Reading the Contract? I don’t think so … bitches.

I submitted a motion which has been deemed out of order by the executive. That means the members will not be allowed to discuss it at the next meeting, and they will not know the motion was made unless I tell them myself. The motion was to allow the members of C.A.W. local 333 to read their contract before they vote on it. The full text of my motion is available on this blog. This was the official reply;

July 4, 2011

Dear Brother Leamy,

 Thank you for submitting the motion on disclosing of the documents prior to a ratification vote. I have reviewed the motion and have deemed it to be out of order for the following reason. Under Article #19 Section 3 Sub Section (a) 0f the CAW constitution, it clearly states that you would need the approval of the National President which would take place at a constitutional convention. The reason the information is not disclosed prior to a ratification vote is to ensure that we have the fullest participation possible. As you state in your motion these are complex documents and there may be more confusion created by releasing of the documents ahead of time. This could lead to a lack of participation in the ratification vote.

There was no signature, no pretense at playing nice at all, and reading the reply tells me they did not even bother to read my motion. Based on the above wording, they instead read a motion regarding this same issue put forward by Russ Hollands & Gordon Krumm, also C.A.W. local 333 members. FYI, the lack of signature is a legal trick to try to dodge accountability when it goes to court. The letter came from Ben’s official C.A.W. email account.

Unacceptable.

So, I will ask them right here, right now, if we are so simple minded, so buffalo headed, so unworthy of the right to READ OUR OWN CONTRACT … could the executive please explain to myself and the members of local 333 why only days after our last contract ratification the employees of Via Rail, represented by C.A.W., ratified a contract which they were given a week to review?

A week.

You are welcome to reply by email again, as I will post the reply here.

For anyone who is interested, that article he mentions? That’s it at the top of this post. Funny, there isn’t one word about the members not being allowed to read the contract. NOT ONE WORD.

 

EDIT: July 5th, 2011

The following email was sent to Ben in reply to his empty email containing the docx boilerplate PFO attachment to myself.

Ben, Michael here.

Please, I am apparently a bit lost here. The section you point to as justification for dismissal of my motion regarding informed ratification (Article 19, section 3, sub-section (a)) says nothing about withholding the agreement from the members until the day it is ratified. On the contrary, it very clearly states ratification is to be done at a meeting held specially for that purpose, and if the local decides to deviate from that procedure they must get approval from the National President to do so. Our local very obviously does not deviate from that procedure, and I am therefore at a loss to explain your use of that article as justification to exclude my motion regarding informed ratification from a vote. If you would be so kind as to direct me to the article(s) and/or section(s) in the C.A.W. constitution that state C.A.W. members are not permitted to view their contract until after it is ratified I would be much happier with your response.

I very much look forward to your reply.

Michael Leamy.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: