Rack em
Made the Podium
Makes sense to me. 54%=20% the math checks out.
New tdu article on halt to ratification
- Thread starter Delivery!!!
- Start date
Mooseknuckle
Well-Known Member
It's a stretch to say that all the people that didn't vote equals a yes vote.
Rack em
Made the Podium
I agree, my previous post was me being sarcastic...
Mooseknuckle
Well-Known Member
I thought you might be. I didn't think that I could've met two people that dumb in one day. cheers!
Rick Ross
I'm into distribution!!
If the majority of those voting voted no, what logic are you using to say the "bulk of the membership wanted it or didn't care"?
Reason would have to say non-voters didn't care...if they wanted it they would have voted yes.
Half right.
Nothing clear about it and the converse is just as applicable, if not more so as negativity is the stronger driver. They didn't vote no so clearly they didn't disapprove of the offer.
Members vote when their interests are affected. The big bad IBT made voting easier and yet the "clear" majority of members didn't make the effort, so "logic" would indicate they're OK with any outcome.
Want to see those responsible for this NMA...look at your non voting co-workers.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
@Inthegame already responded with the correct response.
No, they did not vote yes, but they also did not vote no, so they were either OK with the contract or it didn't bother them enough to vote no.
Most of the members that hated this contract and didn't want it made their voices heard and voted no.
I'm telling you that 54% of the 90,000 that actually voted, cast a no vote.
Less than half the membership voted, and I'll correct your total membership number here, of the eligible voters, roughly 1/4 voted no.
That means 3/4 of the eligible voters either voted yes or didn't care enough to vote no.
Seems that a lot of people here have trouble with math.
54% of the 90,000 that voted is 20% of the total membership of 260,000. If you're still having trouble with the math, go to your nearest grade school and ask a first grader to do the math for you.
Yes, it is, I agree with that.
But if they hated this contract so much, you would have thought that they would have voted no instead of not voting at all. So logic says that most didn't really care one way or the other or were OK with it.
Rick Ross
I'm into distribution!!
I would agree that negativity is probably a stronger driver, but in this instance, the union had sent each of us a dozen or so glossy mailings stating a yes vote was the only way to make sure a work stoppage didn't happen (or something along those lines). Those mailing we're sent to coerce anyone who liked the contract or indifferent into voting yes by using fear of a potential strike to make them vote yes.
Had there not been a strike authorization and numerous mailings threatening work stoppage, I would have said indifferent voters would have been split more evenly between yes and no.
Rick Ross
I'm into distribution!!
How can you say they wouldn't be bothered enough to vote with the union mailing constant propaganda telling us a yes vote is the only way to make sure there wasn't a work stoppage.
Had there not been a strike authorization I would agree, but with that and all the mailings mentioning a work stoppage it seems doubtful anyone informed and truly not caring either way would be OK going on strike.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
I agree with this in principal, but they still did not vote. Even if they were scared of a strike, that would infer that most of the non-voters probably would have voted yes to avoid that strike, as you put it.
I have never said that I agree with the IBT recommending this contract, or pushing so hard for a yes vote, or coming just shy of saying there will be a strike if we turn it down. I even called Hoffa basically shady for keeping the 2/3 majority quiet and holding that wildcard in his back pocket.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
See my other post. We did it at the same time.
Rick Ross
I'm into distribution!!
Why do you insist on counting members who didn't vote. If you didn't vote you lost your say in the outcome of the vote.
Rick Ross
I'm into distribution!!
You know way more about the contract than I ever will.
How do we fix the fact that roughly 48,000 votes can auothrize the entire union to strike but 52,000 no votes isn't enough to renegotiate due to the possibility of being locked out? I'm guessing that's what they will say the reason for forcing it through is, legally it doesn't seem like their hands were truly tied.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
I don't. And never brought it up until @Mooseknuckle brought it up yesterday.
Do you remember the post I replied to? Here it is...
Bottom line I have been saying all along, 54% voting no did not meet the 2/3 majority to turn it down, and I do not make the rules.
Just like the contract. I did not write it, but I still enforce it, for the good or the bad.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
We need to change the IBT Constitution, or get more than half the members to vote.
Either one is going to be difficult. But once Hoffa is gone, the Constitution may be the easier one.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
The funny thing about changing the IBT constitution....
There are always elected delegates, that don't bother to vote at the convention.
Mugarolla
Light 'em up!
Sounds like us.....
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
The elected delegates that don't vote, can be stripped of their credentials and be
forced to reimburse their Local for wages, per diem, hotel cost, and plane tickets.
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
"can" is not the same as "shall" or "will".
We all know the "good 'ol boys" aren't gonna strip the credentials from one of their homies.
Similar threads
