So I would like to know who voted on the service agreement? When was the vote held? Where was the vote? What was the count? Was there any discussion with the various counties? Was there rank and file input from the elected leaders from each county? The service agreement was reached long before the NEMSA vote, so were the members told about IAEP and allowed input before the service agreement was reached? If so when were those meetings held and who was invited? Were each county's elected stewards given information to share with us before the agreement was made?
I am really concerned of how much, if any, field involvement there was before we came to have IAEP as our service provider. I want numbers and specifics of whom, what and when.
I don't know all the answers but I'll do the best I can.
1. So I would like to know who voted on the service agreement? All members were eligible to vote to endorse or to not endorse the service agreement.
2. When was the vote held? Aug 30 and 31. Sept. 1 and 2.
3. Where was the vote held? In all applicable counties.
4. What was the count? 660 voted to endorse the IAEP/250 service agreement. 607 voted for NEMSA. 38 votes were contested. 30 voted for no union (what were they thinking?!)
5. Was there any discussion with the various counties? Oh yes and the discussions continue....
6. Was there rank and file input from the elected leaders from each county? Oh yes and there continues to be.
7. The service agreement was reached long before the NEMSA vote, so were the members told about IAEP and allowed input before the service agreement was reached? IEAP/250 talks began about only 3 weeks before the election and I don't really know the extent of membership input prior to the agreement but I do know that 660 members voted to endorse the agreement after much public debate.
8. If so when were those meetings held and who was invited? There was a meeting at the Holiday Inn in Emeryville just after the San Mateo vote. I don't know who all was invited (I was but I couldn't make it). I am not sure about any other meetings.
9. Were each county's elected stewards given information to share with us before the agreement was made? I don't know but it is obvious we exercised our democratic right to endorse service agreement after it was made.
Listen. The service agreement is a done deal. Let's move on.........
Your questions are well founded and address the democratic nature of all this. There shouldn't be back room meetings deciding our future and fate. Discussions should be out in the open and all should be welcome. Let's ensure they are! Major agreements should be endorsed by the members. I believe in democracy and I believe we have exercised that democracy the best way we possibly can with this vote. We need to continue that democracy by electing our shop stewards, our executive board members and certifying the election of IAEP.
I personally apperciate your attempt to answer the question, however I think that you missed the real question. Which was before the VOTE for 250/nemsa, Whom made all those decisions or are we still going to have a choice??.......Because there are without a doubt those people that voted for Local 250 not IAEP whom prefer the idea of 250.
The service agreement may be a done deal....But with out membership support that agreement means nothing. A very simple thing for those who are in charge to do is......answer the question straight forward as possible. Will that lead to more questions.....undoubtedly, but we must answer these hard questions to move us beyond the recent past.
On a personal note, I have been asking these questions of my local representation and have gotten answers......Not the ones i like, but they are truthful answers. Do i believe that this small group of people should have made this decision without me, NO. But, It seems to be the way things are going to be with or without my pestering, so i choose to push towards the goals that My peers and I need to meet today, Regardless of my hesitations.
That said, MAJOR decisions should not be made that way and the NUMBER 1 goal for our new local should be this---Form a simple communication plan that will HALT any future attempt to vote on major issues without input from the members.
About 3 weeks prior to the vote, we had a conference call. There were about 30 shop stewards, representing all involved counties, on the call. I'm not sure of the exact number, however, I'm sure IAEP and Local 250 has the attendence numbers available. Also on the call, were Local 250 and IAEP officials. I did take part in the call, and I can honestly say that entering into the service agreement with IAEP was a unanimous decision by all shop stewards.
I must stress the fact that this decision was not made by Local 250 or IAEP. It was voted upon by the shop stewards.
I hope this answers your question.
Peace,
Roland Guy, R.N. NREMT-P Contra Costa County Shop Steward
NEMSA folks are now going to say that they "weren't invited".. and that they had no idea that there was a service agreement being brought up.
This is my opinion of what happened... I don't know for fact since I don't even work up there, but this is what I think PROBABLY happened.
SEIU told it's shop stewards that they wanted to have a meeting regarding the upcoming vote, state of the union type of thing. And the NEMSA supporting shop stewards decided that since they wanted nothing to do with SEIU, didn't show up to that meeting. During the meeting, the service agreement was brought up, discussed, and voted on by the attendee's... which did not include NEMSA supporting stewards keep in mind. After the meeting and vote, the stewards that weren't there, stated that they didn't know about the service agreement and had "no idea" that there was a vote.
I don't know if this is what happened, it's just a theory. Perhaps if I'm slightly wrong or completely off base, someone will set me straight.. minus the insults and bad conduct.. which I doubt is do-able. I also doubt that, except for a rare few, anyone who's claimed they weren't "invited" could actually fess up to the inclination that they let their fervor for NEMSA get in the way of keeping up their end of the bargin with SEIU, which would be attending meettings called by the union in order to discuss, make decisions, and take back information to the members. But, we'll give it a shot, yes? See what happens.. Perhaps we can get to the bottom of this once and for all.
-- Edited by Clear_my_side at 16:57, 2004-09-17
__________________
"I have given my word to Amy, Aultum that if they get over 75 signatures that I will with drawl my petition. " Carlos 10/6 "I will not pull the petition. " Carlos 10/10
As was the nemsa roll-out which you were not invited to. The "select" group was large, votes cast in the NLRB election were a yae or nay to the proposal - same for nemsa. I've answered these questions more thoroughly in other threads, and have only been "greeted" with unrelated insults by nemsa advocates. Move on.
-- Edited by Play with My Money at 12:13, 2004-09-18
my friend you are mixing two issues, the question was who voted in the meeting for 250 to give IAEP the membership prior to the vote. who voted to enter this "service agreement" and the answer is a "select" "hand picked" group of members by 250, this meeting was not "secret" it was just not openly advertised! when we all voted the vote was 250 / NEMSA/ none. there was no choice given for the memebers to have any input at all for the service agreement, other than to vote 250 OUT. the NLRB vote & the Service agreement are two different things.
thx,
JOHN
__________________
IEAP impress me! Show me that you are SEIU, but different than 250! I will be watching you! Let's roll...!
Are you saying that all the "propaganda" did not educate people to know what they were voting for on the ballot? I'm not mixing issues. I'm pointing out that historically, this is how decisions were made, by who showed up at meetings, and you know this. Big issues, like contract ratification went out at large. Do I think this system was flawed? Absolutely, I also agree with the above post that we must ensure better democracy on all issues in our bylaws.
At the time the service agreement was introduced, we were in the middle of an ugly election. Not many people were willing to listen to 250, let alone show up to a meeting for anything other than to throw insults. Two conference calls with approximately 25 members on each, and a follow up meeting was enough to throw a proposal out to the members at large, especially in light of how lead stewards did decisions with management up until now. Many on the calls were stewards, some concerned members. Certainly more participation than you and I have seen in the past. Members had a free will to vote how they wanted. If they perceived this to be treachory by 250 and a foul idea, they could vote nemsa or neither. It was one of the largest participations we have ever had in a decision that affected everyone.
ok, yes you are correct! Now we all need to put this "ugly" election behind us and keep the energy going! Put all the emotions away & get back to business! OK? when do we party? remember we used to all be freinds and had fun!
JOHN
__________________
IEAP impress me! Show me that you are SEIU, but different than 250! I will be watching you! Let's roll...!
I want to reiterate there were no handpicked people involved in this decision. There was no one selected to be part of this decision. There was, however, input from all over the counties affected by NEMSA's attempts to decertify us. Sorry you didn't take part in it. I didn't take part in it either, but I don't for a second believe I was removed from the equation and not allowed access to it.
I notice your quote at the bottom of your posts. "I will be watching you"...??? This comes across almost menacingly. John, you can do one of three things: 1) Jump in head first and get behind your union 2) attempt to thwart our attempts to create a better workplace and better conditions, which simply screws you and everybody else in the end, or 3) get out of the way.
Nice try, but I want date time and detail. A conference call does not constitute a vote of 2400 people, and not one elected steward from any county, but Santa Cruz, COCO, Monterey and Shasta were on that call. That is 16 counties excluded! 1,897 members that were purposely left out! And this is ok with you? There are rules that have to be played by and cannot be skirted because it benefits you. Local 250 Bylaws article 5 section d spells it out, but then again I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever read them. Shame on you! Erin, Rod, Roland, Jonathan. You are supposed to watch out for us. Why then are you allowing the wholesale violation of the Bylaws that were ratified by the entire 250 membership? Is it because your personal desires trump what the rules are? I guess as long as it serves your purpose then breaking the rules is ok with you. You should take a lesson from the ACLU who defended Rush Limbaugh because they respected the rules above their hatred for Rush.
Grow a spine and start doing what is right and not what is convenient! That is what leadership is.
This came up in the IAEP meeting. I thought that 250 was still our bargaining unit. From what was said, IAEP will be representing us but we are still part of 250 until a final vote from all of the members takes place. I could be mistaken but I am pretty sure that we are 250 and slowly making our way to IAEP. Will it be satisfactory if a mail ballot is sent to the 2400 members to ratify IAEP?
It's very difficult to have a reasonable dialogue with you because you've been so emotional. Tell me what you are still upset about, besides NEMSA not getting a higher vote count, that hasn't been answered above and I will answer you. But, I will no longer answer your insults. You claim to stand for high principles in regards to all of us, your fellow EMS professionals, they shouldn't disappear when your views are challanged.
And you are still skirting my questions. Why did you allow a violation of 250's bylaws? You are the chief steward of Monterey are you not? Are you not responsible for ensuring the members are properly represented? I guess I should wait until you have actually read the Bylaws.
So someone else, who is Medic One, pasted Steve Riley's comments about Bill Bower's phone message. O.K., I give up. Calm down, yes I've read the by-laws, I have a copy. Be specific citing the violation, and again, I will answer your questions.
And the info during the campaign and the vote do not constitute informed or consent. The agreement was made long before the conference call, without even your input.
Riley, We have represented the areas we work. I understand where you work, they may not want IAEP, you guys have that right to that opinion. Where myself and Erin work however, when we took this information back, we had overwhelming support for it. Now I didin't say 100%, so don't try to pull your classic "NATE YOU STABBED EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMA IN THE BACK" line, its getting really old...But we definitely had overwhelming support. What we didn't have support for was members stating they didn't want it to happen, or that they wanted a vote on it. So to put in ethicaly, we did what our counties wanted. I am sorry if you and your county feel disrespected, but many here felt this was the best move to execute. Many counties voted nearly 100% for 250. If NEMSA had won, would it have been fair to have those counties get sucked into nemsa even though they really didn't want too? No thats not fair but guess what? prior to the vote we all decided to get behind whover wins and help build it. In fact if NEMSA had won we would have been even more involed with it, because we would have wanted to make sure no funny business was going on. WE would have supported it nonetheless. I understand you are not compelled to do the same here. But we are asking that you at least give it a try. Many members will not feel your complaints will be valid in a year if you never chose to involve yourself. My true belief is that when people voted for 250, they were given their approval for the service agreement. If members had felt it was done wrong, illegal, or inapropriately i do not believe 660 members would have voted on it. I appreciate your involement on these forums, many of us are now ready however to move on. I hope you find it in your heart to realize that many of us are here to move our careers and lives forward, and not to insult each other. Please give us a reason to respect you. Insults are non-productive, please restrain. You can insult me and Erin all you want, it is not building the case to support NEMSA anymore. Please become involved, you have experience, bring it to the table! thanks! -nate P.S. in the likely even you will follow this up with an insult, I am going to say "riley, bring on the insults!" but hopefully you won't!
Since I'll never know who you are, one or many, or the first medic in California. The service agreement was absolutely not signed until after the conference calls and the meeting. Was the invitation made prior to the calls? Of course, but it was brought before members before it could occur. I think the vote was an excellent mechanism to seek bodywide approval. There was much more information, discussion, and access to information than ever before in this bargaining group. It was also the most far-reaching mechanism we've ever had access to for bodywide participation.
Apparently you don't read either. The answer was given to you, in detail, by Lee in the post immediately following yours. It was reiterated by Roland's post as well. You are choosing not to listen because your only intent is to continue on stirring the shi*pot. I am having to accept their answers since I was not there, but I trust both of these individuals, neither of whom are liars.
All of your energies continue on one path, destruction of us. All of your rhetoric contain insults and put-downs. You are a sore loser.
The rest of the forum can make up their own minds, I am done with you. I will not respond to anyone that wishes to be a continuous part of this forum without identifying him/herself. You hide under the cloak of anonymity and unleash insult after insult at your fellow EMS workers, if you are even one of us. That is disgusting. It is clear you are true-blue NEMSA all the way. It permeates your existence, hatred of EMS workers.
Shame on me? Shame on you! I am glad we have a service agreement with IAEP. Aren't your efforts better spent going after other contracts? Aren't there other states and unions you can rip apart and decertify? There is a world-full of EMS systems for you to toy with, go forth and do so, but leave us alone to repair what you and Torren have created.
I so look forward to the "Hooked on Phonics, vocational educated man", and any other insults you throw at me. As far as you are concerned , I have chosen a higher path than you and everyone knows it. God forbid you actually turn out to be an EMT, it would be a disgrace to all of us in the private industry given the manner you have chosen to represent yourself.
That is what I would expect from you. No answers just dancing. Well keep on brother. The service agreement was not voted on by the members. The elected reps of the 1,897 other members were purposely excluded from the discussions. Not one of them was contacted and when Ian Lee asked Mark Pinkas why the answer was "we did not want anyone there that would not agree with us". I guess that is ok for a man of your character, but I doubt if you have ever read 250's bylaws either. And that is actually giving you a break because if you had read them and still agreed to this then that would mean that you knowingly and willfully perpetuated the violation of the Bylaws to the detriment of the members. I am glad you are done with me, but I suspect your ego will not allow ceasing pontificating on this and any other thread I post on.
I spoke prematurely. Now did Mark mean they didn't contact people that were openly hostile to 250 and would not allow civil discourse? I don't know, just asking. Because, that was going on. My understanding was that everyone who signed that flyer to build a better EMS division was contacted. Alot were on the phone conferences, and more stewards than you speculate. There were three other stewards from Monterey alone. Now, I don't mind racking my brain trying to remember the fast succession of names being stated on the call, but I was not taking notes. I imagine 250 was. This was hardly secret, we were welcomed to invite others. I don't think EMS workers can keep a secret when it is work related. Again, I've posted on this before.
Now, this fist-pounding for dates, and I'm not sure what ever facts, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal unless you want to take names for your own John/Jane Doe list for the lawsuit you seem to think exists.
Not one elected representative (shop steward) from 16 counties was contacted. Ask all of them and they will tell you. I have no doubt that 250 found some supporters from some of those counties, but they were never elected to represent the workers in those counties. In fact Todd Whilhoyte was petitioned out 3 years ago. It's easy to call the supporters, but when the elected reps are purposely excluded, that is wrong. I'm sure that you would not have liked it if this was done and you were purposely left out. This is the main reason that IAEP will not be getting a warm reception in those counties.
I can respect that. I think I'll spend some time researching this. Because. frankly, I don't know every elected steward from all the counties. I'll post again with my opinion (you know they never end) for what its worth.
You know, Alis Shapiro (spelling?) was at the ALCO IAEP meeting last Friday with 250 bylaws in hand stubbornly arguing virtuely the same points as Medic_One regarding the service agreement. What a coincidence....... Hmmm......
The service agreement is a done deal.
NEMSA supporters, I have no pride and am not ashamed to say it....We need your help!! Let's make this work together......Let's move on......
HA, that would be funny! What I think is really funny, is even to this day Medic One is so scared to sign their name at the end of their posts. It just shows they are scared to stand behind the insults they throw! I sure hope NEMSA doesn't offer a job to this person also! What a poor show of character, and NEMSA representation.
There are some real dumb bastards on this thread. Especially copycodethree. What a piece of work. Good Lord, hopefully the mold was cast aside after that mistake was made.
