How exactly do they determine the number of eligible voters?

[wilberforce15]

This actually seems like a difficult number to get exactly right. It could easily be off by thousands.

How many had not made 30 days yet, had already quit, had already been fired, hadn't been cleared in the union's system or UPS's system, weren't really up to date on dues, or had other issues?

An inflated number of eligible voters seems almost certain, and that could make a big difference in the turnout percentage. We weren't all that far from 50%.

How can we audit whether the union counted the turnout correctly? It's very, very easy to manipulate it.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

This actually seems like a difficult number to get exactly right. It could easily be off by thousands.

How many had not made 30 days yet, had already quit, had already been fired, hadn't been cleared in the union's system or UPS's system, weren't really up to date on dues, or had other issues?

An inflated number of eligible voters seems almost certain, and that could make a big difference in the turnout percentage. We weren't all that far from 50%.

How can we audit whether the union counted the turnout correctly? It's very, very easy to manipulate it.
Amen

 

[wilberforce15]

First, we should be able to get a list of names who were eligible to vote, and who counted toward the turnout.

We should be able to check a few thousands of these (especially those with low seniority) against work records, time cards, and dues payments to see if they were actively employed and eligible.

When plenty of those come up wanting or without proper documentation, or obvious shadiness in how they were counted, sue the pants off the IBT.

 

[mikejonesjr]

Should require 1 year seniority to vote. Wouldn't have these problems.

 

[wilberforce15]

Should require 1 year seniority to vote. Wouldn't have these problems.

Thanks for proposing a solution that does not address the question.

The question is in the title and in my post.

I'm not sure how you missed it.

 

[mikejonesjr]

Thanks for proposing a solution that does not address the question.

The question is in the title and in my post.

I'm not sure how you missed it.

How are you gunna act sarcastic to me as if you actually expect someone in here on a forum to have specific insider info of how and when they tally how many voters are eligible? Jesus.

 

[wilberforce15]

How are you gunna act sarcastic to me as if you actually expect someone in here on a forum to have specific insider info of how and when they tally how many voters are eligible? Jesus.

"None of us are going to know" would be a valid answer.

How one counts eligible voters is a really, really, really, really straightforward question about a vote, and if they can't or won't provide that, then that fact is something people need to know.

 

[cachmeifucan]

They make numbers up like hire a bunch of people that never received ballot because they not in union. Not clear people. I bet if they polled how many people eligible now it's less then 200,000

 

[SameRightsForAll]

The question is why would the IBT allow an ineligible member to vote?

 

[542thruNthru]

First, we should be able to get a list of names who were eligible to vote, and who counted toward the turnout.

We should be able to check a few thousands of these (especially those with low seniority) against work records, time cards, and dues payments to see if they were actively employed and eligible.

When plenty of those come up wanting or without proper documentation, or obvious shadiness in how they were counted, sue the pants off the IBT.

I would assume they use the lists from each individual local. That list would be of current up to date on dues members. So if you've paid dues in that month you'll get a ballot.

 

[rebel87]

Should require 1 year seniority to vote. Wouldn't have these problems.

Exactly. 5 years of seniority would even be better but i would be happy with 1 year of senority. The voting system is broke.

 

[Elmo.goes.to.prom]

Who has the time to do all that!

 

[clipperman]

Exactly. 5 years of seniority would even be better but i would be happy with 1 year of senority. The voting system is broke.

Should these members have to pay dues?

 

[rebel87]

Should these members have to pay dues?

Yes. You are paying for union representation.

 

[clipperman]

Yes. You are paying for union representation.

But not all the rights of the guy standing next to theM? Sounds like a story I’ve heard about the union wanting to create a driver class that just almost has the same rights as the driver standing next to him. I’ve seen sort shop stewards that new the book inside and out with less than five years,you gonna tell them they aren’t qualified to vote?

 

[rebel87]

But not all the rights of the guy standing next to theM? Sounds like a story I’ve heard about the union wanting to create a driver class that just almost has the same rights as the driver standing next to him. I’ve seen sort shop stewards that new the book inside and out with less than five years,you gonna tell them they aren’t qualified to vote?

Yes i will. You should have to put in your time if you want to vote. Is it fair that it takes a part timer 7 years to get to full time? Is it fair it then takes another 4 years to get to full pay? Life is not fair.

 

[542thruNthru]

Yes i will. You should have to put in your time if you want to vote. Is it fair that it takes a part timer 7 years to get to full time? Is it fair it then takes another 4 years to get to full pay? Life is not fair.

Is it fair PT gets to vote as soon as they make seniority and that this contract was ratified and you don't like it? Life is not fair.

See we can use that too.

 

[rebel87]

Is it fair PT gets to vote as soon as they make seniority and that this contract was ratified and you don't like it? Life is not fair.

See we can use that too.

Doesnt matter if you are full time or part time. Shouldnt be allowed to vote until you have x amount of years. I have said 5 years. Some may argue 3 or 4, i would be fine with that. The problem is they are NOT voting and the contract is getting imposed on uis.

 

[542thruNthru]

Doesnt matter if you are full time or part time. Shouldnt be allowed to vote until you have x amount of years. I have said 5 years. Some may argue 3 or 4, i would be fine with that. The problem is they are NOT voting and the contract is getting imposed on uis.

So then change the 2/3s language

 

[rebel87]

So then change the 2/3s language

That would be fine also. You either change the 2/3 language or you change who is eligible to vote. If we change neither, our votes will never matter.