NO ACCOUNTABILITY? REALLY?

Chris Day frustrated with lack of union accountability

Dear ATU757 Brothers and Sisters,

            During this months (March) Charter and Continuation meetings our members are being advised by our union officers that during this election cycle our local will be violating our own bylaw. The bylaw that will be violated is in section 14 and it states “Election ballots are to be counted no sooner than 20 days nor later than 30 days from the meeting at which nominations were made.” Our union officers presented a memo from Lane Toensmeier addressing why our local will be violating our bylaws. It is being explained to the members that both International and Department of Labor has been contacted about this. According to our officers both Department of Labor and International has stated that they would not require the local to redo the election. Upon receiving this information our officers have decided that they will continue to go as planned even though it is in violation of our bylaws.

The reason our local is in this situation is because our officers were not performing their duties.

We count on our officers to assure that not only do they protect us but that they preserve order and enforce our Constitution and local bylaws. When officers are able to violate Constitution and bylaws without any reprimand it creates a tear in our solidarity. Our Constitution and bylaws are there for a reason and no member should allow them to be violated without reprimand.

Here is what happened that created this mess. Some time in December of 2014 or January of 2015 someone called “TrueBallot”. This is the company that our local uses to conduct our ballot count during election. “TrueBallot” was scheduled for June 23^rd, 2015. Then in January the notice of election committee was submitted to our local union newspaper “The Bulletin”. The dates submitted where not checked correctly and from the date of Nomination (May 11^th, 2015) to the ballot count date (June 23^rd, 2015) exceeds the maximum time permitted by 13 days. The responsibility to preserve order and enforce our Constitution and local bylaws falls upon our President Bruce Hansen as stated in International Constitution and General Laws 13.9.

ATU757’s President Bruce Hansen has demonstrated that

(1) he will not enforce our Constitution and local bylaws. 

(2) He will make deals with our employers committing us to such things as “Block Sign Up” that is for the benefit of the employer and takes away more of our abilities to use seniority.

 (3) He will commit mechanics to 7 year programs limiting them the ability to advance in different areas.

 (4) He will assess extra funds from the members to compensate for poor management of funds.

 (5) He will allow retiree benefits to be reduced putting members that are in a fixed income in a tighter income restriction. 

(6) He will allow contracts to take effect without assuring that members have access to a full copy.

Bruce Hansen has been able to do all of this without any accountability or fear of reprimand.

(this is just a partial list of Bruce's failure to perform his duties to protect union members)

            Our officers need to start to understand that we will not allow this to continue. Whether through our election process or preferring of charges our membership needs to step up and send a clear message to our Officers that 

 “ATU757 MEMBERS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANYONE THAT WILL NOT PROTECT OUR MEMBERS, PRESERVE ORDER AND ENFORCE OUR CONSTITUTION AND LOCAL BYLAWS.”

I also put the comment up as well:

Because of current events I have been thinking about the preferring of charges. The issue with preferring of charges is that it cost the membership so it doesn’t happen. I am thinking with some research this can be fixed. My idea is making it so if a preferring of charges is put against a member and that member is found guilty then the cost of the preferring of charges will be place upon that members as a fine. If that member is found not guilty then the members that signed the preferring of charges will then be liable to pay the cost. This way it will assure that if members want to file charges against a member then the members signing it feel very strong that the member is in violation. That is just a rough draft idea but it is a start at least…..