Recent posts regarding Selective Hiring. 05/22/01 |
Brother Hill: It gives me some assurance to see our new IBEW IP taking part in open forums. You appear to be a down to earth Brother. I'm hoping this is true and that you will respond to my post. Until this year there were only two locals in Ontario Canada that allowed contractors to select JWs from the unemployed list. The contractors then successfully lobbied the Ontario Government for changes to the Labor Relations Act and we now have selective hiring throughout Ontario. Under these selective hiring agreements there is unchecked discrimination and/or brothers and sisters are being by-passed on the list because another member was selected for a completely arbitrary reason. The detrimental effects of this on our Union and our Brotherhood are too numerous to mention. Besides tipping the scales in favor of the contractors, it's against our constitution. In 1999, I asked Brother Barry to clarify IO's position on selective hiring. I subsequently received a disappointing phone call from District 1 IVP, Don Lounds, who refused to put his response in writing. Understanding that I'm having trouble comprehending how IO can condone or remain unconcerned over selective hiring, could you state your position on this issue. Fraternally Tim Mitchinson LU303 I don't know exactly what you are talking about, however I will inquire about the issue. Ed Hill Brother Hill: Thank you for responding so quickly, I'm impressed. I can briefly explain what has happened to the IBEW in Ontario. We have 13 locals throughout Ontario. Until May, 1998, Local 804 was the only Local that had an agreement with the contractors that allowed contractors to select JWs from their unemployed list. Based on the results of a survey done in the later part of 1996, Local 303 implimented a selective hiring agreement effective May, 1998, where local contractors can select 50% of their workforce and the remaining 50% went by the list on a first in, first out basis. With 130 unemployed and certain members being consistently selected again and again, the available work has not been distributed fairly and many brothers and sisters have run out of employment insurance without sufficient hours to renew another claim. Then late last year the Ontario Government amended the Labor Act with Bill 69. This Bill was a direct frontal assault on all construction trade unions in Ontario. It affects wage rates, apprentice ratios, room and board allowances etc but moreover, it allows contractors to select up to 75% of their required manpower per project. Of the total workforce required, 40% can be mobile employees (travellers) and 35% of the total workforce can be selected from the home local. The majority of Ontario's IBEW Locals signed a Memorandum of Agreement to supposedly save themselves from the impositions of Bill 69 and by doing so alienated themselves from many other construction trades that were standing in solidarity against Bill 69. In my opinion since the Memorandum of Agreement still allows 50% selection (it varies up and down), it is worse than Bill 69 because it applies this percentage to the jurisdiction and not the project. The potential for abuse is enormous. We have lost 40 years of negotiations in one foul swoop. Fraternally Tim Mitchinson First, I firmly believe in the autonomy of each Local Union to operate as it feels best for its members, within the constraints of the IBEW Constitution and the official rules and procedures of the brotherhood. Secondly, whether I condone or agree with the practice is not even a question that I have a right to answer, it would seem that the Local Union leaders did what they had to do and for that I applaud them. I am not sure what I would have done in their place but they did what they had to do. It is easy to second guess them and I will not do engage in that practice, it is difficult enough to be a local union leader without me or anyone else second guessing them. Ed Hill Brother Hill Firstly, my thanks for your prompt investigation on this issue. After admitting, "I don't know exactly what you are talking about" you have taken time to fully familiarize yourself with the particulars on this issue and have now responded to my query, or have you? I must admit that your initial lack of awareness to this issue causes me concern. If the International Office doesn't become involved in issues of this magnitude, when do you get involved? Possibly you were relying on the First District IVP. If you were, I can understand this lack of awareness. Secondly, you state, "I firmly believe in the autonomy of each Local Union to operate as it feels best for its members, within the constraints of the IBEW Constitution and the official rules and procedures of the brotherhood." Last I heard the IBEW had only one Constitution. The copy that I have states, "Declaration of the IBEW - Our cause is the cause of human justice, human rights, human security. We refuse, and will always refuse, to condone or tolerate dictatorship or oppression of any kind." My copy also says one of the IBEW's Objects is, "To seek security for the individual." Please advise if you have a more recent edition of the Constitution that states, "We will turn our heads when brothers or sisters are being discriminated against or oppressed through selective hiring " or "To seek security for only those individuals approved by the contractors". Thirdly, you state, "whether I condone or agree with the practice is not even a question that I have a right to answer, it would seem that the Local Union leaders did what they had to do and for that I applaud them." Well, there's internal politics blocking the road to Democracy and Brotherhood again. You further state, "I am not sure what I would have done in their place but they did what they had to do". Why are you not sure what you would have done? As far as "doing what they had to do", they (our leaders) claim the government held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign or face the consequence. That consequence was the revoking of Section 1(4) of the Labour Act. It didn't require a high priced lawyer, for which we have many, to determine the gun had already gone off. As I explained before, the government amended Sec. 1(4) and effectively achieved the same results as if they had revoked it. So please explain why our leaders had to do what they did. Can you still applaud them knowing they gave 40 years of negotiations away for nothing? Lastly, you state, "It is easy to second guess them and I will not engage in that practice, it is difficult enough to be a local union leader without me or anyone else second guessing them." When things are done right the first time there is no need to second guess anyone. Am I correct in understanding that under the official IBEW rules this Memorandum of Agreement for which three of thirteen BAs adamantly opposed, required and received IP approval? For Brotherhood Tim Mitchinson P.S. Is "The Union of Hearts and Minds" a motto or just another slogan? Date: Fri May 18, 2001 7:51 pm Subject: IBEW becoming another Labor Ready? Say it ain't so!! I found this following article at another site... If this is true it is incredibly detrimental to the future of the Brotherhood as we know it!! ------ WARNING for all IBEW Members! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The International Office for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has been made aware of an agreement between IBEW Local 303 (Niagara Region)and the Niagara Peninsula Electrical Contractor's Association which allows contractors to arbitrarily select members from Local 303's unemployed list. This agreement does not ensure the practical and fair distribution of available work to qualified members. In addition, it is an agreement which totally favours the Contractors and does nothing to advance the interests of the IBEW. In a letter dated March 4, 1999, I requested clarification of Article XV, Sec. 6, of the IBEW Constitution and intervention by the International President. In response, I had expected the International President to rescind the agreement, given it's anti union tendencies, but instead I received a telephone call from the First District International Vice President informing me there will be no response. This agreement is currently in effect without having secured the International President's approval. Brothers and Sisters, if this agreement is allowed to remain in effect it will likely spread to other locals, perhaps even yours. From: "Tim Mitchinson" <tmitchinson@s...> Date: Sun May 20, 2001 5:49 am Subject: IBEW becoming another Labor Ready? Say it ain't so!! Hello Brothers and Sisters! First, I'd like to thank ----- for connecting me with this site; ----- for a speedy approval and ----- for posting the article, "WARNING for all IBEW Members!" of which I am the author. It has apparently struck a nerve with many and rightly so. This is not a subject to be taken lightly as I will explain. According to the Constitution, IO approval is required on all agreements. It does not state any exceptions. If IO wished to render an agreement invalid, this is the hammer they would use. I have asked for IO to confirm this and to also confirm their position on the "selective hiring agreements" but they refuse to respond appropriately. As stated in my article, I received a phone call from the District IVP, but he refused to put anything in writing (no surprise there). As recently as last week at a different site( www.ibewtravelers.net / open forum ), I popped this question to Brother Ed Hill . As Brother Hill is the first IP willing to discuss members concerns openly on the net, I perceived him as possibly travelling his own road. Unfortunately, his evasive response now leads me to believe he's continuing to travel down Barry Ave. This agreement was originally introduced to LU 303 based on the results of a 1996 survey conducted by mail. The survey was sent to all IBEW LU members in Ontario, Canada. Although 50/50 selective hiring was overwhelmingly turned down provincially, it was determined that out of LU 303s approx. 400 members, 78 members had responded, and of these, 48 members were in favour of selective hiring. There's your majority vote. The membership had no notion of the intent when in 1998 our BA signed a 50/50 agreement. Documents indicate that 11 of the responding members to the survey were not even working in the trade. That's democracy! This was only the beginning. In December 2000, the Provincial Government amended the Labour Relations Act with Bill 69. Under this Bill, contractors can select up to 75% of their required manpower on each project (40% of these from out of town locals), not to mention lower wages, change apprentice/journeyman ratios, cut benefits, double breast, etc., etc., etc. Of the 13 BAs in Ontario, 10 signed a "memorandum of agreement" that was to save us from the impositions of Bill 69. This agreement is worse than Bill 69. The one thing they definitely succeeded in doing was alienating IBEW from all the other trade unions that were standing in solidarity against the government. The "memorandum of agreement" was put to the Ontario membership for a ratification vote as a package deal with a no strike clause. Prior to having knowledge of our amended local agreements, we were required to accept or reject a no strike clause with the memorandum of agreement. This was two issues, one vote, either accept both or reject both. They claim it was accepted. As of January 2001, all Ontario now has 50/50 hiring for both resident and non resident contractors. The BA for LU 303 then gave away even more in our local agreement. I hope everyone can get a sense of how fast this came about for us in Ontario. The idea didn't originate here. There are other locals that have similar agreements throughout North America. Where was IO for all of this? Were they providing leadership? Have they approved any of these agreements? No, because these agreements are contrary to the IBEW Declaration, Objects and ideals. IO can't chock it up to LU autonomy with an IO approval stamp on it. If this is Brother Hill's definition of Local Union autonomy he should pick up a history book on the early 20th century. "He who forgets the past is destined to repeat it." My web page has more info www.homestead.com/_nevergiveup . FOR BROTHERHOOD !!!! Tim Mitchinson (IBEW LU 303) From: "Tim Mitchinson" <tmitchinson@s...> Date: Sun May 20, 2001 2:57 pm Subject: Negotiated Agreements and IO Approval "------" writes: "In our contracts the IO approval is the same, it's a stamp the IO puts on the signature page and the signature page alone. I have yet to see a contract that repeats IO approval on other pages." When IO puts there stamp on the signature page they are approving the entire agreement. "-----" then states: "Further, does the lack of IO approval negate a contract? The answer is NO! If a Local union enters into negotiations and the membership ratifies said agreement IO approval is a mute administrative point, the agreement is binding between the employer and the local. Remember what the Constitution states, the IO is not a party to this agreement." I agree with you -----, this is a moot point. Just because some of us adamantly oppose any such agreement and just because IO has sat in the bush on this issue, this does not mean that the agreement isn't binding on the signed parties. ----, I believe your on the right track when you state: "3)another reason for IO approval is for inclusion/exclusion of what I would term IO policy (I must admit that the IO policy I have seen appear for the most part to be crafted to protect a Local from running afoul of federal statue)." It appears IBEW policy conflicts with the IBEW Constitution. For Brotherhood !!!! Tim Mitchinson (IBEW LU 303) From: "Ed Hill" <EdwinHill@w...> Date: Sun May 20, 2001 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [ibew] IBEW becoming another Labor Ready? Say it ain't so!! Brother Mitchinson: If you want you may print my answer to your question on this site. The problem is that there are members, yourself included, that want Local autonomy when it suites them and when the issue does not suit them they find it offensive. If the local unions want to run under the total control of the International Office that is fine, however I doubt that you would get many takers. How a Local Union governs itself is certainly under the scrutiny of the International Office, but we are limited, by our constitution as to what we can do or want to do. Your problem or complaint is at home and as I told you at the other site your officers did what they thought that they had to do and for the I still applaud them they are doing what they think is the best for the membership under the circumstances. On your other issues of me traveling my own road, how do you expect an officer to have a discussion or make a comment on an issue if he/she is not permitted to have their own opinion and not necessarily agree with what is being said. When I became an officer in this Great Brotherhood of ours I did not toss aside my right to voice an opinion on an issue. I hope that I can exercise the same rights, that I will defend for you, as long as it is not personal attack. However I do have to voice an official opinion for which I am limited on an open forum, but I will continue to do so as much as possible. Ed Hill From: "Tim Mitchinson" <tmitchinson@s...> Date: Mon May 21, 2001 6:30 am Subject: Opinions- everyone has one ! Brother Hill: It appears my relentless pursuit for accountability from your office is being misconstrued as a personal attack on you or that I am trying to deny you your rights to having and expressing an opinion. Your statement couldn't be further from the truth. I want you to express your opinion. I'm certain you realise my intentions are for no improper purpose when I express my opinion of your opinion. In other forums, this is called open debate. You state your facts and I state mine and then everyone can decide who is right, or more right for issues that are less than perfect. I have been adamantly opposed to selective hiring far to long for you to accuse me of turning this into a personal issue. I am still, as I have always been, seeking clarification that "agreements" require the IP's approval pursuant to the Constitution and to know if IO condones selective hiring. I'm sure you can understand why IBEW members would like to know the International President's official position on these two items. I would think answering these questions would be one of the simplest of tasks for an International Officer, but then what do I know. I'm the one that thought this was a cut and dried case when I took it before the Ontario Labour Board. Under the current government I couldn't have been more wrong. Part of their decision to dismiss my case was based on IO's impartial attitude and failure to respond to the issue. The Board deemed that because IO hasn't expressed an opinion regarding selective hiring, IO must therefore be in favour of it. Will you continue to remain impartial and allow this agreement to spread throughout the rest of Canada and the USA? You've stated, "If you want you may print my answer to your question on this site." I trust a simple www.ibewtravelers.net is sufficient. You've stated, "The problem is that there are members, yourself included, that want Local autonomy when it suites them and when the issue does not suit them they find it offensive." I can't remember a time when I have ever been concerned over local autonomy, but if you say I have, OK. The one thing that I will always remember is turning down the first, and only referral where I was selected as a JW under this agreement. I doubt I will need to make that decision ever again, if you get my meaning. Perhaps I am not clear on what you consider local autonomy. Is it the one where locals decide their own destiny compared to other locals, or is local autonomy where locals decide how they are going to allow their own members to be screwed over by the contractors? It's ironic that you have also stated, "I hope that I can exercise the same rights, that I will defend for you". I admit I have quoted you out of context, but think about it. You've stated, "On your other issues of me traveling my own road, how do you expect an officer to have a discussion or make a comment on an issue if he/she is not permitted to have their own opinion and not necessarily agree with what is being said." I believe I said you were not travelling your own road, but still going down Barry Ave., and for this I apologise if I have offended you. Since debate on this topic at the other site had evidently dried up before I had clarification of my queries, I made this statement to entice you into responding. The shear fact that you are once again openly debating these issues for all to see is commendable and I applaud you. Please continue. You've stated, "Your problem or complaint is at home and as I told you at the other site your officers did what they thought that they had to do and for the I still applaud them they are doing what they think is the best for the membership under the circumstances." If you truly believe the leaders in Ontario have done what they've done for the good of the union, I can respect that. I would appreciate you respecting my opinion that I have based on the facts that I know. I can't accept that these decisions are in the best interests of our union. I admit, Bill 69 is bad news, but the Memorandum of Agreement is just as bad, in my opinion worse! A fallacious fear made the Memorandum of Agreement appear to be necessary to protect us from the additional threat made by the government to revoke section 1(4) of the Labour Act which would allow "double breasting". As I said before, sec 1(4) was amended and PASSED in such form that for all intents and purposes it should be considered revoked. The acceptance of the Memorandum of Agreement did not change anything. The government still PASSED Bill 69 with the amended Sec. 1(4). Like it or not, there is corroborating evidence that proves my claim. You've stated, "However I do have to voice an official opinion for which I am limited on an open forum, but I will continue to do so as much as possible." Does this mean you still can't tell me if this agreement requires IP approval pursuant to the Constitution? Does this mean you can't tell me if IO approves of selective hiring for JWs? You've stated, "If the local unions want to run under the total control of the International Office that is fine, however I doubt that you would get many takers." I don't believe I've ever asked for or suggested total control. Why do you suggest this now? You've stated, "How a Local Union governs itself is certainly under the scrutiny of the International Office, but we are limited, by our constitution as to what we can do or want to do." Isn't this what I've been harping about. Scrutinise the issue and based on the IBEW Constitution, do what you can do, or are you already doing what you want to do? FOR BROTHERHOOD !!! Tim Mitchinson (LU 303) From: "Tim Mitchinson" <tmitchinson@s...> Date: Tue May 22, 2001 5:00 am Subject: Re: Opinions - everybody has one ! Brother Hill has been asked if he agrees with selective hiring. Although Brother Hill's response failed to answer the question, he asserts selective hiring is a local union issue. Brother Hill then points the finger at local union autonomy. Expectedly, all bearing on the real issue of selective hiring was then lost as brothers began to fear they might loose local union autonomy if this frame of questioning continues. Casting aside all consideration for brotherhood, they begin to rally behind Brother Hill. This is typical of what selective hiring agreements do. They divide Unions on every level through indirect means. When, for whatever reason, a member (or group of members) is willing to ignore that another member (or group of members) is being screwed over, a division is created. The Union's loss means additional gains for the contractors as new wage agreements then soon follow. Most will think selective hiring will never happen in their local. That's normal, here in Ontario, Canada, we also thought that. FOR BROTHERHOOD !!! Tim Mitchinson (LU 303) From: "Tim Mitchinson" <tmitchinson@s...> Date: Tue May 22, 2001 4:24 pm Subject: Re: IBEW becoming another Labor Ready? Say it ain't so!! Brother Hill: I would like to print your posts and mine, which pertain to this topic on my web site www.homestead.com/_nevergiveup . Do I have your approval? For Brotherhood !!! Tim Mitchinson From: "Ed Hill" <EdwinHill@w...> Date: Tue May 22, 2001 7:56 pm Subject: Re: [ibew] Re: IBEW becoming another Labor Ready? Say it ain't so!! Yes you do Ed Hill |
Re: Organizing Brother Hill: For many years members have argued over how an open organizing campaign affects our Union. Some are for it and some are against it. I hope you will take time from your busy schedule to arrange an impartial study into this long time concern. Although there are many members that are in favour of an open door organizing policy, there are also many members that are opposed to it, believing organizing should limited where it would have a detrimental affect on current members. There are valid reasons and evidence to support both opinions. I therefore respectfully request that the International Office retain an independent labour consultant to conduct a study to determine the pros and cons of our open door organizing policy and to make recommendations for the good of our Union. Fraternally, Tim Mitchinson LU 303 Brother Tim: Thank you for your suggestion but I must respectfully reject your suggestion to hire an independent Labor Consultant to study whether our present organizing policy if effective or whether we should continue to organize. We have done enough internal studies to be sure that if we do not organize we will not survive. See my answer to Zn this day. Ed Hill Brother Hill: I believe my request has been misinterpreted. I'm not suggesting that we stop organizing. I'm suggesting that the current organizing policies and procedures is not as good for our Union as they are thought to be and we need to consider making changes where necessary. The current campaign is no different than a war of attrition. For every person that has been organized, we loose one because members are fed up trying to make a living in the IBEW. How many CAW or AAW members were once an IBEW member? My local for example has accepted many new members over the years, but our membership is still no bigger than it was 20 years ago when I joined. Did your internal studies indicate this? Did your studies consider the members that dropped their cards and found employment elsewhere or joined another union because they faced longer periods of layoff due to unrestricted organizing? Think of organizing like the race between the turtle and the hare. Slow and steady can win races too. I'm hoping you are not a fourty year member that is so set in the traditional way of thinking that you can't see the light. "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." ~ Charles Darwin ~ An impartial and independent labour consultant could provide the IBEW with a clear and unbiased perspective of where we are, and where we're heading. Obviously no organizing is not the answer. A consultant's impartial recommendations could prove worth while. Fraternally, Tim Mitchinson Tim: I am not a forty year member who is so set in his ways that I can't see the light, I just may not be able to see the same light that you do. I could trade e-mail with you for ever and not be able to convince you that organizing is the right thing to do. It may be different in Canada and different in each Local Union jurisdiction. However you control the work, keeping it Union, is your business and the business of each of the Local Unions but if you are not doing the majority of work in your jurisdiction then you must be doing something wrong. If you are satisfied to control a small percentage of the work in your area, just enough to keep your own members working and the rest of it is being done non union then you are betraying the legacy that was left to you by those who went before you. So I am not going to argue with you or anyone else, but enough excuses about not controlling the majority of work in your area lets get to controlling it all. If you are controlling it all then keep doing what you are doing because it is working. Thanks Ed Ed: There's that tone in your post again. We've been here before, haven't we? Now you're being a little evasive on this one also. Based on your posts, I'd like to suggest that you should forget about reading "Horse Sense For People" because I don't believe you'd comprehend it anyway. Two times now you've stated that I'm suggesting we stop organizing, when in fact I said (and I'll try to say it another way for your benefit) we should limit organizing in jurisdictions where it would cause hardship to current members and possibly drive them away from our Union. I believe you realize this is fact, but don't wish to admit it. I'd be very interested in seeing your statistics to prove organizing is beneficial, but all I'm offered is hearsay and wooly numbers from Avonmatt. If on the other hand, you have read the book and just don't want to acknowledge it's wisdom because you fear it may lead to change, then there is nothing that I or anyone in this Union can do other than accept the fact that our leader is not a man of his word. I'm not surprised, just extremely disappointed. You didn't have to mention your political experience. It shows. You offer excuses like your too busy to read the (209 page) book, yet you have plenty of time to browse the internet as often as you do (on company time no less), righting and reading this crap we all enjoy to indulge in because we have nothing better to do. Wouldn't you rather read a book that could possibly make a great leader out of you? The choice is yours. Some big company CEOs have accepted the need for change and turned their companies around. Others carry on in their traditional fashion until it's too late. Back on the topic of organizing, if the International Office of the IBEW (the union of hearts and minds...LOL) were truly interested in healthy growth through organizing, they would be looking at this as if they were adopting a bigger family than they can feasibly support. It makes no sense to keep adopting when you are unable to feed your family now, in fact I think common sense would forbid it. It's BS to suggest that when we have the greater percentage of the workers we will have the greater percentage of the work because that would mean as we organize we steadily increase our piece of the pie and that just isn't happening. The greater percentage of those being organized today are those that non-union can replace the easiest. We are likely creating a greater burden on union than non-union. IO has been aggressively pushing organizing on LUs for over ten years and there have been very few success stories. I believe the few success stories, if true, are likely due to local economic factors or something other than organizing. IO should go to plan "B" (if they have one), but you've been in this mode of thought for so long you can't see it happening any other way! If this were government, they'd hire a consultant. If the consultant can't fix it, you'd at least have someone else to blame. It's amazing to think our founding Fathers built our Union from nothing. They developed our Constitution based on their morals and beliefs with the intent that we follow it to the letter or amend it accordingly when need be. In the past 110 years, all of the Objects of the Constitution are still the same, but all have lost their significance except for the one that pertains to organizing. Somewhere along the way the other Objects like "To secure adequate pay for our work" and "To seek a higher and higher standard of living" and "To seek security for the individual" just lost the original values our Forefathers had for them. Many members today feel this is the way it has always been and to hell with anyone who wants to change it. In all probability, the shift was so gradual it just wasn't noticed. Like watching your kids grow, before you know it they're grown up, and good or bad, you're still attached to them, defending them even when you know they've done wrong. Why is IO not concerned anymore with security for the individual? Why is IO willing to sacrifice the security of one member to adopt a new member? Why do so many members not have the same high standard of living they once had? There are many questions and few reasonable answers. Just my humble opinion, Tim Mitchinson |
Proposal for Constitutional Change One Man One Vote |
Brothers and Sisters, This is how the proposal will read as of 03/21/02. There may be some minor wording changes as needed for legal reasons, but the meaning of the Amendment will remain the same. This proposal is for one thing and one thing only, to change the method of election for International Officers from the present per-capita delegate vote, to a referendum rank and file vote. This will make the IO directly accountable to the members they are to represent. This will change the IBEW to a Democratic organization directed by the rank and file members, instead of an elite few. We will, for the first time, control our own direction, ideas and methods of operation, as opposed to having it done "in our best interest". We as union members will decide what our best interests are and implement them ourselves with our voice and our vote. The original wording in black is to remain as written. The original wording in red and underlined is to be removed and replaced with the green and underlined wording. The blue and underlined wording has been added to install a new procedure for campaign finance, regulations and spending limits. Proposal for Constitutional Change In the interest of brotherhood and advancement of the idea of democratic elections in the I.B.E.W., I do hereby respectfully propose these changes be made to the Constitution in accordance with, and abiding by, the rules as set forth in Article XXVII of the I.B.E.W. Constitution. (Amendments to this Constitution, Sections 1 through 4) Form 40-Rev. 6/98 Article 3. Section 1. Reads as Follows; The officers of the I.B.E.W. shall be the International President, International Secretary-Treasurer, eleven (11) International Vice Presidents, International Executive Council Chairman and eight (8 International Executive Council members. The officers shall be nominated and elected, by duly elected delegates, at the International Convention. They shall assume their office thirty (30) days after their election, and shall serve for five (5) years or until their successors are elected and qualified. Article 3. Section 1. To Read as Follows; Paragraph (a). The officers of the I.B.E.W., shall be the International President, International Secretary-Treasurer, eleven (11) International Vice Presidents, International Executive Council Chairman and eight (8) International Executive Council members. The officers shall be nominated by any elected delegate to the International Convention of the I.B.E.W., or by petition, with at least one thousand (1000) signatures of members in good standing representing at least 4 L.U.'s, and sent to the I.E.C. for their confirmation, as specified in Article 3. Section 2. A majority of all votes cast shall be necessary to be declared the winner. If a candidate does not receive a majority of all votes cast, the two candidates receiving the most votes shall be reinstated on the ballot and a run-off election shall be held (except in the case of the International Executive Council members, as specified in Article 3. Section 3.). The referendum vote shall be held three (3) months before the International Convention. If a run-off election is necessary, it must be held no later than one (1) month before the International Convention. They shall assume office within thirty (30) days after their election, and shall serve a term of five (5) years or until their successors are elected and qualified. Paragraph (b). Campaign contributions shall be allowed as follows; L.U.s may contribute to candidate(s) in an amount not to exceed one (1) dollar per member in good standing with the candidate(s) to receive the donation to be chosen by a majority vote of members in attendance at a regular meeting. A L.U. may not exceed the one (1) dollar per member campaign donation in any election year. (If a L.U. decides to contribute to more than one candidate the total amount contributed may not exceed the one (1) dollar per member limit and shall be divided among the candidates as chosen by a majority vote at a regular meeting.) Individual campaign donations shall be allowed in the amount(s) of five (5) dollars per candidate, by any member in good standing of the I.B.E.W., and may not be transferred to any other candidate. A candidate may use his or her own money to campaign, provided that this amount does not exceed ten (10) thousand dollars. Any money raised in a campaign by a candidate not used in said campaign, shall be given to the I.B.E.W.s general fund, and used for charitable purposes (donations to charities must be given to only nationally recognized organizations, unless approved by the I.E.C.) as designated by the newly elected International President. Any candidate determined to be in violation, by the International Executive Council, of the limits set forth in this Constitution, shall forfeit all donated campaign contributions to the International general fund (for the above stated purposes) and remove his or her name from the election process for a period of five (5) years. Charges brought by members in good standing, against any candidate may be filed by any duly elected President or Vice-President of any L.U. to the International Executive Council, upon written receipt of such charges. Paragraph (c) Nominations for officers must be delivered to the I.E.C. by December 31 of the year preceding the International Convention, or other election year. The I.E.C. will, upon confirmation of candidates, publish a list of eligible candidates in the March issue of the I.B.E.W. Journal in the International Convention, or other election, year. Candidates will be allowed a one half page statement to be published in the I.B.E.W. Journal, at no cost to the candidate, addressing the issues relevant to the office for which they are nominated. This statement will be published one month prior to the election. Statements shall be listed in alphabetical order, using the candidates surname. Article 3. Section 3. Reads as Follows; The elections of the International President, International Secretary-Treasurer, and International Executive Council Chairman shall be by secret ballot, per capita tax vote when there is more than one candidate, and shall require a majority of all votes cast to constitute an election. When there are more than two candidates for the same office, at every unsuccessful balloting the one receiving the lowest number of votes shall be dropped, the voting to continue until one has received a majority over all. However, the choice for International Vice Presidents, the International Executive council (except the I.E.C. Chairman) and delegates to other Conventions shall be recommended to the Convention by each district. The Convention shall adopt the district's recommendation as its own action, by the I.S.T. casting one ballot for the districts choice. The choice of each district shall be decided by a majority of the L.U.'s of the district represented at the Convention - and present at the time the choice is made - on the basis of one vote for each L.U., by secret ballot, not by a delegate or per capita tax vote. If the district is unable to determine its choice, then the Convention shall decide any contest by a roll call, per capita tax vote. The vote of each L.U. shall be decided by a majority of its delegates. If the delegates of a L.U. are equally divided, then the L.U. shall have no vote. Where there are more than two candidates for the same office in the district, at every unsuccessful balloting the one receiving the lowest number of votes shall be dropped, the voting to continue until one has received a majority over all. (Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to conflict with the above section.) Article 3. Section 3. To Read as Follows; The elections of the International President, International Secretary-Treasurer, International Executive Council Chairman and International Executive Council Members, shall be by referendum secret ballot. When there is more than one candidate, the candidate receiving a majority of the votes shall be declared the winner, as specified in Article 3. Section 1.. In the case of International Executive Council Members, the eight (8) candidates receiving the most votes of those cast, shall be declared the winners. The choice for International Vice Presidents shall be by referendum secret ballot by the L.U.'s in the districts they represent, with a majority vote, as specified in Article 3. Section 1., required for election. There shall be one (1) Vice President elected for each of the eleven (11) districts. In case of a tie in any of these elections, the sitting IEC will declare the winner. The process used will be, the candidate receiving the most votes in the L.U.'s referendum vote shall be cast as one vote, for that candidate, for the L.U., with the majority vote of the L.U.'s constituting the winner. (Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to conflict with the above section.) Article 3. Section 4. Reads as Follows; At all elections where it becomes necessary to have an electronic, secret ballot vote, the presiding officer shall appoint an election judge and, if necessary, tellers. He shall announce the names of the candidates in rotation. Each candidate may be present or may be represented by a member during the vote tally. All election records shall be preserved for a period of one year. Article 3. Section 4. To Read as Follows; One year prior to all elections the International President, International Secretary-Treasurer and the International Executive Council Chairman, shall each appoint an international election judge to oversee the election. These judges shall appoint one (1) district teller for each of the eleven (11) districts. The local union Presidents will oversee the election at the designated local polling places, appointing assistant tellers as necessary, and report the vote tally to the district teller, who will then report the results to the international election judges. The election judges will also oversee the auditing of campaign donations, as specified in Article 3. Section 1. Paragraph (b). An audit of said donations shall be published in the I.B.E.W. Journal, no later than three (3) months after the election. Reasonable expenses incurred in auditing shall be funded from the I.B.E.W. General Fund., and be included in the publication of the audit. |