Jump to content

Local 695 Members


Jeff Wexler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lots of confusion regarding the situation at our union local 695. There is a petition circulating that has some merit, possibly, for the membership to have an influence (what a novel idea, the membership having an influence).

 

Cross-posted from a Facebook posting by Gaylen Nebeker

 

We've started the petition "IATSE International President Matthew D. Loeb: Allow 695 Members to hold immediate elections for new officers and restore autonomy to Local 695."
Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? 
 
 
Gaylen Nebeker, Video Assist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link didn't work. 

A search didn't show any such petition.

The link appears to be broken because of a space inserted in link. The link needs all the words after the "change.org" to work

Then to sign just put name , email and click sign and your done.

Petition to get autonomy back and get 695 out of trusteeship

-Brett Junod

Video assist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

what will almost certainly happen is that in their own time, on their own schedule, and at their leisure, the trustees will prepare a constitution with the approval of HQ (NYC), and present it to the membership as a take it or leave it (and remain in trusteeship!) vote for adoption, and election of the specified officers; if it is approved, the local will be turned over to the elected new officers.

Edited by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A month since the last post here.  I guess that means any passion to address our situation is gone.  I saw the petition in question and passed on it because it de facto accepts the right of an outside party to nullify our voted will.  This past week, in response to my production data base posting, Joe Aredas Jr. stopped by my set, and after updating him on my show etc., I expressed my concern about the international usurping 695's right to self determination.  He spoke of the warm personal regard everyone held for Jim but that in effect, the transgressions he was being charged with just had to stay confidential.  I confess I kept my reaction to this confidential as well.  WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...