Author
|
Topic: Proposed CUPE constitutional amendments
|
|
|
|
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839
|
posted 08 September 2005 11:40 AM
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
|
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457
|
posted 08 September 2005 12:33 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457
|
posted 08 September 2005 01:43 PM
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
|
|