Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Maybe getting rid of 2/3 isn't a good idea..
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 3954894" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>I answered that already. Read back starting at page 2 of the thread, see if you can follow along.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What type of charges? Ummm... constitutional violations? Those are the only kind of charges that the Union has the authority to address, unless I'm mistaken. Just having a philisophical discussion on the manner in which the union is run, and specifically about the ability that a member might have to hold an elected representative accountable for any constititional violations.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Hypothetically speaking? Access to systems that would enable a member to gather the required evidence to file charges against an elected official. There would have to be probable cause, of course. But I can't seem to find any information about how to accomplish that. It seems necessary, since, as you pointed out, there is no investigative team.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, I didn't bring up locals. I did answer your questions regarding them. I wasn't quite sure why you thought local bylaws would have information about accountability for IBT officials, but since I haven't been able to get hold of mine, I couldn't verify one way or another. Article XIX of the IBT constitution does cover pretty much all levels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Untenable? No. I've made decent case to support [USER=14176]@Bubblehead[/USER]'s assertion that the IBT is run like a dictatorship or a monarchy. You tried to counter with personal incredulity fallacy, to which I simply responded that my case is not so unreasonable that I am the only one who thinks that way. It was not meant to augment my case, simply to defend against your fallacious remark.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I felt the quote aptly captured the spirit that seems to embody those who unquestioningly support the IBT. Or any hierarchical structure, for that matter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Woke up from what? Does that mean you agree that an internal affairs department is a good idea?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I had to. No one else was even approaching an apt defense of the opposite position. I opened it up to any takers to defend the position that the IBT is not a dictatorship by asking questions about the internal accountability processes. The assertion being that in totalitarian governments the leaders are not accountable to the citizens. All I got was unrelated comments about local union bylaws, and questions about why I needed to press charges against someone. No one even came close to answering my questions until after I had to answer them myself, almost as if no one else knew the answers until I gave them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you still upset about being called silly? I already apologized for that. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you weren't being serious with your comment. Hey, if the shoe fits... I will, however, continue to strive to be more considerate of your (apparently quite fragile) feelings. Otherwise, I am unclear on this baseless accusation that I left a "trail of insulting comments"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The conversation was not about locals, until you brought them into it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Seeing as though you are seemingly unaware of what the conversation is about, perhaps you could practice what you preach and put some thought into your comments.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is literally what the conversation is about, and you apparently admit to not being aware of that fact.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Discussing views and thoughts about the union itself is one of many ways of getting involved. The better we can define problems, the more likely we will be able to come up with solutions. The better we understand the system, the better equipped we will be to identify problems. I am actually seeking, and welcome any information that can aid in the cause of making things better.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 3954894, member: 63706"] I answered that already. Read back starting at page 2 of the thread, see if you can follow along. What type of charges? Ummm... constitutional violations? Those are the only kind of charges that the Union has the authority to address, unless I'm mistaken. Just having a philisophical discussion on the manner in which the union is run, and specifically about the ability that a member might have to hold an elected representative accountable for any constititional violations. Hypothetically speaking? Access to systems that would enable a member to gather the required evidence to file charges against an elected official. There would have to be probable cause, of course. But I can't seem to find any information about how to accomplish that. It seems necessary, since, as you pointed out, there is no investigative team. Nope, I didn't bring up locals. I did answer your questions regarding them. I wasn't quite sure why you thought local bylaws would have information about accountability for IBT officials, but since I haven't been able to get hold of mine, I couldn't verify one way or another. Article XIX of the IBT constitution does cover pretty much all levels. Untenable? No. I've made decent case to support [USER=14176]@Bubblehead[/USER]'s assertion that the IBT is run like a dictatorship or a monarchy. You tried to counter with personal incredulity fallacy, to which I simply responded that my case is not so unreasonable that I am the only one who thinks that way. It was not meant to augment my case, simply to defend against your fallacious remark. I felt the quote aptly captured the spirit that seems to embody those who unquestioningly support the IBT. Or any hierarchical structure, for that matter. Woke up from what? Does that mean you agree that an internal affairs department is a good idea? I had to. No one else was even approaching an apt defense of the opposite position. I opened it up to any takers to defend the position that the IBT is not a dictatorship by asking questions about the internal accountability processes. The assertion being that in totalitarian governments the leaders are not accountable to the citizens. All I got was unrelated comments about local union bylaws, and questions about why I needed to press charges against someone. No one even came close to answering my questions until after I had to answer them myself, almost as if no one else knew the answers until I gave them. Are you still upset about being called silly? I already apologized for that. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you weren't being serious with your comment. Hey, if the shoe fits... I will, however, continue to strive to be more considerate of your (apparently quite fragile) feelings. Otherwise, I am unclear on this baseless accusation that I left a "trail of insulting comments" The conversation was not about locals, until you brought them into it. Seeing as though you are seemingly unaware of what the conversation is about, perhaps you could practice what you preach and put some thought into your comments. This is literally what the conversation is about, and you apparently admit to not being aware of that fact. Discussing views and thoughts about the union itself is one of many ways of getting involved. The better we can define problems, the more likely we will be able to come up with solutions. The better we understand the system, the better equipped we will be to identify problems. I am actually seeking, and welcome any information that can aid in the cause of making things better. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Maybe getting rid of 2/3 isn't a good idea..
Top