|
Post by ihatemyjob on Oct 5, 2011 16:35:52 GMT -5
for union brothers and sisters to take control of who is in charge of IUAW? Building chairs and everything else is elected positions but president of IUAW is an appointed position. Does anyone know legally what rights or what options we as union members have to try to get this changed? Its time we vote for who represents us because Bob King is proving that being appointed isnt in our best interest.
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 5, 2011 18:33:01 GMT -5
This is similar content as posted on ScottsRs post - contract or grievance. This seems like a more suitable spot to discuss this idea.
Reforming the “contract” (the constitution) between members and the IUAW is the main way we can influence the IUAW. We do this by first giving the constitutional delegates a means to communicate without interference from international. This way all plants can send the delegates to the convention on the same page and be able to stand united (sad that union members have to use that phrase against its own “leadership”) so that no plant is singled out for not voting in favor of the IUAW. If you do not understand that line I will explain in the last paragraph in this post.
The first step would be to create a democratic process at the convention by allowing the delegates to vote with a secret ballot. This way the IUAW will not be able to target plants of the delegates with promises/threats of product placement, shift changes or plant closures.
From here we can begin implementing changes to the constitution to align their interests more with ours in the name of shared sacrifice. My best example would be to add a statement along these lines; In order for the IUAW leadership – the board - to receive a raise is if the membership also receives one for that same year. Of course changes could be made to the way leaders are elected and so on.
We do not have a silver bullet, but we have to start somewhere. We need to begin the process of changing the constitution to make them answer to us.
When delegates vote, they do it in front of the board so that they can see how each plant votes. If one or two plants stand out from the rest the leadership knows who the dissenters are. What this means is if an issue, or person is up for a vote anyone that doesn’t vote the way IUAW wants runs the risk of having their plant targeted for reprisals from international. For the same reason you don’t want to vote openly for a losing team leader you do not want to vote against those that influence job or product placement. The election of King is an example. Hardly anyone voted for Walcowitz because the board openly supported King. Anyone that voted against him ran the risk of voting for a loser and displeasing the people that negotiates with our employer.
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Oct 5, 2011 18:41:50 GMT -5
The biggest change we need in regards to this matter,is to get rid of delegates altogether! 1 man/women 1 vote As long as we have delegates voting for these offices the people already in key positions will always have the power to pick the winners and basically tell delegates who to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 5, 2011 19:23:36 GMT -5
Don't forget about all the other UAW members that are not employees of Ford, GM or Chrysler, there are 400,000 members total.
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 5, 2011 20:56:54 GMT -5
In order to make any changes, including allowing all 400,000 of us to vote on each item and the leadership, requires that changes be made to the constitution. In order to get where you want we have to take the steps that will take us in that direction.
The delegates are responsible for the constitution, and this will have to be started with them.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 6, 2011 7:34:15 GMT -5
It's time to have different sub-unions within the I-UAW...GM, Chrysler, and Ford should be entirely separate...days of pattern bargaining are over...we don't need one president...we need one leader for each company.
|
|