Protests and Responses to the eligibility of Forde, Thomassen and Sheil as candidates for the NYCDCC 2008 Election:
2009-01-09 Franco Letter to McCarron
2008-12-29 Election Monitor Decision to Franco
2008-12-18 Franco Letter to Election Monitor
2008-12-16 NYCDCC Election Committee response to Franco
2008-12-05 Franco Letter to NYCDCC Election Committee
2008-11-14 NYCDCC Election Committee response to Franco
2008-11-03 Franco Letter to the NYCDCC Election Committee
2008-02-01 McCarron response to Forde
2008-01-25 Forde Letter to McCarron
After you read the letters, let us know what you think.
(Updated 2009-01-19)
(Updated 2009-01-05)
2008-12-19
2008-12-14
NYCDCC 2008 Election Results
Preliminary Results
(Not counting the 161 "Challenge" Votes)
Local...........Walk-..Mail-.............%
Union.Eligible.....In.....In..Total..Voted
...20 .....659.....73.....27....100..15.2%
...45.....1898....293.....61....354..18.7%
..157.....3746....492.....70....562..15.0%
..608.....6835....912....169...1081..15.8%
..740......359.....90.....38....128..35.7%
..926.....1870....248.....54....302..16.1%
.1456.....1778....393....256....649..36.5%
.1536.....1118....343.....42....385..34.4%
.2090.....1668....134....106....240..14.4%
.2287.....1119.....90.....50....140..12.5%
.2780.....1544.....35.....12.....47...3.0%
Ineligible.................3......3.......
.........22594...3103....882...3985..17.6%
......................................%.of
Position............Candidate.Votes...Vote
Vice President.......Musumeci...149...3.7%
....................Davenport...328...8.2%
......................DiLacio...498..12.5%
........................Sheil..2923..73.4%
...................(Withheld)....87...2.2%
President..............Todman...431..10.8%
....................Thomassen..3326..83.5%
...................(Withheld)...228...5.7%
EST.....................Forde..3573..89.7%
...................(Withheld)...412..10.3%
We sincerely and graciously thank all those who supported us.
(Updated 2008-12-21 10:19 PM)
(Updated 2008-12-17 03:11 AM)
2008-12-08
Those willing to act
Igueswere****edthen, the following is in response to your 2008-12-03 07:12 AM Cbox post, “Not only will the same leadership be present, and I do applaud the challenge as it accomplished for the first time under an information era there are those willing to act”
You stated, “…I do applaud the challenge as it accomplished for the first time under an information era there are those willing to act.” We appreciate your gratitude and we will continue to act.
You also stated, “Not only will the same leadership be present…” Well, not necessarily, at least not for long.
The “rumor” that Forde, Thomassen, and Sheil are collecting pension benefits came to our attention just days before the November 3 nomination meeting. We waited the few days until they were nominated, since we needed to address the pension issue only if they were nominated. With the pension issue being, they shouldn’t be allowed to seek re-election while collecting pension benefits. That night, November 3, we submitted our complaint letters regarding this issue to the Election Committee.
We insist that those who have been elected or are seeking reelection and are receiving pensions should be deemed ineligible to have held or hold their elected positions. Those who are receiving pension benefits are considered retired and, for the NYDCC Pension Plan, aka the “on-the-tools” pension, cannot work 40 hours or more per month in “disqualifying employment” to receive benefits. If a member is working less than 40 hours per month, they are not depending on the trade for a livelihood. Those who are retired or are not depending on the trade for a livelihood cannot hold union officer positions, amongst other positions. If a member receives pension benefits and works 40 hours or more in a month they must repay the received benefit, if they do not they are likely to have unrightfully received pension benefits. This means that Forde, Thomassen, and Sheil should at least be found to not have been eligible to run in the NYCDCC 2008 Election and may have unrightfully been receiving pension benefits. Only after internal remedies have been exhausted, we can then bring this case before the US DOL. We’re working on it.
You stated, “…I do applaud the challenge as it accomplished for the first time under an information era there are those willing to act.” We appreciate your gratitude and we will continue to act.
You also stated, “Not only will the same leadership be present…” Well, not necessarily, at least not for long.
The “rumor” that Forde, Thomassen, and Sheil are collecting pension benefits came to our attention just days before the November 3 nomination meeting. We waited the few days until they were nominated, since we needed to address the pension issue only if they were nominated. With the pension issue being, they shouldn’t be allowed to seek re-election while collecting pension benefits. That night, November 3, we submitted our complaint letters regarding this issue to the Election Committee.
We insist that those who have been elected or are seeking reelection and are receiving pensions should be deemed ineligible to have held or hold their elected positions. Those who are receiving pension benefits are considered retired and, for the NYDCC Pension Plan, aka the “on-the-tools” pension, cannot work 40 hours or more per month in “disqualifying employment” to receive benefits. If a member is working less than 40 hours per month, they are not depending on the trade for a livelihood. Those who are retired or are not depending on the trade for a livelihood cannot hold union officer positions, amongst other positions. If a member receives pension benefits and works 40 hours or more in a month they must repay the received benefit, if they do not they are likely to have unrightfully received pension benefits. This means that Forde, Thomassen, and Sheil should at least be found to not have been eligible to run in the NYCDCC 2008 Election and may have unrightfully been receiving pension benefits. Only after internal remedies have been exhausted, we can then bring this case before the US DOL. We’re working on it.
They Will Always Rule Against You
Rich, the following is in response to your 2008-12-03 06:49 PM Cbox post, “[You’re] appealing to the wrong party. They will always rule against you because they want you out naturally. File a complaint with the DOL arguing discrimination and let the DOL not some council or UBC asswipe determine if you were indeed ever a contractor which you clearly were not.”
I knew before even being nominated that my former company was going to be an issue. If the Unity Team didn’t pick-up on this it would have been blatantly obvious that they were inattentive to my history and would have invited much further questioning their inattentiveness about other matters. Additionally, I knew their attempt to use my former company against me would likely eventually backfire upon them because they didn’t know that I requested to become a shop signatory and that I had been seeking a CBA to cover the residential market.
I knew well before their submission of the complaint of allegedly being a “contractor” was presented and was ruled upon the NYCDCC Election Committee they would rule that I was a contractor because they are bound by the letter of the UBC Constitution. However, if this case was brought before a judge, who having discrepancy over such matters and taking into account precedence and actual implementation of the UBC Constitution and CBA’s, it is quite possible that I have been allowed to retain my eligibility. However, this would require more money and time than I can afford and would not have happened before the upcoming election. Additionally, there are other arguments and remedies still available.
I know that the order of events will usually proceed as - first they will ignore, then they will ridicule, then they will attack, and then there will be truth (and those who were hiding something will lose).
Nonetheless, I must exhaust internal remedies first for two reasons. One, I prefer/need to request from and give to our representatives the opportunity to respond and act. Two, if/when they fail or refuse to respond and act then I have gained personal experience to further understand directly who, what, where, when, why, and how. With this information and understanding, either I have provided additional weight to their defense or to their removal. I am not out to get anyone. I have no vendetta. Simply, I do not agree with many of the actions and inactions of the NYCDCC representatives and want to correct the direction from the one we have been traveling.
I knew before even being nominated that my former company was going to be an issue. If the Unity Team didn’t pick-up on this it would have been blatantly obvious that they were inattentive to my history and would have invited much further questioning their inattentiveness about other matters. Additionally, I knew their attempt to use my former company against me would likely eventually backfire upon them because they didn’t know that I requested to become a shop signatory and that I had been seeking a CBA to cover the residential market.
I knew well before their submission of the complaint of allegedly being a “contractor” was presented and was ruled upon the NYCDCC Election Committee they would rule that I was a contractor because they are bound by the letter of the UBC Constitution. However, if this case was brought before a judge, who having discrepancy over such matters and taking into account precedence and actual implementation of the UBC Constitution and CBA’s, it is quite possible that I have been allowed to retain my eligibility. However, this would require more money and time than I can afford and would not have happened before the upcoming election. Additionally, there are other arguments and remedies still available.
I know that the order of events will usually proceed as - first they will ignore, then they will ridicule, then they will attack, and then there will be truth (and those who were hiding something will lose).
Nonetheless, I must exhaust internal remedies first for two reasons. One, I prefer/need to request from and give to our representatives the opportunity to respond and act. Two, if/when they fail or refuse to respond and act then I have gained personal experience to further understand directly who, what, where, when, why, and how. With this information and understanding, either I have provided additional weight to their defense or to their removal. I am not out to get anyone. I have no vendetta. Simply, I do not agree with many of the actions and inactions of the NYCDCC representatives and want to correct the direction from the one we have been traveling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
