Here is the reply from Ben to my Motion to Appeal to the Members.
Good morning Brother Leamy,
I have contact the CAW National several times about this matter and have also tried to explain the Executives position on it to you. I will be bringing it up at the next general membership meeting, that it was ruled out of order by the Executive, but I will not be posting your motion, as it has been ruled out of order.
In Solidarity, Ben Williams
Here is my email back. At this point this is no longer personal, now I feel he is telling this entire local to shove off. If they cannot show me the papers that explain their position, then they are simply being stubborn and frankly, thuggish. Anyway, here is my email reply;
You do realize the very point of this motion is to appeal to THE MEMBERS … not to you. You simply do not have the right to make the call you are making. Politely put, you seem to be acting against the CAW Constitution, as well as against the rights of Canadian citizens. Of course, you and Stu could settle this matter quickly by actually showing me the policy statement … the one that would have needed to have been passed at a national Constitutional meeting as both you and Stu so frequently explained to me … which states explicitly that members are not permitted to view the contract before they ratify it. That would end this entire charade pretty quickly, don’t you think?
I think we both know such a policy does not exist, so you are simply attempting to intimidate members so they will stay in line with the national executives wishes. You are defending with your mandate a PRACTICE, not a policy or a Constitutional article. You should research the differences.
Ben, I don’t imagine you think I am working for your interests right now, but frankly if you had given your members what they wanted you probably could have assured yourself a long and happy career as the president of local 333. As it stands, I am beginning to think that your executive is simply carrying a torch which should have been extinguished a while ago now. If it is shown you are acting against the CAW Constitution, and against your members, that would make you a rogue executive body, which is normally removed from office at the earliest opportunity. So, again, I once more ask you to prove me wrong and show me the proofs you aren’t willing to provide your members.
Ben, this debate is going places that will cause more trouble for this local than anything Manny could ever dream up, unless you sit down and do the job you were elected to do … represent your members.
I will assume Russ also got the same P.F.O. I received.
I do not expect any sort of response from you, other than an apology for making a member of this local have to go to this much trouble simply to see why you are doing something as divisive as withholding information from members who need it. You knew this would be an issue when you ran for this position, this is no surprise. Why are you stonewalling so bloody much, on the wrong side of such a mundane and obvious issue?
In solidarity with, and for, the members of local 333,
Yeah, this is going to go over well. Imagine, the members actually exercising their rights as outlined in the CAW Constitution, and our local 333 bylaws.
Aren’t we the pissy gang of trouble makers.
Just got a note from Stu Shields defending Ben, big surprise there. I won’t post his note here, but suffice it to say name calling and the same line were the order of the day. Oddly enough though, he now uses the word PRACTICE to refer to the practice I am working to get fixed. Interesting.
Anyway, here is my reply;
Stu, with all due respect,
You might think I am being petty, but in our discussions you have as yet to actually show me this policy. I note it remains stubbornly NOT THERE in this most recent note. Also, I note your very new use of the term PRACTICE to describe the withholding of informaton from the members, which is what I had to conclude through deduction. Up until a few weeks ago this was being called a part of our constitution, in fact you are still doing it. It seemed quite obvious to me that stating that assumes it’s actually in the Constitution, which it ain’t.
No clause in the Constitution.
No policy produced with Constitutional protection, as of yet.
Stu, we are talking about something which amounts to “this is the way we have always done it, and screw you if you think we are going to change it”. Again, I ask that somebody please put this thing to bed and PROVE ME WRONG.
Saying it just don’t make it so.
If we are to be a Constitutional body, then we will need to recognize that the local authority has the right to act in the interests of it’s members when it does not go against the Constitution. Nobody had shown me my actions do, so you calling me names and Ben stonewalling really just amount to trying to avoid the type of debate I know you realize would not end in favour of this PRACTICE. Enough members of 333 have voiced their opposition to this PRACTICE that I suspect it would be shut down permanently if they were given their constitutional right to speak, as I tried to do.
I am sorry you aren’t onside, but I intend to take this through to it’s logical conclusion.
Either a formal policy exists, which means I am wrong and I stop this pissing contest … OR … this policy does not exist, my actions are therefore Constitutionally permitted, and I am forced to continue trying to get you, Ben, and any other executive who will listen to explain to me why the members of 333 are not permitted to get information they need to make sound decisions.
Pretty simple, eh?
If, after this, you are inclined to actually send this policy to Ben so he can upstage me at the next meeting, I would appreciate it.
In solidarity with, and for, the members.