It says that the rollcall vote was pulled.
Correct, based on 2007 Headcount numbers.
I have no problem with one man one vote but the weighted vote(roll call) is patently un-democratic, especially when the rules are Fluid. Some times only the President carries the weighted vote, sometimes who ever happens to be there carries it.
One man one vote is each man gets to cast a vote.
Less than half the people in Tulsa voted for any candidate yet in the weighted vote whoever wins gets to vote
for them in a weighted vote. Its one thing to vote as the representative but another to vote for them. In past elections we have seen where despite the fact that Tulsa has around 5000 members people take office with less than 1000 total votes. There are no run-off elections per the TWU Constitution so majority doesnt rule, just simply which candidate got the most votes out of an unlimited field of candidates and not neccisarily the majority of the votes cast.
IMO the Presidents Council and Negotiating committee should be like our Senate, the Senator from Rhode Island has the same vote as the Senator from California. The membership is is like the Congress, the number of votes (congressmen) is based upon the number of citizens. As long as the vote has to go through both houses its Democratic and as fair as it can be. If Rhode Island and a few other states push through something that California doesnt like California can get their greater number of Congressmen to try and kill it, just Like Tulsa representatives could always go directly to their members and get them to vote against anything that smaller locals helped push through at the table. A proper check and balance that would be more reflective of the true feelings of the majority of the members would be for the Committee members to have the option in the event of a dissagreement to have a membership refferendum on the issue with just a Second on the motion for refferendum, like the current weighted vote. So lets say Tulsa felt that the Line stations were trying to ram something through that it did not want, they could stall the proicess and have it go to the floor, where their members could cast votes directly on the issue. Just the ability to delay an undesired outcome would provide enough incentive for compromise.
We often hear of unity, but if there is no equality then there can be no unity. If one guy sits at the table with more votes than the guy sitting next to him then they are not equal. I hear many complaints at the table about how putting stuff on the blogs and revealing what goes on hurts the process, that it lets the company know things that they should not know but the fact is this process is broken, deceitful (the real reason for the desire for secrecy) and harmful to our members. Its been that way for a long time, long before I ever showed up. Letting our members know what the company has known all along, since half the people on the company's side came from the Union side, can only help bring about the changes that are needed.
Getting rid of the Weighted Vote would be one step in the right direction. But then again is it this way by accident or by design?
