Please Note:

Before submitting commentary, to ensure readability and maintain credibility, please do your best to:
*Check spelling and grammar.
*Verify authenticity of information and its sources. If possible, include links to supporting information/evidence.
*Do not repost an entire article published elsewhere by another author. Include a link to the original article when possible. Post a few lines, or at most a paragraph or two. Otherwise, you are most likely infringing upon that author’s copyright.
*If you would like to disseminate information posted at this blog, I ask that you give credit where credit is due -please back-link when possible or at least cite these pages as the source when copying.

Thank you.

2010-10-06

To the Dissolution of Local Union 608 – Say NO!, Part 3

The 2006 UBC Constitution, JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF LOCAL UNIONS, Section 25.C states, "At any regular or special meeting of the membership of a Local Union, duly called for the transaction of any business, those present shall constitute a quorum, provided seven (7) or more members are present. For any regular or special meeting of the Executive Committee of a Local Union, those present constitute a quorum, provided a majority of the members of the Executive Committee are present. The terms special meeting and special called meeting have the same meaning."

What this means is that if LU608 were to be merged with LU157, UBC Constitution Section25.C would allow for just seven (7) members out of 10,940 to decide the merged locals' fate. It is already chilling to know that seven members can decide for 7003 and that seven members can decide for 3937, but allowing seven members making decisions for 10,940 is down-right scary. Additionally, I figure that it is very likely that dozens to possibly a hundred or so of NYC members would just leave the union if LU608 is dissolved due to apathy, disgust, anger, and despair.

I'm sure if McCarron gets away with dissolving LU608 and merging its members into another local he is likely to push for the merging of all similar local unions by proclaiming efficiency and cost savings as the impetus while the real underlying reason would be control, or at least less opposition. We already don't have a Bronx local union any more and I'm sure LU20 would be next, or already is, on the chopping block. Imagine if LU20 (684), LU45 (1991), LU157 (3937), LU608 (7003), and LU926 (1919) were to be merged. We would have a local union of 15534 members. To me that's an insane overly-cumbersome number of members in one local union. This would then be approximately 1553 members per E-board representative (1553:1) and a loss of 17 NYCDCC Delegates, 5 GC Delegates.

If all the 'outside' NYC carpenter local unions were merged into a one local union:
LU0020: NYCDCC Delegates, 6 (684/500+4), GC Delegates, 3 (684/500+1)
LU0045: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1991/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1991/500+1)
LU0157: NYCDCC Delegates, 12 (3937/500+4), GC Delegates, 9 (3937/500+1)
LU0608: NYCDCC Delegates, 19 (7003/500+4), GC Delegates, 16 (7003/500+1)
LU0926: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1919/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1919/500+1)
Total LU: NYCDCC Delegates, 53 (6+8+12+19+8), GC Delegates, 38 (3+5+9+16+5)
Single LU: NYCDCC Delegates, 36 (15534/500+4), GC Delegates, 33 (15534/500+1)
Loss of: NYCDCC Delegates, 17 (53-36), GC Delegates, 5 (38-33)
Membership numbers are from local union 2010 LM-2's.

Recently stating what I have regarding this issue, I think there should be consideration by members for a UBC Constitutional limit to the number of members allowable per local union to prevent such great underrepresentation. I think the ratio of members to E-board representatives should some how be determined by the number of eyes into which a representative can look at one time. If a representative cannot see at once all the faces of the members s/he is representing then that is an indication that the member-to-representative ratio is too high. This would ensure that local unions would be around 500 members, possibly topping out at around 1000. This would then give the ratio of 50 to 100 members per E-board representative. If all of the approximately 473,777 members, as of March, 25, 2010, were to be within one local union, using the By-Laws of the NYCDCC for calculation, there would be 952 council delegates (473,777/500+4) and 949 (473,777/500+1). If all of the approximately 473,777 members* were to be within local unions no bigger than 500, there would be approximately 948 local unions, and by using the By-Laws of the NYCDCC for calculation, there would be approximately 4740 council delegates (948*(500/500+4)) and 1896 (948*(500/500+1)). A difference of 3792 council delegates (4740-948) and 948 (1896-948). *(See UBCJA 2009 LM-2)

Nevertheless, in general, I think dissolving and merging local unions against the will of the members is an undeniable sign of dictatorial, pro-oligarchy, anti-democracy action. I will always choose semi-efficient democracy over high-efficiency dictatorship. What is the point of losing our humanity to high-efficiency? We mustn't allow our humanity to be replaced by nameless, faceless, robotic submission and mindless obedience. I, for one, refuse to be forced to be someone else's inhuman/robotic nameless cog for the sake of efficiency.

---
For the sake of completeness:

If all the 'specialty' NYC carpenter local unions were merged into one local union:
LU0740: NYCDCC Delegates, 5 (377/500+4), GC Delegates, 2 (377/500+1)
LU1456: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1815/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1815/500+1)
LU1536: NYCDCC Delegates, 7 (1218/500+4), GC Delegates, 4 (1218/500+1)
LU2090: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1608/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1608/500+1)
LU2287: NYCDCC Delegates, 7 (1228/500+4), GC Delegates, 4 (1228/500+1)
LU2870: NYCDCC Delegates, 7 (1331/500+4), GC Delegates, 4 (1331/500+1)
Total LU: NYCDCC Delegates, 42 (5+8+7+8+7+7), GC Delegates, 24 (2+5+4+5+4+4)
Single LU: NYCDCC Delegates, 20 (7577/500+4), GC Delegates, 17 (7577/500+1)
Loss of: NYCDCC Delegates, 22 (42-20), GC Delegates, 7 (24-17)

If all the NYC carpenter local unions were merged into one local union:
LU0020: NYCDCC Delegates, 6 (684/500+4), GC Delegates, 3 (684/500+1)
LU0045: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1991/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1991/500+1)
LU0157: NYCDCC Delegates, 12 (3937/500+4), GC Delegates, 9 (3937/500+1)
LU0608: NYCDCC Delegates, 19 (7003/500+4), GC Delegates, 16 (7003/500+1)
LU0740: NYCDCC Delegates, 5 (377/500+4), GC Delegates, 2 (377/500+1)
LU0926: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1919/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1919/500+1)
LU1456: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1815/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1815/500+1)
LU1536: NYCDCC Delegates, 7 (1218/500+4), GC Delegates, 4 (1218/500+1)
LU2090: NYCDCC Delegates, 8 (1608/500+4), GC Delegates, 5 (1608/500+1)
LU2287: NYCDCC Delegates, 7 (1228/500+4), GC Delegates, 4 (1228/500+1)
LU2870: NYCDCC Delegates, 7 (1331/500+4), GC Delegates, 4 (1331/500+1)
Total LU: NYCDCC Delegates, 95 (6+8+12+19+5+8+8+7+8+7+7), 62 GC Delegates, (3+5+9+16+2+5+5+4+5+4+4)
Single LU: NYCDCC Delegates, 51 (23111/500+4), GC Delegates, 48 (23111/500+1)
Loss of: NYCDCC Delegates, 44 (95-51), GC Delegates, 14 (62-48)

To the Dissolution of Local Union 608 – Say NO!, Part 1
To the Dissolution of Local Union 608 – Say NO!, Part 2

No comments: