Delegates vote to add $1.5 million to OPSEU's Fightback
Today at the Convention, the delegates voted by a strong majority to endorse the plan of Treasurer Patty Rout to use some of the interest and dividends from Strike Fund investments to build a stronger fightback campaign.
The Strike Fund will still grow by 5% of the total dues collected which will be about $4 million in 2011. So the Strike Fund will remain healthy and fully resourced to cover any real strike possibilities at $62 million now and - if there are no strike costs - $65 million by year's end.
The Pridham team were vocal in opposing the motion which the delegates passed. Eddy Almeida also opposed the use of these resources to add to the coffers for fightback contingencies. The budget was not yet passed - delayed by a series of "rule-of-order" challenges and the unsuccessful fight to oppose the temporary solution to deficit.
One delegate tried - unsuccessfully - to argue that the BDO Accountant must be mistaken when he advised the Union that they could divert investment income to other budget lines than the Strike Fund.
All four candidates, Thomas, Pridham, Almeida, and Tocker, acquitted themselves well in the Question and Answer session. All candidates were politely received by the delegation. The presidential round ended with a long ovation for Thomas.
Speeches and votes tomorrow.
Solidarity
Exactly what I said before. Patty was working to take money out of the Strike Fund. That vote should of been counted, no way did that really pass.
ReplyDeleteThanks Sticks, but you still have it wrong. Not putting money in and taking money out are 2 different things. Just think of your own savings account. You know that making a withdrawal and making a smaller deposit than before are not the same. That is precisely what the motion accomplishes.
ReplyDeleteBy Constitution, Article 20.13 (b) says what MUST go into the fund. Article 23.1 says what can come out. The CPA said identified the difference between an asset and revenue from an asset. Here's a layman's way tp look at it.
If you own a rental property, then that's one of your assets. But the revenue generated from that property does NOT have to be plowed back into the value of that asset. Maybe you want to use all the revenue to upgrade that asset or maybe you want to use it to pay for your kids education. Up to you.
Now, as for the vote. It was clear as crystal from the back center of the room. But just in case, there was a challenge to the chair on this very matter and the chair was upheld. If the majority had not been in favour of the proposal to use the additional strike fund revenue as part of the general fund, that challenge would have been upheld. Two kicks at it and both times, the members approved the recommendation. And Sticks, I am not even saying I do agree - only that the delegates did and why it was Constitutional.