Bad standing II

It is a simple principle anyone who is in bad standing can not hold office, whether through election or appointment. The pending federal case which is against TWU International whom all of its actors who were in bad standing are from TWU Local 100 - so why do we have this high number of officers in TWU Local 100 who were in bad standing. In addition why ruin the reputation of TWU as a rogue organization by not being accountable or having safeguard mechanisms to ferret out any one who is in bad standing why ignore, overlook or sweep under the rug the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 LMRDA, the Transport Worker Union Constitution TWUC and the TWU Local 100 By-Laws - pick your choice of answers you may get from those actors. However based on the facts in the pending case it is not only three officers who were in bad standing but it is ‘over thirty (30)’ as per the US District Judge now we have learned that number stands at ‘forty one (41)’ as per TWU Local 100 those answers should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 LMRDA - Title IV - USC 481, 482, 483, and 484 was violated no question about that.

TWU Constitution TWUC - Article IV, International Officers Section 6. No union member shall be eligible for nomination or election to any International office, or to the International Executive Board, unless he/she shall have been in continuos good standing in the International Union for at least two (2) years immediately preceding his/her nomination. 

Article XIII, Membership, Section 3. Membership dues are due and payable on the first working day in each calendar month. Any member who fails to pay his/her dues for a particular month on or before the fifteenth day of each month shall be in bad standing.

Article XIII, Membership, Section 4. Any member in bad standing shall be ineligible to attend Union meetings, to be a candidate for or hold any Union Office or position, or to vote in any Union election or referendum, or otherwise to participate in Union affairs - were violated.

As an institution TWU International proclaims it instills fairness however when you have ‘forty one (41)’ current officers in TWU Local 100 who were in bad standing it portrays a negative image that TWU International is unable to police itself thus judicial intervention is warranted. If TWU International banned those bad standing current officers ‘forty one (41)’ from holding office for life then one could have believed TWU International as a clean organization however as long as those ‘forty one (41)’ are allowed to hold office then that makes it clear that TWU International condones their shameless behavior.

It could have been a powerful point if TWU International prosecuted anyone who was in bad standing that would have been a clear message to the membership that no bad standing is tolerated. Not only will it not be tolerated in addition we are not going to allow you to hold office - obviously there is no bravery or courage to speak against bad standing, however ‘forty one (41)’ is disgraceful by the mess they have created or how they looked the other way.

Is this case worth the good money being thrown away behind the bad? Obviously not membership funds should be used to pay for legal fees.