I like reading your post's.
There is some thought behind them.
I might not agree....
I can tell you are very knowledgeable, particularly about the contract and related issues. I know we've butted heads a lot, but from my end it has always been a means to gain understanding. I will say that I feel your posts lately have been more helpful than the ones I experienced when I first started on the forum. I don't know if it's been a change in my perspective, your communication style, or some of both, either way I appreciate it.
The language is not poorly written, it just doesn't say what "some" people want.
I started this thread partly to demonstrate that at least some of the language is certainly not precise enough to be consistently understood or enforced. If that doesn't meet the definition of poorly written then I don't know what would.
I was commenting in another thread about some local language that, to me, clearly limits and defines which drivers can be put on call, and what they get for having to sit around until noon to see if they will be working. Other people read it to mean that the lowest two senior drivers are only guaranteed 4 hours of work. That interpretation directly contradicts the previous section which states all drivers having gained seniority will be guaranteed 8 hrs if put to work. Our center abuses the crap out of this language, It's only allowed to have two drivers on call, but has about a dozen scheduled as "call-in". It's a huge mess that I am working with my BA to try to sort out. We'll see what happens. To me this language clearly means one thing, to others it clearly means something else, that's another example of poorly written language.
Then there's the drivers in progression getting GWI, you and I actually agree on the interpretation of that language. But the company seems to be giving GWI to drivers in progression against what seems to have always been the understanding of the intent of the language. They are free to do so, of course, but that language is not very clear at all in any case.
The members have an avenue, of holding elected officials accountable.
I agree, there are several, if you actually count elections, but the avenues are not always easily accessible to the average member, and the internal accountability mechanisms require that anyone bringing charges against any other union member to have definitive proof of the wrongdoing, because they will only get one shot at proving the case. I am fine with that aspect, as it prevents a bunch of frivilous charges. The question is how might an average member go about gathering the necessary evidence to be able to file and prove their charges? Some cases may be straight forward, others not so much. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for wrongdoing.
Every Local is audited by the IBT every 5 years.
Are the audit records made available to members? I'll check with my local at the next meeting. I think I already got them a little riled up when I asked for the bylaws, and they didn't have them readily available.
@Bubblehead asked in a different thread....
Who is your "dream team" ?
Honestly, no clue. I don't know enough about any potential candidates to be able to form an opinion. Perhaps that's my own fault, perhaps that's just a natural result of the current state of affairs, or a little of both.
