TAKING STOCK OF THE ELECTORAL FLOCK AND THE POWER OF THE BULLET BLOCK

I always found it to be quite amusing how big, brawly, thickly muscled Adonis like individuals, who were so highly antagonistic and put off to supposed affronts to their personal freedoms by our national government, would wither and recoil at the simple question I posed as to who they were voting for in the upcoming union delegate elections.

"Oh Nooo!"

They would wail whispering, perilously flexing their muscles in discontent, as it was explained to me that:

"You never let anyone know who you are voting for in the union elections!"

"Don't you know that you might never work again."

Can you hear the laughter emanating from the Siberian prisoners?

This widespread union member sentiment and fear of honest debate in a country such as ours which is founded on democratic principles is quite astounding and laughable when one really sits down to think about it.

Can you imagine in a Presidential election everyone going around ghastly afraid to express their personal opinions of whom they think should be elected Commander-In Chief for fear of some kind of reprisal?

The thought and it's sentiment is patently ridiculous to even ponder here in America and puts one in mind of the very worst instances of dictatorial tyranny imposed throughout history by kings and dictators lauding it over their cowed and subservient denizens.

Mr. Putin would be impressed.

Yet I have found it to be true, as I am sure some of you have also, that this is the overwhelming sentiment shared by our union members as to outwardly expressing your feelings on your union voting preferences.

Even from old-timers who educate that it is foolish for members to expose their true feelings on these matters by making available his/her preferences for who he/she is voting for and perhaps even more importantly, VOTING AGAINST,  for to do so is to invite the wrath of the delegate one disapproves of.

Leaving oneself open to suffering surely the backlash that is expected to be visited upon him for the apparent insolence of proposing dissatisfaction with one of the incumbent delegates.

While pondering this very real, yet somehow quite peculiar reaction, it dawned upon me that this was not a very effective way for members to go about seeking democratic debate and accountability from their elected leaders.

The blind loyalty shown effectively encourages COMPLACENCY rather than stirs up accountability.

Especially useful to contemplate after having so recently been subject to a 20% wage and benefits cut despite the fact that it has now become a well documented fact that billionaire developers and the rest of the 1% have been realizing enormous gains as well as tax-payer funded handouts, subsidies and tax breaks while still crying the public boohoo that they need worker givebacks.

Unfortunately we did not hear of any of these enormous real estate developer boondoggles at the special meeting where Lathers voted in favor of the 20% paycut by a large margin.

Gary La Barbera of The Building Trades Council spoke at the special meeting and mentioned nothing of the enormous billion dollar tax breaks real estate developers were receiving and still are.

A curious fact seeing as he is on the same committee as the big real estate developers and should have known.
Scan over to Row 7 -  4th person in the pictures of the Committee's members

Check out the enclosed link for further details:
http://public-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/the-committee-to-scam-ny.pdf



It is always useful to remember that loyalty runs two ways.

Loyalty in and of itself has its place but blind loyalty entails the majority of the time being led around by an obedient dog.

The well-intentioned dog might lead you to the store but he will not warn you if your pocket is being picked.

This is why it is incumbent upon the membership to demand accountability of their elected officials from time to time.

The lack of any demands supports the lack of any progress and abets it.

This is true of any democracy.

It is only because of social movements that the great debilitating problems of history such as slavery, child labor, womens voting, unions and workers rights, and many other ills of society were even addressed, and even then they were bitterly fought for.

When you are the King why bother with the rabble unless there is some set of proposals that demand your attention?

Much better to enjoy the vestiges and comfortableness and lack of accountability that comes with the sovereignty of the Royal Throne.

Yet kings or royalty come from bloodlines.

They are not elected by their constituents or union members.

Elected officials can be made to be held more accountable to the will of the people only when the people or union members are willing to take a stand for matters that they deem important.

Matters which  they have not received any satisfactory response from the bureacracy from.

Matters which the bureaucracy might in fact be resistant to change.

This is not disloyalty but the very essence of democracy.

This is where the idea of a Voting Bloc comes in.

In regular elections it is prudent for like minded citizens to form Voting Bloc's to ensure that their needs are being met.

An idea that might be useful for concerned members to contemplate with the upcoming November Union Elections.

As for union members, a Voting Bloc can also be utilized but it's methods of garnering notice and influencing union elections must come in a different form than the traditional Voting Bloc.

A national, state, or city elections are usually zero sum games where there is a clear winner and loser.

This is not the case in union elections.

This is why members of this particular Voting Bloc would need a much more detailed and committed program to ensure effectiveness and success.

Since this type of Votiong Bloc takes on new tactics I figured I would give it a new name.

I prefer calling it a Bullet Block.

A Bullet Block is a simple idea that if collaborated on by union members would hold a very powerful position.

It is important to note that each incumbent delegate is very hard to oust from their position due to the fact that they only need finish in fourth place to hold their position as a delegate.

It is not a zero sum game where there is one winner and one loser.

Therefore the best way for Lathers to hold delegates accountable, who they deem to be not living up to their expectations or not doing a credible job, is via the Bullet Block.

In the Lathers union Metal Lathers Local 46, and in many other unions, members have the choice to place one vote for each incumbent borough delegate (in New York City - Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island) and their challengers, or they can utilize the four votes allotted to them in any manner they want to (2 for this candidate, 2 for that one, for instance).

When a member uses four votes for one particular union incumbent delegate or challenger candidate this is commonly referred to as using the bullet.

Therefore a Bullet Block would be a group of Lathers committed to using the bullet voting tactic for one desired candidate.

Simply put, if the voting bloc or Bullet Block of Lathers (or any other union local members), united and comprised for democratic purposes and intentions, does not see issues that it has voted on in its respected committees (duly formed) dealt with in a reasonable and constructive manner, the Bullet Block of united Lathers can then decide it is warranted to pick out ONE of the incumbent delegates (of the existing delegates), the one who they deem is least amenable to their calls for action, or is by all accounts the most adversarial to their proposals, and NOT HAVE ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BULLET BLOCK VOTE FOR THE SELECTED INCUMBENT DELEGATE and through use of the bullet voting tactics, which entitles each member to utilize four votes on one prospective candidate if they wish to, seeking to build up a much higher vote count for a new prospective delegate, (one they have already decided on prior to the elections), therefore furthering the chances of the new delegate candidate being elected to the position of delegate, and perhaps more importantly, raising the odds on the ouster of the incumbent delegate, who is out of favor with the Bullet Block via his unwillingness to address the Bullet Block's stated concerns.

Mind you that the Bullet Block process is completely within the democratic process as it can only be formed if their are enough union members who want to unite together in solidarity with the goal of enacting new ideas and proposals for the betterment of the union and its membership.

A Bullet Block can only be effective if it can obtain the necessary involvement and recruitment of concerned union members that would tip the scales in its favor.

At first glance this type of relationship might seem to be directly adversarial to the bureacracy's currently structured central bureaucracy and it is.

However it is my belief that over time such a Bullet Block would lead to a more natural co-existence of cooperation and collaboration between the workers and their bureaucracy as it would entail a higher standard of accountability to be leveled upon the bureaucracy to combat inefficient complacency and aversions to pompous and compromised royalty as well as it would provide workers with a way to not only have their skins be left vulnerable on their respective jobsites, but crucially, and more importantly provide them with a viable and powerfully united avenue to having more skin in The Game.

November is coming and daylight's a-burning.

Anyone got any bullets?




.