The government is now floating the idea of term limits for senators, or so one of the news organizations reported last evening. Wonder if we can get that into the new Accountability Act? By the end of this minority government, the Accountability Act should be bulging, that is if the Conservatives have changed their stripes and mean what they say when they speak of accountability.
Term limits. huh? Hmmmmm..........Wonder where else we could use an idea like that? Chin scratch ...chin scratch, headrrub...headrrrub...Somethings being twigged-hafta leave it to the readers to decide where else we could use an idea like this!!
Lets explore the idea first.
Term limits. I can see people arguing that along with senators, heads of Crown Corporations and other bodies such as those should have term limits as well.
Term limits are good for allowing new and fresh ideas to revitalize organizations.
Its good for the purpose of renewal and conversely it is also good for the people who sometimes get stuck with stressful and challenging tasks simply because thats the most expedient way of doing things.
Term limits allow younger people to move in and get trained in various vital services that are sometimes mandated by the law or are promised by contract, because a set date is available as to when training should be completed.
It is also good for egos. Often people who have served in positions for a long time may feel ownership of that particular position or job and will be reluctant to train a replacement. Sadly this sometimes results in vicious infighting and destroys not just friendships, but also the precious resources that have been developed over time for the collective good.
Good progressive organizations usually build on previous gains, a continuum is developed and information collected and gathered through mutual experiences is passed on smoothly. Organizations that use a system of term limits are usually around for a long time.
Isn't that what we all want............long term?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
An Accountability Act, Conservatively speaking
Meantime, here in Canada, our Conservative government is doing some interesting stuff. One thing that arouses interest is this Accountability Act.
Since this new brand of The Reformed Alliance of Conservatives has talked about being accountable, I have a few questions.
Will they fr'instance...agree to some citizen participation in this accountability schtuff?
Would they entertain the notion of not entering into failed notions of trade, such as the Free Trade agreements that have only served to free many Canadians of essentials such as a well paid job?
Would they introduce legislation to make all political parties register their election platforms with an independent body such as Elections Canada, thereby pledging to enact the very laws they promised during an election. Nothing more (at least nothing like Brian Mulroneys Free Trade Agreement & North American FreeTrade Agreement),Nothing less?
Now that would be accountability!!
Since this new brand of The Reformed Alliance of Conservatives has talked about being accountable, I have a few questions.
Will they fr'instance...agree to some citizen participation in this accountability schtuff?
Would they entertain the notion of not entering into failed notions of trade, such as the Free Trade agreements that have only served to free many Canadians of essentials such as a well paid job?
Would they introduce legislation to make all political parties register their election platforms with an independent body such as Elections Canada, thereby pledging to enact the very laws they promised during an election. Nothing more (at least nothing like Brian Mulroneys Free Trade Agreement & North American FreeTrade Agreement),Nothing less?
Now that would be accountability!!
Monday, May 22, 2006
Conflict of Interest
One of the earliest times I got into trouble in the Local was on the issue of conflict of interest.
Pissed off the powers that be!
One of my committee members wanted to sell issue specific items to our committee.
I felt that was a conflict of interest. Although the potential existed for this member to come up with all kinds of proposals to sell other gee-gaws to our committee, the truth of it simply was that I do not believe that a rep ought to financially benefit from a union position.
A personal opinion, just that!
I felt that the member should make a choice. Either be a committee member or a peddler who sold it gee-gaws. I felt that it would be conflict of interest if the member wanted to do both.
The Locals leadership had never heard of the term before and believed that I had made it up. They felt that I must have a "personality conflict" ( a term that continues to affect service to our members) with the member and that I should just shut and accept past practice.
I was acclaimed "troublemaker" of the year....that year!
Examples of conflict of interest;
1) Having an appointee as a trustee is a conflict of interest. The appointee is put in the position of auditing his/her political superiors actions.
Perception is that such a trustees independence to make decisions on behalf of the membership is compromised.
1B) Which leads to; Trustees should not take part in Executive Board decisions. They should not be made to review their own decisions. If they do so, can they be properly objective?
Fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities knowing full well they participated in the decisions they are being asked to audit?
Trustees should work independently from the Executive Board and meet with them only to report audit results or on Trustee specific issues.
2) The son/daughter/relative of an office holder cannot be "Election Chairperson" or for that matter be a member of an election committee.
This leads to all kinds of negative perceptions and accusations and damages the credibility of the electoral process and many innocent election committee members for generations to come.
3) If an officer or leader is forced to give up an assignment because he/she has so many relatives working in one location, that the leader/officer cannot properly represent them, then that officer/leader cannot again run for the same position or any position that involves that particular unit or workplace in the future. We should be especially mindful of this because we are an industry that uses the preferential hiring system and thus have many relatives as co-workers. Its a potential minefield in many many ways that are yet to manifest themselves.
Matter-of-fact if we had such by-laws they would have had to resign from office immediately, due to conflict of interest.
These are but three examples of what constitutes a conflict of interest. This is a topic that can and should, in a democratic institution, be debated for as long as even the possibility of improper influence exists. Far more damaging than improper influence is the cronyism that sometimes develops among long-serving members, that adversely affects membership services.
Debate leads to action. Conflict of interest by-laws set strict guidelines to help avoid these minefields.
To deflate the use of the old tried, tested and much used cliches such as , "Personality conflict" and "sour grapes" that our current leadership uses when their actions are criticized or even questioned, I want to make this statement. This is not about criticizing individuals-This is about reforming a system.
This is not about criticizing any individual or about trying to get at any individual. It's simply abour fixing a system that continually produces crisis and division.
This is simply about getting the best possible service for dues paying members.
Pissed off the powers that be!
One of my committee members wanted to sell issue specific items to our committee.
I felt that was a conflict of interest. Although the potential existed for this member to come up with all kinds of proposals to sell other gee-gaws to our committee, the truth of it simply was that I do not believe that a rep ought to financially benefit from a union position.
A personal opinion, just that!
I felt that the member should make a choice. Either be a committee member or a peddler who sold it gee-gaws. I felt that it would be conflict of interest if the member wanted to do both.
The Locals leadership had never heard of the term before and believed that I had made it up. They felt that I must have a "personality conflict" ( a term that continues to affect service to our members) with the member and that I should just shut and accept past practice.
I was acclaimed "troublemaker" of the year....that year!
Examples of conflict of interest;
1) Having an appointee as a trustee is a conflict of interest. The appointee is put in the position of auditing his/her political superiors actions.
Perception is that such a trustees independence to make decisions on behalf of the membership is compromised.
1B) Which leads to; Trustees should not take part in Executive Board decisions. They should not be made to review their own decisions. If they do so, can they be properly objective?
Fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities knowing full well they participated in the decisions they are being asked to audit?
Trustees should work independently from the Executive Board and meet with them only to report audit results or on Trustee specific issues.
2) The son/daughter/relative of an office holder cannot be "Election Chairperson" or for that matter be a member of an election committee.
This leads to all kinds of negative perceptions and accusations and damages the credibility of the electoral process and many innocent election committee members for generations to come.
3) If an officer or leader is forced to give up an assignment because he/she has so many relatives working in one location, that the leader/officer cannot properly represent them, then that officer/leader cannot again run for the same position or any position that involves that particular unit or workplace in the future. We should be especially mindful of this because we are an industry that uses the preferential hiring system and thus have many relatives as co-workers. Its a potential minefield in many many ways that are yet to manifest themselves.
Matter-of-fact if we had such by-laws they would have had to resign from office immediately, due to conflict of interest.
These are but three examples of what constitutes a conflict of interest. This is a topic that can and should, in a democratic institution, be debated for as long as even the possibility of improper influence exists. Far more damaging than improper influence is the cronyism that sometimes develops among long-serving members, that adversely affects membership services.
Debate leads to action. Conflict of interest by-laws set strict guidelines to help avoid these minefields.
To deflate the use of the old tried, tested and much used cliches such as , "Personality conflict" and "sour grapes" that our current leadership uses when their actions are criticized or even questioned, I want to make this statement. This is not about criticizing individuals-This is about reforming a system.
This is not about criticizing any individual or about trying to get at any individual. It's simply abour fixing a system that continually produces crisis and division.
This is simply about getting the best possible service for dues paying members.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Standing Committees
The argument has long been made in our Local that Standing Committees should be elected differently. Currently we elect the Chairpersons at General membership meetings and turn them loose to express their vision of any given committee, however they personally or members of the Executive Board see fit. If these generally elected chairpeople choose not to have a committee, hold any meetings or to deliberately keep the committee inactive, thats OK too.
In addition they get to go to conferences and choose the people they like as fellow attendees.
As long as they are elected or appointed at the General Membership meeting, anything goes. They are not really accountable unless something goes drastically wrong and they attract unfavourable attention to their political masters.
Usually whoever gets the nod from the Executive Board of the Local wins the election.
The Executives criteria thus far has been purely political, the main criteria being loyalty and obedience to the leadership.
The argument to have committees elect their own chairpersons was made by successive chairs and members of these committees at least until 1999.
One of the main reasons was that committees such as these have the potential to provide vital services to union members and thus ought to be free of political interference.
It would be avoiding the issue not to touch on the fact that members of these committees also wanted to avoid the atrocity of having leaderships unqualified sons/daughters parachuted in to head up these committees, often disregarding rules that other members have to adhere to and destroying the chances for active committee members to move up in any given committee.
In our local nepotism was and remains a prime reason for the argument to have committees elect their chairpeople.
Another reason was that this way committees would continue to build on past lessons/gains and
continue to function in spite of changes of leadership. In other words leadership changes would not result in service cuts or service to the membership being affected.
Presently the issue has surfaced again with an explosion that was not totally unexpected. Like other recent explosions in our Local they have built up over time.
There has been an increase in interest in Standing Committees as happens from time to time. Once again people are expressing that Chairpersons of these committees are not holding enough or any meetings, are not letting interested Union members know when Conferences and Conventions are taking place, are hand picking their pals to go to these events, are having secret meetings that the general membership don't find out about in order to elect each other for various perks, have unofficial meetings, last minute meetings, out-of-the-way meetings, impromptu meetings, invitation only meetings, sudden meetings.. the list goes on and on.
This is nothing new. Its old hat. However...please.......DO NOT blame the chairpersons of these committees. This is the system they inherited. The people are not to blame-It is the system that has failed. So! If you want change...you have to change the system.
This is generallyhow it would work, but the idea is not totally writ in stone;
In addition they get to go to conferences and choose the people they like as fellow attendees.
As long as they are elected or appointed at the General Membership meeting, anything goes. They are not really accountable unless something goes drastically wrong and they attract unfavourable attention to their political masters.
Usually whoever gets the nod from the Executive Board of the Local wins the election.
The Executives criteria thus far has been purely political, the main criteria being loyalty and obedience to the leadership.
The argument to have committees elect their own chairpersons was made by successive chairs and members of these committees at least until 1999.
One of the main reasons was that committees such as these have the potential to provide vital services to union members and thus ought to be free of political interference.
It would be avoiding the issue not to touch on the fact that members of these committees also wanted to avoid the atrocity of having leaderships unqualified sons/daughters parachuted in to head up these committees, often disregarding rules that other members have to adhere to and destroying the chances for active committee members to move up in any given committee.
In our local nepotism was and remains a prime reason for the argument to have committees elect their chairpeople.
Another reason was that this way committees would continue to build on past lessons/gains and
continue to function in spite of changes of leadership. In other words leadership changes would not result in service cuts or service to the membership being affected.
Presently the issue has surfaced again with an explosion that was not totally unexpected. Like other recent explosions in our Local they have built up over time.
There has been an increase in interest in Standing Committees as happens from time to time. Once again people are expressing that Chairpersons of these committees are not holding enough or any meetings, are not letting interested Union members know when Conferences and Conventions are taking place, are hand picking their pals to go to these events, are having secret meetings that the general membership don't find out about in order to elect each other for various perks, have unofficial meetings, last minute meetings, out-of-the-way meetings, impromptu meetings, invitation only meetings, sudden meetings.. the list goes on and on.
This is nothing new. Its old hat. However...please.......DO NOT blame the chairpersons of these committees. This is the system they inherited. The people are not to blame-It is the system that has failed. So! If you want change...you have to change the system.
This is generallyhow it would work, but the idea is not totally writ in stone;
- At the General Membership meeting where Committee Chairpersons were previously elected, members interested in participating in a committee would sign up for 3 committees in order of preference. Members would have voice and vote in their first committee of choice and voice only at the other two committees.
- Each Standing Committee would have an Executive Board member attached to it in order to serve as a liason with the Executive Board.
- Meetings dates would be assigned each committee, with provisions for special meetings worked out in each committee, thus eliminating those special meetings that previously excluded people.
- Each committee would have a chairperson, a co-chairperson and a recording secretary. This would give 3 people per committee experience in running a committee. This multiplied by 10 would keep 30 + previously unemployed activists from actively eyeing the leaderships' jobs.
- Minimum numbers should be established. This way prospective members cannot be told that a committee of 3 for example is full.
- Attendees for conferences and conventions should be chosen from within committees. People who do the work should get the perks-Not someones pal or relative. Insertion of someones pal and exclusion of active committee members destroys functioning committees.
This way of doing standing committees is immensely useful because it it is so inclusive and so uniquely democratic. Qualified people would be making choices based on the needs of the membership-Not just what is politically good for leadership. Membership services would not be sacrificed for egos.
Most importantly accountability would be established.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Squeezing the Bottom
No! No. Get your mind out of my gutter. Its not going to be that kind of article. It will not have salacious details of bottom squeezing, so don't let the imaginations run rampant in that direction. Fact is, the business community has always preached a line that squeezes the people at the bottom of the economic heap.
In this particular case, when I talk about the bottom I mean those of us who have not yet achieved millionaire status or those of us who are not comfortably well off due to inheritances or investments and never really have to work for the rest of our lives.
I am talking about those of us who don't have stock options worth millions, who don't have golden parachute retirement options, yachts, properties on different continents or have tax-lawyers we pay a small fortune to in order that we may keep track of our wealth.
I am talking about those of us who have seen our working conditions and our numbers decline over the years and who continue to be squeezed in order to make business more competitive.
The latest tactic in squeezing the bottom is comparing our wages to those earned by workers in China.
Did you notice that is our wages that are being compared while the wages of those at the top are never mentioned let alone considered? While they always want to squeeze the bottom, they never mention the top. In an article in the U.K.s Sunday Times on April 16 2006; Sarah Baxter from Washington wrote;
EVER since the soap opera Dallas, the exploits of Texas oilmen have fascinated America. But the disclosure that one of oils most powerful figures earned $144,000 (£82,000) a day, £57 a minute for his time at the helm of the worlds biggest oil company, has prompted a row about whether corporate fat cattery has been taken to new heights.
Lee R Raymond, the recently retired chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil owners of the Esso chain in Britain was paid more than £391m from 1993 to 2005, according to figures released last week. It dwarfs the salaries of other high earners in the oil business. Last year alone he made more than £228m.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136358,00.html
My argument here is that we must stop squeezing the bottom and start pinching the top!!
Here are a few suggestions that should be put into the manifestos of all corporations;
1) Only one (1) mansion per executive, per country/continent.
2) Just one yacht per executive
3) Restore inheritance taxes.
4) A top exec to make only 10 or 20 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.
5) Pay for own golf memberships.
6) Limo "yes"!
7) Lear jet "No"!
8) No bonus for laying off workers.
9) Executive salaries to be compared to Chinese executive salaries.
10) Executive salary adjustments to be made after comparison.
This is a very incomplete list, a short list, one that I am sure our members can add to. Its an argument that is long overdue and one that I hope will take root, because squeezing the bottom has not yet macompetitivecompetetive. We have got to have some sacrifices from the top.
It being Spring, it would make sense to have a horticultural analogy.
Gardeners will tell you that when the top of a plant has been pinched, the rest of the plant fills out vigourously and produces bountifully.
In this particular case, when I talk about the bottom I mean those of us who have not yet achieved millionaire status or those of us who are not comfortably well off due to inheritances or investments and never really have to work for the rest of our lives.
I am talking about those of us who don't have stock options worth millions, who don't have golden parachute retirement options, yachts, properties on different continents or have tax-lawyers we pay a small fortune to in order that we may keep track of our wealth.
I am talking about those of us who have seen our working conditions and our numbers decline over the years and who continue to be squeezed in order to make business more competitive.
The latest tactic in squeezing the bottom is comparing our wages to those earned by workers in China.
Did you notice that is our wages that are being compared while the wages of those at the top are never mentioned let alone considered? While they always want to squeeze the bottom, they never mention the top. In an article in the U.K.s Sunday Times on April 16 2006; Sarah Baxter from Washington wrote;
EVER since the soap opera Dallas, the exploits of Texas oilmen have fascinated America. But the disclosure that one of oils most powerful figures earned $144,000 (£82,000) a day, £57 a minute for his time at the helm of the worlds biggest oil company, has prompted a row about whether corporate fat cattery has been taken to new heights.
Lee R Raymond, the recently retired chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil owners of the Esso chain in Britain was paid more than £391m from 1993 to 2005, according to figures released last week. It dwarfs the salaries of other high earners in the oil business. Last year alone he made more than £228m.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136358,00.html
My argument here is that we must stop squeezing the bottom and start pinching the top!!
Here are a few suggestions that should be put into the manifestos of all corporations;
1) Only one (1) mansion per executive, per country/continent.
2) Just one yacht per executive
3) Restore inheritance taxes.
4) A top exec to make only 10 or 20 times more than the lowest paid worker in the corporation.
5) Pay for own golf memberships.
6) Limo "yes"!
7) Lear jet "No"!
8) No bonus for laying off workers.
9) Executive salaries to be compared to Chinese executive salaries.
10) Executive salary adjustments to be made after comparison.
This is a very incomplete list, a short list, one that I am sure our members can add to. Its an argument that is long overdue and one that I hope will take root, because squeezing the bottom has not yet macompetitivecompetetive. We have got to have some sacrifices from the top.
It being Spring, it would make sense to have a horticultural analogy.
Gardeners will tell you that when the top of a plant has been pinched, the rest of the plant fills out vigourously and produces bountifully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)