Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Fred Z to endorse the L-396 Richard G Slate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1398556" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>No, I dont need to check myself. I understand how politics works, and it went without saying that "both" of us would talk smack about each other once we separated. Any suggestion that I did not complete my elected term is pure nonsense regardless of whatever has been said. Now, dont mix subjects. As Ron and his administration may say unflattering things behind my back to people like you, "I" on the other hand, talk smack to their face. What i am talking about when i mention "mudslinging", I am talking about the B.S. excuse for pushing Sal Z. out of way in the G slate. His personal business isnt a relevant subject in a local election. This isnt the same as public office where something like that could have an impact. Whoever "decided" that this was an issue clearly misunderstands the electoral process in local politics.</p><p></p><p>I agree with you that since 2008, both contracts contained givebacks that hurt the membership. There is no argument from me there. I too, am unhappy with the carve out insurance program regardless of its origin, but there is NOTHING we can do today about it. The company isnt going to take it back, now or later. its the UNIONS problem now.</p><p></p><p>As far as misuse of "funds". There isnt ONE shred of evidence that this has occured under the H administration.</p><p></p><p>Ron has ultilized the office to secure funds and the treasury, the local has a paid accountant to oversee the books and investments. Ron's role is to manage dues money into investments that make money and 396 will not see the levels of financial mismanagement like other locals. Any claim of this is simply untrue. If anyone is going to run for office on this premise, would be committing political suicide.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, this isnt to say that money is being used for silly things, all legal, all Eboard approved and all above board. When I was holding office, motions were made for dumb things, like full page ads in high school year books for members who asked for it. By a vote of 6 to 1, things like this passed.</p><p></p><p>It was all politics, pay backs for members support. Pretty simple. Ive seen soccer uniform approvals, baseball uniform approval, golf outings, trips, leather bags, jackets, shirts blah blah blah.. the list is long.</p><p></p><p>Is this stuff right? Well, thats the fine line that is walked. If the Eboard believes it is and votes to authorize it, well then, its approved. NO laws broken. People may not like it, but its not illegal.</p><p></p><p>The local has been "paying" members to do many things other than just going to las vegas. This practice under article 16 is an allowed practice by the local and one of the ways Ron has been able to turn "haters" into "supporters".</p><p></p><p>How do you think M.K., P.M., D.C. or G.T. came to be a part of this administration??</p><p></p><p>Turner was a part of the smack talk with L.A. when he ran against us, the others were are part of that movement for years. Ron was able to "turn" them into supporters by tossing out carrots to them in the form of "inclusion".</p><p></p><p>That inclusion meant, trips to events, gifts, and ultimately, promotion into the local.</p><p></p><p>Again, it isnt illegal, its a practice.</p><p></p><p>Your points, while simple, are not ground breaking and it really goes to show how limited your experience is with local operations.</p><p></p><p>There are more serious issues that "we" has members have to deal with. </p><p></p><p>The issue then becomes, do we replace the H Administration with G just for the sake of change, possibly hurting ourselves and the local worse? In the next three years, who do you want in your corner, a group who for the most part understands the system, has the connections with the labor department and has a track record of win some lose some OR people with NO connections to the labor department with NO working relationships with the company where a phone call could make a difference, OR a new group of people who dont understand or has EVER conducted an arbitration? </p><p></p><p>Would you like to be the guinea pig for their first case? Of course you wouldnt, neither would "I" or any other member.</p><p></p><p>Some history, when G was a business agent during my term, he was ineffective in his yards and the one thing that stands out about his history was when he managed to get himself BANNED from several yards for his abusive tone and lack of professionalism.</p><p></p><p>Ron and I had to have a private meeting with then regional manager D.A., just to get our agents back into the yards. This was a troubling time for the local when our agents were banned because of his actions.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, G and the local separated, and I will leave it at that. </p><p></p><p>The job is more than popularity, its an art, and that art is negotiation. Its the ability to make things happen vs. waiting for things to happen.</p><p></p><p>I dont believe G has that ability to "make" things happen, regardless of what anyone else has to say. He just doesnt have the company respect to accomplish this.</p><p></p><p>We shouldnt make change just for the sake of change.</p><p></p><p>Let me pose this to you. If the membership was truly upset with RON, then, how in the last election did G not earn any more votes than the normal dissention vote? 900 votes is the average dissention vote regardless of who is in office. That means that 900 people will vote against whoever is in office no matter what. G recieved 955.</p><p></p><p>Now, if he had actually pulled closer to 1400, then you could argue that he had a chance to win. At that point, its a simple matter of changing 200 peoples minds. </p><p></p><p>But, if you can barely crest 900, then you are not connecting with the membership regardless of how many people show up at a poker party.</p><p></p><p>From 955 to 1501 doesnt sound like a big number, but it is if the lead candidate cant pull in the numbers himself. If the lead candidate has to run around trying to bring in other people to make up a deficit, what does that say about the candidacy itself? </p><p></p><p>Thats called leading from behind, behind others credibility.</p><p></p><p>What is most likely to happen in this election is that "fewer" people will vote because they dont like EITHER candidate.</p><p></p><p>This hurts the new slate and NOT the encumbent slate.</p><p></p><p>Believe me, if Ron was doing anything illegal, I would be at the local requesting to review the books, and that isnt happening. Nobody is going to win an election on that premise. </p><p></p><p>This is about the future, 2018 to be specific. That's when our national contract comes back up for negotiation. The players need to change in 2018, and there is still one election prior to 2018 in our local.</p><p></p><p>2017 is my new target. Strategically, in three years, a majority of H supporters will have retired. Of course i am talking about the feeder department. In package, ORION will need to be addressed, and protections created for our drivers from the abusive treatment over its implementation. Part timers need to have progression returned to a reasonable time frame so we can reduce the "turnover" of part timers back to levels seen before 2008. </p><p></p><p>This election comes down to Galvans ability to put forward his best shot, and just not hope that people are pissed at RON and will make change for change. When he loses, regardless of vote count, he will have to step aside and allow the members to find another slate of personnel to move forward without interference.</p><p></p><p>As I said before, I am on the record already with my predictions, and only time wil tell. Lets let that clock run out and discuss it then.</p><p></p><p>TOS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1398556, member: 17969"] No, I dont need to check myself. I understand how politics works, and it went without saying that "both" of us would talk smack about each other once we separated. Any suggestion that I did not complete my elected term is pure nonsense regardless of whatever has been said. Now, dont mix subjects. As Ron and his administration may say unflattering things behind my back to people like you, "I" on the other hand, talk smack to their face. What i am talking about when i mention "mudslinging", I am talking about the B.S. excuse for pushing Sal Z. out of way in the G slate. His personal business isnt a relevant subject in a local election. This isnt the same as public office where something like that could have an impact. Whoever "decided" that this was an issue clearly misunderstands the electoral process in local politics. I agree with you that since 2008, both contracts contained givebacks that hurt the membership. There is no argument from me there. I too, am unhappy with the carve out insurance program regardless of its origin, but there is NOTHING we can do today about it. The company isnt going to take it back, now or later. its the UNIONS problem now. As far as misuse of "funds". There isnt ONE shred of evidence that this has occured under the H administration. Ron has ultilized the office to secure funds and the treasury, the local has a paid accountant to oversee the books and investments. Ron's role is to manage dues money into investments that make money and 396 will not see the levels of financial mismanagement like other locals. Any claim of this is simply untrue. If anyone is going to run for office on this premise, would be committing political suicide. On the other hand, this isnt to say that money is being used for silly things, all legal, all Eboard approved and all above board. When I was holding office, motions were made for dumb things, like full page ads in high school year books for members who asked for it. By a vote of 6 to 1, things like this passed. It was all politics, pay backs for members support. Pretty simple. Ive seen soccer uniform approvals, baseball uniform approval, golf outings, trips, leather bags, jackets, shirts blah blah blah.. the list is long. Is this stuff right? Well, thats the fine line that is walked. If the Eboard believes it is and votes to authorize it, well then, its approved. NO laws broken. People may not like it, but its not illegal. The local has been "paying" members to do many things other than just going to las vegas. This practice under article 16 is an allowed practice by the local and one of the ways Ron has been able to turn "haters" into "supporters". How do you think M.K., P.M., D.C. or G.T. came to be a part of this administration?? Turner was a part of the smack talk with L.A. when he ran against us, the others were are part of that movement for years. Ron was able to "turn" them into supporters by tossing out carrots to them in the form of "inclusion". That inclusion meant, trips to events, gifts, and ultimately, promotion into the local. Again, it isnt illegal, its a practice. Your points, while simple, are not ground breaking and it really goes to show how limited your experience is with local operations. There are more serious issues that "we" has members have to deal with. The issue then becomes, do we replace the H Administration with G just for the sake of change, possibly hurting ourselves and the local worse? In the next three years, who do you want in your corner, a group who for the most part understands the system, has the connections with the labor department and has a track record of win some lose some OR people with NO connections to the labor department with NO working relationships with the company where a phone call could make a difference, OR a new group of people who dont understand or has EVER conducted an arbitration? Would you like to be the guinea pig for their first case? Of course you wouldnt, neither would "I" or any other member. Some history, when G was a business agent during my term, he was ineffective in his yards and the one thing that stands out about his history was when he managed to get himself BANNED from several yards for his abusive tone and lack of professionalism. Ron and I had to have a private meeting with then regional manager D.A., just to get our agents back into the yards. This was a troubling time for the local when our agents were banned because of his actions. Ultimately, G and the local separated, and I will leave it at that. The job is more than popularity, its an art, and that art is negotiation. Its the ability to make things happen vs. waiting for things to happen. I dont believe G has that ability to "make" things happen, regardless of what anyone else has to say. He just doesnt have the company respect to accomplish this. We shouldnt make change just for the sake of change. Let me pose this to you. If the membership was truly upset with RON, then, how in the last election did G not earn any more votes than the normal dissention vote? 900 votes is the average dissention vote regardless of who is in office. That means that 900 people will vote against whoever is in office no matter what. G recieved 955. Now, if he had actually pulled closer to 1400, then you could argue that he had a chance to win. At that point, its a simple matter of changing 200 peoples minds. But, if you can barely crest 900, then you are not connecting with the membership regardless of how many people show up at a poker party. From 955 to 1501 doesnt sound like a big number, but it is if the lead candidate cant pull in the numbers himself. If the lead candidate has to run around trying to bring in other people to make up a deficit, what does that say about the candidacy itself? Thats called leading from behind, behind others credibility. What is most likely to happen in this election is that "fewer" people will vote because they dont like EITHER candidate. This hurts the new slate and NOT the encumbent slate. Believe me, if Ron was doing anything illegal, I would be at the local requesting to review the books, and that isnt happening. Nobody is going to win an election on that premise. This is about the future, 2018 to be specific. That's when our national contract comes back up for negotiation. The players need to change in 2018, and there is still one election prior to 2018 in our local. 2017 is my new target. Strategically, in three years, a majority of H supporters will have retired. Of course i am talking about the feeder department. In package, ORION will need to be addressed, and protections created for our drivers from the abusive treatment over its implementation. Part timers need to have progression returned to a reasonable time frame so we can reduce the "turnover" of part timers back to levels seen before 2008. This election comes down to Galvans ability to put forward his best shot, and just not hope that people are pissed at RON and will make change for change. When he loses, regardless of vote count, he will have to step aside and allow the members to find another slate of personnel to move forward without interference. As I said before, I am on the record already with my predictions, and only time wil tell. Lets let that clock run out and discuss it then. TOS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Fred Z to endorse the L-396 Richard G Slate
Top