The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight?

By now you have received your mail-out package from the Union Hall and have had a chance to read it over and if you are like me, you are thoroughly confused. That's not an unusual reaction to proclamations from the Hall.

The mail-out contained four documents. Let's talk about them.

Document 1 - Election Protest Hearing (Due Diligence?)

On March 13 The "Protest of Election" document challenging the March 12 Executive Board election was delivered to the Union Hall and placed in the hands of Secretary/Treasurer Rob Gross. On April 6 there was an Election Protest hearing called by the Executive Board. The Local members protesting the election had their say and presented their documents and testimony into evidence and then left the meeting with promises they would be receiving an answer in writing.

Now (one month later) we hear the meeting was adjourned with the understanding that two more meetings must be called because "due diligence" requires the entire membership must be heard from because the complainants said in their Protest of Election document that they were doing this on behalf of the membership and not just themselves.

Sheesh! What if they had said they were doing it on behalf of all current and future members of local 2038? Imagine how long we would be waiting around to hear from all future members. It was 24 days between the time of the initial complaint and the actual hearing. It seems to me that "due diligence" would have required our officers to have read the initial complaint notice before they ever called the first meeting. Maybe the time and expense of two more meetings could have been avoided.

Document 2 - Vote on a By-Laws change. (More Due Diligence?)

After sitting on the proposed by-laws changes for over five months the Executive Board finally decided to submit it to a vote via a mail in ballot. Once again they claim this is something that had to be mulled over carefully and they said they even sent it to the International Lawyers for approval. Should we call this "due diligence?" Wouldn't "due diligence" have required that they also know the proper way to submit it to the membership? There is a written procedure for making by-laws changes. Actually it is a by-law. This was pointed out by Jeff Kleefisch in his recent "Guest Columnist " article in "The Steel Barrel News" titled "Are Local 2038 Officers Afraid of Their Own Membership?" It's pretty simple.
1. Call a meeting.
2. Discuss the issues.
3. Vote.

Document 3 - Division Meeting (even more Due Diligence?)

Document 3 is an announcement for a Quarterly Beta Division Meeting on Monday, May 25. It would have been nice if, when scheduling this meeting, they had exercised a little "due diligence" by looking at the pocket calendar provided to all members by the Union and noticed that May 25 is Memorial Day.

Document 4 - Steward Election (and yet more Due Diligence?)

The final mailing was to notify Beta Division members that they would be having a Shop Steward election on Thursday, May 26. Once again, "due diligence" would have had them look at their trusty pocket calendars and discover that May 26 is a Tuesday (the day after Memorial Day).

Conclusion:

These Union Officers are the people we count on to interpret and enforce our contract against a hostile HR department and a battery of company lawyers. It's pretty discouraging to find out they can't read and understand an Election Protest Complaint, our own By-laws or even a simple calendar. God help us.