I made four points...all correct. I'll take another stab at it.
"The Roll Call vote is membership ratification-an expensive election. It has never been used at USAPA, not once."
- The roll call vote did NOT EXIST when USAPA was started. It was one of the selling points. That part of the bylaws was changed by the BPR.
"I am not aware of voting in anything other than Reps based on membership count."
On the US Airways pilot property the roll-call vote is a particularly contentious voting method. I have found however that when many pilots are confronted with the question, What is roll call voting? they cannot answer or in fact have a very limited knowledge of this type of voting. This paper is offered in rebuttal to criticisms of USAPAs voting methods. The law requires that in the absence of a purely membership ratification voting methodology, that is one man one vote, for all issues some method of representational voting is required.
Our founding fathers faced this very dilemma in the formation of the nation. How to afford voting rights to the various and particular states? The solution; was two branches of the legislature the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is population based system based on a system of apportionment. Each population segment of 10,000 gets one Representative so that larger States with greater populations have more House Representatives. The Senate on the other had is not population based and each state has two senators.
The roll call vote acquired a bad reputation on this property because of the bad actions of a few members. Former PIT MEC counsel Chairman John Davis would roll call lunch to punish minority members and remind them of the power of the majority inherent in the roll call vote. Actually the roll-cal membership population based weighted voting method is not inherently bad. It is in fact more democratic than a straight senatorial vote and this has been discussed in the Supreme Court of the United States as we will show in a later piece in this rebuttal series.
Labor unions are required by law to afford their members a uniform voting methodology. That could be one-man, one vote for all questions. It could be two houses like the US government or it could be some other form of weighted representational voting. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, LMRDA, requires the following:
TITLE I BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
(29 U.S.C. 411)
SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS. Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organizations constitution and bylaws.
The key term here is equal rights. That can be one man one vote or apportionment where each Rep represents the same number of constituents. The problem is that the number of representatives can become very high and it would be expensive to hold meetings and conduct business. The population could be made higher but this could still lead to problems because a very small domicile, well below the population upper limit, now has a great weighted vote than a large base. The ration of Representative to members would not be constant.
Another method is to limit the number of representatives but allow each representative to vote the number of members in his domicile. A single rep domicile votes up to 100 members. In a two Rep domicile each Rep votes half of that domicile, from 101 to 1000. In a three rep domicile each Rep votes a third of the domicile, greater than 1000.
The courts have determined that because this satisfies the requirement for Equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate and vote….., that this method has been supported by several Appeals Court decisions as well as the Supreme Court.
Note the terms equal rights and privileges in the first sentence. LMRDA does not define just what that means and so it was up to the United States Supreme court to decide what that phrase meant.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Eddie WITTSTEIN et al.
United States Supreme Court
December 7, 1964
379 U.S. 171; 85 S.Ct. 300; 13 L.Ed.2d 214
Henry Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
(excerpts)
The petitioner American Federation of Musicians (Federation) is an international labor organization comprising 675 locals in the United States and Canada. As with numerous other national and international labor organizations having many scattered locals of varying size, Federations constitution and bylaws have long authorized alternative methods of ascertaining the vote of the delegates representing the locals at a union convention. Each local is entitled to one delegate for each 100 members or major fraction thereof, not to exceed three delegates from any one local. Federations bylaws permit a voice vote of the delegates attending a convention in all cases, which is the method often used on routine noncontroversial matters. When amendments to the union constitution or bylaws are at issue, however, the delegates representing the locals, upon a roll call vote, may cast as many votes as there are members in the respective locals. A roll call vote is required upon the demand of 10 delegates or five locals. All amendments to the bylaws and constitution approved by a roll call vote are required under the constitution to be referred to a convention committee which may approve or veto the proposal.2
….. Other provisions of the LMRDA confirm this view. Section 101(a)(3)(B) is a part of Title I, entitled the Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations. This Title guarantees to every member of a labor organization equal rights and privileges to vote, to attend meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and business of such meetings. Section 101(a)(3)(B) forms a part of this framework by requiring participation by all members, either directly or through their elected representatives, on certain union matters thought to be of special importance. We find nothing to indicate that Congress thought this objective would be better fulfilled by allowing a representative to cast one vote, regardless of the size of his constituency, than by permitting him to cast a vote equal to the number of members he represents. As a part of the Acts purpose of protecting and fostering participation by the rank and file in the affairs of the union, Title IV contains elaborate statutory safeguards for the election of union officers. But nothing in that title prohibits election of union officers by delegates voting at a convention in accordance with the number of members they represent.20 Respondents do not demonstrate any differences between weighted voting for officers of the union and weighted voting on changes in financial exactions that would support the asserted difference in voting procedures applicable to each. It is argued that delegates may not ascertain or follow the wishes of the members in respect to dues and assessments. But few issues are more likely to arouse active opposition and general membership participation than a proposal to increase dues. Further, this argument is too broad, for it questions the validity of a system of representative union government and has little to do with the manner in which the representatives vote is counted. Section 101(a)(3)(B), as well as Title IV, authorizes a representative system of government and does not require a town meeting for action by an international or national union.21 To that end Congress recognized the key role of elections in the process of union self-government and surrounded it with many safeguards to provide a fair election and to guarantee membership participation.
The pervading premise of both these titles is that there should be full and active participation by the rank and file in the affairs of the union. We think our decision today that the vote of an elected delegate may reflect the size of his constituency is wholly consistent with that purpose.
The specifics of AFM v. Wittstein deals with voting in a convention by delegates but other case law supports voting by representatives in a like manner.
