I think we all need to go in united in getting rid of H. If G doesn't do his job we'll vote for Sal and TOS in three years. The united goal this time should be to defeat that no good sell-out Ron H. TOS, how can you vote for someone that fired you. Leave your ego out of this one and tell people to vote for G.
Look at 952, they had the chance to beat Kelly twice but egos got in the way and split the vote. Hope they don't pull that next time around.
First and foremost, lets start with the "being fired" premise. I was an elected Executive Officer and RON could not FIRE me. I completed my term in office, and that rumor that I was fired is something started by the H administration once I left the administration.
To the inside story, if you looked at the Eboard votes, Ron and Jay didnt not like the 6 to 1 votes on issues, with the ONE NO vote being MY VOTE.
Lots of money being sent out where it shouldnt have, but that politics. Golfing and trips has been the key to Ron bringing in members who were against him for years, only to suck up to him now.
I wouldnt go down that path. Some will sell out for a leather bag, a jacket, a watch, a trip to DC, an article 16 removal from work (ups) fully paid by the members union dues.
I had issues with Phillips using the locals office to run his law practice. The phone, fax machine stamps and such are the locals property, and Phillips illegally used these things for his personal use. Having the girls answer the phone for his law issues and the use of local equiptment is a major violation of federal statutes.
We came to logger heads over these issues, and I completed my elected term and didnt not run with them again.
Over the years, "I" have pointed out many times over where Ron and co. have derailed from the original gameplan and moved towards playing the "union" game that exists behind the scenes.
My issue with making a change with G is pretty simple, he ran already, he failed to gain any traction in that election and he made a mockery of the election process the last time out. He surrounded himself with "trouble makers" who caused him votes and his actions and those of his spouse in Las Vegas havent gone away.
G isnt well liked by members "outside" of his home base in San Gabe. But thats not the "like" as in he is a bad person. Its the kinda "like" in a football game where you have a starter and a second stringer crying that he wants to be the starter.
Local elections are really simple, there are not that many "new" votes to change the landscape of an election. Those that dont vote, wont, and those that do vote usually vote the same way.
This means that G, has to be able to CHANGE peoples minds, and so far, from the chatter amongst feeder drivers & package drivers, this isnt happening.
Lets look at this another way. On a national scale, Mitt Romney ran for office and spent a ton of money. He failed on a grand scale to come even close to winning the white house. Now, in 2016, "some" people want him to run again, he definately has the money and time to do so, but he understands clearly, through the prior votes, that another campaign would be in vain, despite ALL the talk for him to do so. He knows he failed to make a good first impression on the voters and even though there are calls for him to run, he also knows he would be better suited as an advisor to another candidate. His role, while diminished on a grand scale, doesnt mean he cant be an asset to another candidate seeking office.
Same in local politics. L. A ran 4 times. Each time changing up his lineup hoping each member would bring in votes, only to find out he was operating at a deficit before the election ever took place. He lost all four times despite dragging in people from sanitation, anderson press and UPS. Local 396 election history doesnt bode well for G and regardless of his personal passion to want to make change, like Romney, he needs to understand his future role with local politics.
As I said before, My team discussed this at length, and while dissapointed with Galvans attempt to run again because he believed he brought in people who could help him win vs. impressing the membership on his own efforts, we have chosen to sit out.
I have discussed with Sal Z. the prospects of uniting in 2016 and in that same conversation, explained the "in's and out's" of local politics. The excuse given for Sal's departure is BOGUS, and let me be absolutely clear about that.
This was a "pushout" by G and his "team".
Sal's personal business has nothing to do with the election, his qualifications, his experience and RON would never include this in a campaign. RON may be plenty of things, but a dirtbag isnt one of them. RON has become a professional politician in union politics, this to his credit. He is also man enough to run on his own record and wouldnt dive into a mud slinging contest about someones personal business. Everyone has garbage in their personal lives.
This kind of information is "off base" in local politics, and any suggestion by the G team, that Sal's personal business got in the way is pure B.S. This alone takes away the credibility of G and his team.
I spoke directly to Sal, and i can assure you, your description of the event is INACCURATE. It may be the spin they are putting on it, but Sal deserves better respect than that.
Our team stepping aside gives G, the best opportunity to run this time around, if our team ran, we would split the vote and both lose, only accomplishing one thing, not knowing which team had the best chance of winning.
Allowing G to do it alone, the votes will speak volumes, and in 2017, he should "listen" to those votes and get out of the way.
There are many talented people in our local, and rather than attempting another do'over with the same strategy, assembling a winning team with a hybrid of G/TOS personnel would have insured victory this time around, but as I said, G has his own sights set on stardom. G and I have spoken before about this, but there was no reconciliation of the minds.
We will just have to see how it plays out in 2014.
I have made my predictions, and I am on the record.
As for RON. Yes, i think we can be in full agreement of your assessment of where he stands today. From sitting on mulitple boards and being "connected" ( in union terms) took years to create. Ron and I sat one day before the election that put us in office, and we agreed that "WE" would never become union politicians, and we would never spend our time attempting to hob nob with the IBT and get distracted.
I kept my word, Ron did not. On the other hand, its hard not to get involved. There is an old saying:
"power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
For Ron, this is where he stands today.
Does this mean we toss him out and give G three years to affect peoples lives? No. We tried that already with another unproven, lack of experienced leader in D. Bruno.
In three years, he racked up over 300 terminations, wasted local funds, committed illegal acts against the local in which charges were brought up at the JC, stole local equiptment and finances, misrepresented the members in all fields covered by our local and left THOUSANDS of unsettled greivances on the desks of the local when we took over.
It was a disaster from the start, but like now, we had an encumbent in office for nearly 15 years in Raul Lopez, as a part of that administration, Lopez didnt believe he needed to campaign or change the direction he was going in.
Nobody in the administration believed Bruno could defeat us, but people wanted to "give him a chance" and they did and everyone paid for it.
Now you want to try that again?
Bad things can happen, its a tough job, there are lots of things to do. Its just not walking around the yards in fancy shirts. Its a management job that wears many hats, and those hats can get heavy if you dont know how to wear them.
I personally do not want to revisit the Bruno era in an administration that consists of NOT ONE candidate having ANY executive experience whatsoever.
Thats "the other side".
TOS.
