babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Proposed CUPE constitutional amendments

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Proposed CUPE constitutional amendments
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 08 September 2005 12:50 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Local Union Trial Committee not membership meeting to determine the appropriate penalty or punishment

Removing local union officers before the trial procedure has been completed

Trial procedure for chartered organizations that are not local unions

2003 CUPE Constitution

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 08 September 2005 01:45 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do tell us what is so evil and sinister about these proposed constitutional amendments.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 08 September 2005 06:55 AM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
radiorahim:

The membership present at Local Union meetings decides what are the appropriate penalties or punishments not Trial Committees comprised of five members. The membership present at special Local Union meetings are more numerous than the members of executive boards. CUPE claims to be democratic not oligarchic (rule by a few).

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839

posted 08 September 2005 11:40 AM      Profile for keglerdave     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Then again, is that not why you have executive boards and election of executive boards, to have those people oversee the running of the local? In my union, that's why we have elected executive board members and business agents. In terms of charge trials being held by executive boards vs the membership in attendance at the meeting. Say the charge being brought forward is somewhat bogus or just plain wrong. And the person being charged isn't that popular, or as popular as the person bringing forth that charge.

What's to stop the member bringing forth the charge from "loading up" the membership meeting in which the charge "trial" is going to be held, and turning the issue into one of popularity rather than guilt or innocence?

The other issue is fiduciary duties and responsibilities on the part of the executive board. Alot of ways, a charge trial is almost an inquiry (at least at the local level) into the actions alleged in the charge. Evidence is presented from both sides, and the evidenced is weighed. Should the preponderence of the evidence show there was wrong doing, then that is dealt with. And if the evidence shows there wasn't.. end of story.

But while membership have a right to have a knowledge as to what's going on within a local... there is a question of a member's right to privacy or discretion, until being found to be in violation of whatever bylaw infraction they are charged with, or it is alleged they have done. And one other note, if you elect your executive board, how can you say you're union is undemocratic? Just curious.


From: New Westminster BC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
slimpikins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9261

posted 08 September 2005 11:45 AM      Profile for slimpikins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dave, they are undemocratic because they didn't elect CUPE Reformer. Any system that fails to recognise his intrinsic leadership abilities must be flawed, or undemocratic.
From: Alberta | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 08 September 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by keglerdave
quote:

In terms of charge trials being held by executive boards vs the membership in attendance at the meeting.



keglerdave:

Decisions made by large numbers of local union members are more democratic than decisions made by small numbers of local union members.

[ 08 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 08 September 2005 12:44 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Originally posted by keglerdave
keglerdave:

Decisions made by large numbers of local union members are more democratic than decisions made by small numbers of local union members.


Perhaps, but (as minorities everywhere have found), democracy for the majority isn't always good news for folks in the minority.

While decisions by a trial tribunal (I'm not familiar with CUPE's internal mechanisms so I'm speaking generally here) run the risk of favouritism or unresponsiveness (as with any court or tribunal), doesn't making things more "democratic" leave the door open for witch-hunts and persecution towards unpopular members? (Like, say, folks who post at MFD?)


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 08 September 2005 12:59 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Erstwhile
quote:

democracy for the majority isn't always good news for folks in the minority.



Erstwhile:

You are right. The accused can appeal to CUPE National appeal panels, labour relations boards, and the courts.

[ 08 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 08 September 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CUPE_Reformer: Okay, fair enough, but they can do that already, no? And the proposed resolutions do include provisions that the verdict and penalty will be reported at the next membership meeting?

I'm just wondering if the motivation behind the resolution is to cut down on a member's "dirty laundry" being aired in front of the entire Local, and to avoid "stacking" membership meetings to get a particular verdict - in other words, to attempt to make these proceedings, in theory, more impartial.

I guess I see downsides of about equal concern for both options.


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
siggy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3354

posted 08 September 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for siggy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dave, they are undemocratic because they didn't elect CUPE Reformer. Any system that fails to recognise his intrinsic leadership abilities must be flawed, or undemocratic.
...and the waters beneath the bridge spill deeper.

The true test of cupe national exec's proposed resolutions (and ultimate passing thereof) may be in whether or not the cupe constitution is premised on defending people's rights or premised on upholding and preserving the power of one.

To democratize or demonize - that is the question!


From: B.C. Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 08 September 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Erstwhile
quote:

CUPE_Reformer: Okay, fair enough, but they can do that already, no? And the proposed resolutions do include provisions that the verdict and penalty will be reported at the next membership meeting?

I'm just wondering if the motivation behind the resolution is to cut down on a member's "dirty laundry" being aired in front of the entire Local, and to avoid "stacking" membership meetings to get a particular verdict - in other words, to attempt to make these proceedings, in theory, more impartial.



Erstwhile:

Yes to both of your questions. If the accused appeal a copy of the record of the Trial Committee is forwarded to the accuser. The membership meeting at which the Trial Panel is elected can be "stacked".

[ 08 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca