Union Attendance Rule

319 Words2 Pages
As participation in union activities trumps holding office and meeting attendance is an imperative form of participation, I agree with the minority opinion. Since worker related issues are discussed and decisions are made at these meetings, it is crucial that the candidates attend at least 50% of the meetings. One vital reason this 50% attendance rule should be enforced is that the candidates should be aware of past union affairs and to what effect the union has been dealing with said affairs. It’s because of the Landrum-Griffith Act union members are allowed to be involved in these affairs in the first place. According to Senator Robert Griffin, “the Landrum-Griffith Act of 1959 has played a significant role in enabling union members to participate more freely in the affairs of their unions”. For example, the unions handle several cases of harassment or wrongful dismissal. If a teamster attends the meetings, then s/he is aware of the issues at hand and garners the experience to address them in the future, but if s/he doesn’t attend meetings, then s/he won’t really know how the union essentially functions.…show more content…
Potentially, some members may have acquired a passive membership for self-seeking reasons (only to get hold of that enticing protection against management) and aren’t really interested in the “greater good”, brotherhood aspect. Members like these should definitely not be allowed positions in
Open Document