Comical Ali wrote:
Make of this as you will
On 27 Nov 2015 14:31
Hi J**** hope I find you well and surviving the traffic nightmare called London.
Your role which was voted on during the last branch meeting will have to be balloted via all Uber Driver Branch Members via postal vote.
This is procedure and one assumes will not effect the position nor your training date as it's reasonably safe to say that with the hard work you have put in its unlikely Uber Branch Members will not be in favour or nominate a different member.
Any queries pleas don't hesitate to call myself or Michelle Bacon
Regards
***** ****
On 27 Nov 2015 16:14
***** I don't accept the need for any further ballot here for myself or Y*****. The G** rule book is very clear about this under Rule 43-2. We are already elected. To send out ballots now to all the membership without informing myself or Y***** in advance is an outrageous abuse of process. I certainly do not recognise this second election as legitimate and absolutely will not recognise the rest results one way or another. You do not have my permission to put my name before the members for this vote. I am demanding that you immediately withdraw this ballit. I will also take legal advice on this . I am also demanding that a statement of explanation from me now be immediately be sent to the membership base. Who do I send this statement to and how do I get it be sent today?
M******* as the paid staffer with duty to oversee the branch I need an explanation also from you as to why you allowed this blatant subversion of rules and process. First I've had a nuisance Rule 5 complaint then disgusting trolling on twitter and now my election to shop steward overturned. Why have you allowed this to happen? Answers are now urgently needed and demanded. M******* - given the position I've now been placed in by these illegitimate and illegal actions by the executive section of the branch I will personally need professional legal support and I am demanding that G** now provide and pay for this. Within our branch we now have a clear pattern of abuse and harassment of trade union activists doing legitimate work and we now demand protection from further harassment by G** staff and volunteer branch officers acting irregularly.
These irregularities will need to be debated at length at the next branch meeting and must be tabled for discussion. In the meantime I would recommend Simon and Steve now consider their positions and fitness to continue in office.
Best Regards
***** ******
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:43
Subject Re: Shop Steward Role
Hello Everyone
Just to be completely transparent about my actions. If you do not withdraw me from ballot with a communication and explanation to members by 5pm Monday, I will be writing to **** ***** asking him to act where you do not. His name is on the ballot paper as G** official responsible. If you do not act I will demand he does so. Given the short turnround time for the ballot it is extremely important you act promptly to suspend it. You have and have had no permission from me to enter into this ballot nor did not even give me the courtesy of advance notice. IT MUST BE SUSPENDED IMMEDIATELY. YOU MUST ACT NOW.
Best Regards
J****
Date: 27/11/2015 19:22
Subject: Re: Shop Steward Role
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening ***** and all I have just pulled into services and have seen this exchange. Could I ask that everyone refrains from sending further emails until I have looked at this in detail. I will then write to you all with an explanation as I see it. However this will not be for the next three hours or so so bear with me please.
Many thanks
**** ****
Many tha
Sent from IBM Notes Traveler
On 30 Nov 2015 13:10, <****.****@***.org.uk> wrote:
Good morning ***** and All
As promised, in another email thread, I said I would revert back today. In doing so I would not want to see this matter become the subject of a huge a email debate as it is very simple and straightforward. Also there is no need for any emotive language, of the sort I have seen in the past.
I have now spoken with ******** and we have agreed that the ballot paper sent out was not applicable on this occasion, albeit that it was sent entirely in good faith. *****, the second communication was a standard letter only.
From the information obtained, I am advised that when the branch last met a vote was taken by Uber members to elect ***** as a shop steward. The same applied to a member from Addison Lee. Nothing wrong with this as the election at the branch meeting would comply with GMB Rule 43.2.b, as ***** points out. However my understanding is that the matter of the election was not the subject of advance notification to all Uber members thus denying any other Uber member the right to stand. If there had been advance notification then there would not be an issue. I know you will all agree that we must uphold the principles of democracy and transparency. Therefore it is only right that we hold an election but in the meantime if ***** was to continue in the role pro-tem then I cannot foresee this to be a problem. Of course, and with hindsight, this should have been explained at the branch meeting.
To follow this through I have asked ******** to send out a note to all Uber members asking they ignore and destroy the previous ballot paper. Following this ******** will follow the standard practice by way of sending a nomination form to all members. If we receive only one nomination then that person, providing they accept the nomination, will be elected unopposed. Obviously if more that one person is nominated, and where more than one person accepts a nomination, then an election will need to be held. I would suggest a minimum of two weeks for the nomination part of the process.
The branch will need to decide how it wishes the election to be conducted, be this by election at the next branch or by a postal ballot of the Uber membership. Can I suggest you let your committee decide.
I hope this helps, allows all to move forward and to bring this matter to a close.
Best wishes
**** **** - Head of Legal Services and Senior Organiser
Subject: Re: Shop Steward Role
From: ***** ******
To: "**** ****"
CC: several others
Thanks ****. I understand what you're saying and of course that might have been ideally a better way to go about things. Unfortunately, this ideal practice is not spelled out in Rule 43. Am I missing something, it is clarified in another rule we can read?
If we were to do this again that would be a great practice to follow. The problem now is how to fix the situation. Are you saying an election properly carried out according to Rule 43 is now to be set aside? That isn't good for democracy either. Without using emotive language there has been a clear pattern of abuse here and a second ballot was hardly called in the interests of shoring up democracy. I'd say grass roots democracy is best served by letting the results of a grass roots precipitated election stand.
Now of course we must turn to the knock on effects. The branch has made appointments by a show of hands just as with my role and ******'s. Are these elections now too be set aside also?
While I applaud the drive for grass roots democracy and accountability - something absent for too long at the branch which gave rise for the need to elect these roles as a grass roots initiative - are we now to abandon Rule 43 and all other rules in the rule book? Are we to enforce this unspecified best practice for some elections but not others?
Look forward to hearing from you
*****
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:48:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Shop Steward Role
From: ***** *******
To: ***** ******
CC: many others
More b.s. from ***** over timeshare stop making frankly stupid claims.
***** *******
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Shop Steward Role
From: ***** ******
To: ***** *******
CC: many others
And by the way, while *** continues to resist the effective organisation of private hire drivers already facing an horrendous drop in earnings , Uber today has launched POOL. This sees our earnings diluted further and commissions increased to as much as/35% .
Instead of being enabled, empowered and supported to deal with this instead more obstacles to the most basic level of grass roots representation are thrown in our path just as there was in the run up to our inaugural demo.
It's simply not good enough.
On 30 Nov 2015 15:24, "***** ******" wrote:
*****
I'm not getting into this with you. The matter is too important to too many people to allow you to allow you to make this about you. The branch interests must be bigger than you and it must doggedly follow the welfare needs of its members not those of the branch secretariat .
I think the inherent racism of the LHR matter is very clear for all to see. I can't explain it further to you.
But while we are in the business of offering explanations - we're all still waiting for an explanation of why *** planted that story with the BBC, why Addison Lee management were briefed on our legal challenge and if AL paid for the legal advice, why you've chosen to set aside a perfectly proper election result not palatable to you and carried out in front of not one but two *** regional and national officers without complaint. There is a question as to why you were allowed to abuse Rule 5 in order to silence questions on these important matters. Your integrity has been grist for much public debate all over the internet long before i showed up and sadly is now a major impediment to recruitment. These are important questions in their own right. I don't know you personally and have no interest in a 'vendetta' against you. To continue to insist that there is one against you is just a pathetic attempt to side step these important questions and subvert branch governance.
On 30 Nov 2015 15:05, "***** ********" wrote:
Following what is another attack I have decided to respond to ***** derisive rhetoric I have allowed his constant attacks for too long.
Continued attempts attack me and the work I do will be responded to.
I intend to copy all ***** emails to members as clearly he is only keen on damage not campaigning as claimed but more of that in my more formal response.
Do in the meantime explain the comments in relation to racism from your previous email.
Your petty attempts to make other claims ABOUT me had no grounds but still you continue your vendetta.
In my opinion you make lots if claims but few stack up.
Be assured my comments will be not as ambiguous as yours.
***** ********
FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF WANNA AND MERCEDES NOTE THE POSTER
JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THE first and second TIME
_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity
I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT
http://www.republic.org.uF88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE
Login
Register
FAQ
and i had a lovely Christmas 