Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 1:18am.
So because you told us who would be appointed leaders before the merger, that makes it democratic? What about the part where we get to chose who our leaders are? What about the part where a member gets to decide if he or she wants to run? The fact is there was no legitimate officer election until over a year after the uhw merger and the only choice members had was to vote to merge and accept the appointed leaders given or vote not to merge.
Your logic on that vote is about as sound as your logic that says that adding 2000 more members in card check California is more significant than adding 55,000 in right to work North Carolina.
So because you told us who would be appointed leaders before the merger, that makes it democratic? What about the part where we get to chose who our leaders are? What about the part where a member gets to decide if he or she wants to run? The fact is there was no legitimate officer election until over a year after the uhw merger and the only choice members had was to vote to merge and accept the appointed leaders given or vote not to merge.
Your logic on that vote is about as sound as your logic that says that adding 2000 more members in card check California is more significant than adding 55,000 in right to work North Carolina.