IWW (Sab) cat fight
Feb 1 2008 09:10
#92
yowzers! that must have hurt!
Feb 1 2008 13:32
#93
thugarchist wrote:
newyawka wrote:
Tyee-tin-tin wrote:
klatawa kopa Duwumps mesachieman
i dunno, but that doesn't sound complimentary
walk towards seattle bigfoot?
Feb 4 2008 06:46
#94
thugarchist wrote:
walk towards seattle bigfoot?
I would translate as "Come to Duwumps Tough Guy", Duwumps being a particular place in what is now Seattle.
Bigfoot is Seatco or Tsiatko.
Feb 4 2008 13:51
#95
fnbrill wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
walk towards seattle bigfoot?I would translate as "Come to Duwumps Tough Guy".
oh, so not so far off.
Feb 7 2008 04:34
#96
oliver twister wrote:
fnbrill wrote:
Bekken, the audit committee, etc. are creating a climate of confusion and disorder in the IWWYou are off your rocker man.
Oliver could you fill us in as to any changes in the audit committee report requested by the GEB?
Feb 7 2008 11:00
#97
I have no idea what you're on about, but if you are just bandying about things like that the "audit committee are creating a climate of confusion and disorder in the IWW" then you've lost any hold on reality.
Feb 7 2008 20:45
#98
OliverTwister wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about, but if you are just bandying about things like that the "audit committee are creating a climate of confusion and disorder in the IWW" then you've lost any hold on reality.
I heard that the audit committee was told to edit thier report and exclude the insinuations of GST incompetence found in the draft.
Feb 9 2008 19:18
#99
fnbrill wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about, but if you are just bandying about things like that the "audit committee are creating a climate of confusion and disorder in the IWW" then you've lost any hold on reality.I heard that the audit committee was told to edit thier report and exclude the insinuations of GST incompetence found in the draft.
Of course.
Feb 10 2008 12:14
#100
You know, I haven't really been following that situation. I don't think the GST is incompetent, i think our structure is all wrong and we shouldn't have a full-timer doing that work (at least not all of it). The CNTs seven times our size and they have no full-timers.
BUT do you seriously think its a good thing that people elected to carry out this task had their report censored, at least according to what you're saying?
If the audit committee thought the GST were incompetent, its their duty to say that!
Feb 10 2008 14:34
#101
Nobody has been censored. Get off the libcom drama board and talk to people who were at the meeting. That shouldn't prove too difficult.
Feb 10 2008 21:19
#102
Circle the wagons isn't an effective strategy pgh. Circle the wagons means bury the issue.
What have you accomplished on your promise to rectify the problems with new testimony at a charges hearing? Specifics. Remember you promised if I dropped the conversation off libcom, you were going to fight to rectify the issue.
Feb 11 2008 01:32
#103
I am not sure what you mean about new testimony, but I did speak with the individual at issue, and encouraged him strongly to pursue the matter through the appeals process which would have given him an additional opportunity to be heard by the entire membership, without rushed deliberation.
Aug 23 2008 06:45
#104
OliverTwister wrote:
Also the other charges proposal would have been disastrous, the Philly one was preferred by the charges reform committee with certain amendments, and quite a few people were actively supporting it: Jim Crutchfield, PghWob, myself.
Well here's the latest report on machinations being made to stop charges reform in the IWW. From the head of the Reform Committee:
Quote:
HG's contention that I am submitting the charges reform and mediation proposals as an individual is incorrect.By the logic that HG is using, GEB members would be classed as individuals, too, and would not be able to put forward motions for vote. This argument is nonsense because the reason why GEB members can put forward ideas for vote and debate is because they are elected. I also was elected by the General Assembly to bring a proposal forward. GA2008 deserves the respect as a body of the union to be able to debate and discuss the work done by its own elected chair.
GA2007 delegates elected me by a wide margin over JC to be the chair of the Charges Reform Committee. I tried several times to convene a committee, via the GOB, charges reform list and iww-list. No one directly contacted me to join the committee. That isn't surprising given the train wreck of last year's reform efforts (four proposals, no reform). I have acted transparently in this matter before the GEB and members and had no objection until HG acted.
It should be noted that HG and OT from the Bay Area GMB had a hand in blocking reform by having the Philadelphia proposal (amended to include much of JC's proposal), put on the ballot at the last minute of last year's Assembly, when fewest delegates remained and everyone was exhausted. This was done against the recommendation of the GA charges reform ad hoc committee and Charges Reform Committee's recommendations to only put one proposal on the ballot so the members could make a clear choice: yes or no. In effect, by putting two proposals on the ballot instead of one, I think HG helped torpedo charges reform even before the members had voted.
On the proposals, which have been in circulation since May 28 (a month before last year's Charges Reform Committee first circulated its proposal), I have received comments and feedback from a good number of members who are interested in charges reform, such as CP, JL, AM, AW, JB, MW, and most recently the Twin Cities GMB. I am trying to address this feedback and include improved language in a final draft to be considered by GA. I will try to do that this week, now that the September Industrial Worker is done.
The GEB should also be aware that the Philadelphia GMB has written me as a branch and said that, if I didn't withdraw the charges reform and mediation proposals, they would block it at Assembly and referendum. HG for her part said she would do what she is doing now: trying to remove the proposals from the GA agenda approved by the GEB using this technical argument. In response, I have tried to engage them, asking for concrete suggestions and language to improve the proposal. The Philadelphia GMB has yet to respond. HG responded that she didn't have time.
I made time to put forward these two proposals. IWW members have made time to comment and provide suggestions.
It is time for the GEB to show some leadership and ensure these proposals are put on the GA2008 agenda where they can be debated, amended as necessary, and rejected or accepted for referendum.
Aug 23 2008 15:28
#105
Quote:
It should be noted that HG and OT from the Bay Area GMB had a hand in blocking reform by having the Philadelphia proposal (amended to include much of JC's proposal), put on the ballot at the last minute of last year's Assembly, when fewest delegates remained and everyone was exhausted.
Regardless of whether there's merit in the rest of the post (which I will look into), this is bullshit. The GA rules clearly state that if an item is to be re-introduced for discussion, it must be put at the end of the agenda. I tried to bring it up again immediately and was unable to do so. This is a pretty dishonest implication by the author. Plus, HG had nothing to do with this, although she supported it,but she was sitting next to me, and dating me at the time, so why not attack the two of us as a unit?
It's also worth noting that there were five or so people gathering signatures as soon as the item was initially defeated, to have it put on referendum. I think it would have made enough signatures even if I didn't reintroduce it.
The question for us wasn't "Reform or not" but "do we want a reform that will cause even more problems than the current system?" and "how many years will it take the membership to learn and get sick of a new system that has a number of flaws, before they will listen to any proposal to bring the issue back up?" Also lets keep in mind that the one I supported was also supported by the majority of the Committee, and I daresay that many people voted against it out of dislike for the sponsors, rather than out of dislike for the motion itself.
Aug 23 2008 16:34
#106
OliverTwister wrote:
Quote:
It should be noted that HG and OT from the Bay Area GMB had a hand in blocking reform by having the Philadelphia proposal (amended to include much of JC's proposal), put on the ballot at the last minute of last year's Assembly, when fewest delegates remained and everyone was exhausted.Regardless of whether there's merit in the rest of the post (which I will look into), this is bullshit. The GA rules clearly state that if an item is to be re-introduced for discussion, it must be put at the end of the agenda. I tried to bring it up again immediately and was unable to do so. This is a pretty dishonest implication by the author. Plus, HG had nothing to do with this, although she supported it,but she was sitting next to me, and dating me at the time, so why not attack the two of us as a unit?
It's also worth noting that there were five or so people gathering signatures as soon as the item was initially defeated, to have it put on referendum. I think it would have made enough signatures even if I didn't reintroduce it.
The question for us wasn't "Reform or not" but "do we want a reform that will cause even more problems than the current system?" and "how many years will it take the membership to learn and get sick of a new system that has a number of flaws, before they will listen to any proposal to bring the issue back up?" Also lets keep in mind that the one I supported was also supported by the majority of the Committee, and I daresay that many people voted against it out of dislike for the sponsors, rather than out of dislike for the motion itself.
Does the current charges system say anything about spending union money on plane tickets without authorization?
Aug 23 2008 17:32
#107
thugarchist wrote:
Does the current charges system say anything about spending union money on plane tickets without authorization?
No, nor does it forbid the IWW renting an inaccessible basement for almost as much as the "community" bookstore storefront above.
Aug 23 2008 19:54
#108
fnbrill wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Does the current charges system say anything about spending union money on plane tickets without authorization?No, nor does it forbid the IWW renting an inaccessible basement for almost as much as the "community" bookstore storefront above.
I think the DoL requires you to have some authorization process for spending money.
Aug 23 2008 21:21
#109
thugarchist wrote:
I think the DoL requires you to have some authorization process for spending money.
I the IWW all you need is the Rubber Stamp signature (literal not figurative) of the GEB chair.
Aug 24 2008 00:41
#110
fnbrill, don't you ever wonder why the only person who takes you seriously is a pork-chopper who hates the IWW?
Aug 24 2008 01:06
#111
OliverTwister wrote:
fnbrill, don't you ever wonder why the only person who takes you seriously is a pork-chopper who hates the IWW?
Is that the only retort you could think of OT? I've thought many things of you, naïve, ideological, young, etc. but never dumb. And that's what this response is - dumb.
Aug 24 2008 01:57
#112
OliverTwister wrote:
fnbrill, don't you ever wonder why the only person who takes you seriously is a pork-chopper who hates the IWW?
Its not my fault your girlfriend embezzled money and then demanded to be compensated for it.
Aug 24 2008 09:48
#113
thugarchist wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
fnbrill, don't you ever wonder why the only person who takes you seriously is a pork-chopper who hates the IWW?Its not my fault your girlfriend embezzled money and then demanded to be compensated for it.
Ex-girlfriend.
Anyways I have no idea whether or not she embezzled money, I spend very little time thinking about the international IWW, but to bring this back to the rather stupid theme of charges process, the charges reform proposal that fnbrill seems to favor (at least on the grounds that I, and a rather large number of sensible people opposed it) had a mandatory first step of 'mediation'. If there is embezzlement occurring how does one 'mediate' that?
Aug 24 2008 19:37
#114
Quote:
If there is embezzlement occurring how does one 'mediate' that?
Come clean and see if there was a misunderstanding of the process for authorising how money is spent. The idea is to have a discussion of where things went wrong and own up to mistakes that were made and make sure they don't happen again. The purpose of internal discipline should not be used to sort out differences between people with opposing opinions on the direction of the union.
Aug 24 2008 20:21
#115
OliverTwister wrote:
the charges reform proposal that fnbrill seems to favor (at least on the grounds that I, and a rather large number of sensible people opposed it)
Sensible? Here's what you said about JB:
Oliver Twister wrote:
Bekken is naive and actually thinks that charges are a neutral and impersonal method to challenge the conduct of officers and other members.
Or Philly? Whose 12 members "revolutionary unionism" is running a privately owned bookstore owned by their landlord and branch treasurer? As well as not collecting on $40,000 of IWW literature shipped.
AB who stopped doing her constitutionally mandated duties (producing the GOB and financial reports) as GST and now gives the GST lectures on financial responsiblity? And (as GST) went on a 3 week junket visiting her German A-S comrades while ignoring folks in Europe wanting to join the IWW?
Or the guy who is so "sensible" that people doing actual organizing got him sent on the Haiti delegation to get him out of their hair?
Sensible? How about your dumb-ass "Shit-List" faction whose behind the scenes machivellianism was so ham fisted that people were happier with a buffoon for BST? And now all you "Class warriors" are leaving the BAGMB tails between your legs...
Why is it that folks with *real* kick-ass shop floor working class experience are the ones hounded out of the IWW by your "sensible" folks? Your buddies are going around slandering a BIROC member who organized thousands of Australian Timber workers against their bosses and union. The guy you folks so magnificently expelled for mentioning a love triangle on an e-mail list, organized 300 bus drivers in Texas, was the editor of the TDU's newspaper, and recently was a lead organizer on a campiagn organizing 13,000 workers - roughly 14 times the size of the IWW.
But they aren't knowledgable nor sensible. Your axis of sensiblity comprise experience of what? JB's experience as a shop steward of an adjunct professors union? AB's capitulation to no-strike clauses because the Quakers were mean to her? HG's cupdity in purchasing her and WW's airline tickets on the union's dime?
OT - you've said repeatedly that I should be an invaluable mentor to the IWW if I would only shut up about the problems I see in the IWW. How would that mentoring? I've said that you aren't a stupid man. But you are so being dumb. Just because folks read the same things as you doesn't make them correct or good.
Aug 24 2008 20:40
#116
John Bekken and friends = The Gus Bevona's of the IWW.
Aug 30 2008 20:17
#117
[delete]
Sorry for feeding the troll.
Aug 25 2008 02:49
#118
you guys seem upset about something.
Aug 30 2008 04:44
#119
[delete]
Sorry for feeding the troll
Aug 30 2008 04:45
#120
[ditto]
walk towards seattle bigfoot?