing issue to insure fairness? It should stay as the UBC Constitution states, 5 Delegates for the first 500 members and for each additional 500 members=one delegate. This has been fair in the last Bylaws and there has been no proof why this should change. The creation of these alleged “Mega” locals they are suggesting is the only reason why they want this ratio. This is a clear intention to keep control and nullify representation for all its members. They also left out the “secret ballot vote” in this section. What does this imply? Section 5 (B) 1. Delegate meetings should be on a monthly basis as was past practice. There is too much business to conduct in our council to be on a bimonthly basis. 8. “Review and approve or reject, in advance, all Collective Bargaining Agreements’.”We must have our Delegate body in place before the current Collective Bargaining agreement. It also states that recommendations from the Executive Committee should be considered. Perhaps we should extend our current contract so this concept can be instituted. 11. The Delegates should have a vote in this section, not appointments. Perhaps members should vote for these positions? 16. This sections deals with the Out of Work list and should be addressed on a monthly basis. It is much too important not to be prudent with members out of work. Delegates should have a more modern way of participating in the voting process. Some kind of technology should be used to take and record a Delegates vote on issues discussed at the Delegate meetings. A show of hand can be intimidating and is an archaic way of tallying a vote. All members should be able to see how each Delegate votes on the issues. This will hold them accountable to the membership. This should also extend to all elections held by the Council and subordinate local unions. It is time to embrace new methods of voting like on computer, mail in ballots and in person. We must encourage member participation in our democratic union. Any other means would open the door to corruption. Section 7 (B). Any member should be eligible to run for EST, President and Vice President of the council. In the past one had to have been an elected Delegate to be eligible to run. This is not fair to all members to be involved in the Democratic process. All positions including Warden, Conductor and all Trustees should be elected by the membership. When one appointes someone it could lead to corruption. If the top three positions are good enough for a vote, why not all positions? Section 10 (A). Contingent expenses should not exceed two thousand dollars. In the past it was five thousand. Anything over the two thousand dollars should be approved by the Delegate body. (C). All monies paid into the council shall be deposited by the EST and President in the name of the council. This provides more accountability for these important funds transactions. (E). EST shall furnished each Local Union and all of the membership a record of each Delegate proceedings. This could be done on a secure web site via computer. (H). The Human Resource Department should have at least equal authority as the EST to hire, fire or discipline all District Council employees. Too much power given to the EST could introduce corruption. Section 11. Does the Warden and Conductor have to be elected Delegates or can they be from the rank and file? Sections 12 (A).I don’t think it’s necessary to have the President, Vice President and EST on the Executive Committee. This is a conflict of interest when it comes to having a vote and giving recommendations to the Delegate body. They could over see and give recommendations to the committee and shouldn’t have a vote. The President, Vice President and EST should remain independent from all committees to help prevent corruption. (D). The Human Resource Department should also play a larger role in these decisions. It would help to keep a balance of qualified members available to the process. (E). Perhaps the Human Resource Department should be hired from outside the union. This should have all the research necessary to insure a fair and unbiased system is put in place. (G). The Executive Committee should be open to suggestion from the Delegate body on what is posted and added to all the communications of the council. The Delegates will take information from the members and forward what they would like to see on their web site and news letter. All of the above should be approved by the Delegates. This is the face of our organization and the members need to also have a say on how they are to be represented. (I). Members should not be left out of this important section. The members should have a say about what will directly affect them and their families. Yes, the Executive Committee and Delegates should make suggestions to the collective bargaining agreements but do not exclude the members a fair right to ratify their contracts. The UBC is the only labor organization I believe that doesn’t let their membership be part of their agreements. It’s time for the UBC to embrace a new script and give its members a fair and fully represented Collective Bargaining process. Section 14 (A). It should be made very clear that no NYCDCC member’s monies be kept by the council until one does their member participation. The only members whose monies should be taken out early are those from outside the NYCDCC. All members who are from within the NYCDCC jurisdiction should only have the fines taken out after they do not participate in the union participation program during the calendar year. (B). I believe that 30 days is not sufficient time for a delegate to go to its members and get responses on assessments. Delegates need more time to converse with the members and to come up with an educated and fair reason why they should be assessed. It should be a 60 day window for this evaluation process to be fair. (C). This section states ambiguously that a members must not be late on their dues no later then 30 days or they lose all privileges. This section should be in step with the UBC Constitution. It states that three months of late dues put them into arrears and six months stricken from the records. Why should New York City Carpenters have a different clause then everyone else in the UBC? (D). The whole Blue Card issue should be suspended and recalculated until the new Delegate body is in place. Brother Brian Brennan should be re-instated into the UBC. I know this is not a Bylaws issue but when one is investigating the circumstances around his expulsion, one will see why this Blue Card issue should be reappraised. Section 16 (A). This section bothers me mostly because of the way the council has vested itself to be in full control without an input from the Delegate body. These changes are straying from the UBC’s own Constitution and structure to apply only to New York City. This is only a way for the international to keep a firm hand on who will be in the seat of Delegate and help run the union in N.Y.C. I believe this could open the door for corruption to sneak its way back into influencing Delegates and others to control the membership. All members need and deserve representation. A 20 Delegate cap is wrong and doesn’t allow proper representation for the membership. At one court hearing, Mr. Conboy said it would be too “unruly to control and organize too many Delegates”. This concept is limiting our capacity for democracy and in my opinion is false. Many other organizations have hundreds of delegates and shareholders. How do they manage to get around this perplexing issue to insure fairness? It should stay as the UBC Constitution states, 5 Delegates for the first 500 members and for each additional 500 members=one delegate. This has been fair in the last Bylaws and there has been no proof why this should change. The creation of these alleged “Mega” locals they are suggesting is the only reason why they want this ratio. Section 19. Any Delegate who is replaced must be done so with an election from the rank and file of the said local. The President of the local should be able to appoint a replacement till elections are held. Section 20. Members should have a voice in the collective bargaining process. If this means a period of time for the Delegates to confer with their constituents, then it should be an efficient amount of time to do so. Perhaps 90 days before an upcoming negotiation is acceptable. Section 22 (A). All Delegate meetings should be held on a monthly basis as the council has daily and important business that needs the Delegates attention. (C). 2, What exactly is a senior business agent and what are role do they play? When was this position created and by whom? Is the service representative also the same job and are they to be appointed without the approval of the Delegate body? If these positions are to be created, will they be required to serve as elected Delegates first? Section 24. All officers who handle funds should also be bonded with the General Office and the State of New York. This is extra protection for the membership in case of corruption. Section 25. There shall be equal number of Trial Committee members from each local of the council and this should be governed by a ratio of members. Should a larger local have more representation? This is a very important question and should be open to debate. Should a local of five hundred members have the same vote and influence as a local with five thousand? Perhaps there should be a formula proposed here so members feel and get fair representation. Section 29 (D). 1. The Director of The Human Resources should develop and present an overall plan for employment requirements in a six month time frame, with approval by the Delegate Body. Annually is too long because many issues can arise that would potentially have to be addressed. Section 37 (C). “Nothing in these Bylaws shall in any way be construed to conflict with the UBC Constitution” has been stated. I find that from Section 3. , removing the language “to reduce the hours of labor” and in Section 4. altering the Delegate ratio is a direct contradiction to what section 37 is requesting. These examples happen to be two of the most important changes in the entire Bylaws proposal. We should not change the language of our UBC Constitution to suit the desires of the powers that be without first amending them at UBC Convention as the protocol states. Also, to accommodate a new ideology that is being forced on the membership here in New York City is met with enormous ramifications. Section 39 This section named “Shop Stewards” should be changed to “Job Stewards”. All certified stewards who work in the field and 95% of all jobs in the NYCDCC jurisdiction are considered Job Stewards. A Shop Steward works inside a shop setting and is called this accordingly. All language through out this section should be changed therefore to rightfully name ones job title. All Job Stewards should go through extensive training and a review process to ensure they are living up to their responsibilities and are doing the unions work. Perhaps a tier system should be implemented to make sure we have seasoned stewards being sent to the larger jobs because of their experience and dedication. Perhaps any proven twenty year Job Steward should not have to wait ion the Out of Work list. This would be using the most dedicated, skilled and well trained stewards on the frontlines of our struggle to keep or union and jobsites on sound footing for the future. Respectively submitted, Bill Walsh Local 157 June 3rd, 2011
