Since the APWA submitted their petition for an election at the Gaffney barn, the Teamsters have displayed their conventional tactic of "silent intimidation". Why people tolerate this passive-aggressive behavior is beyond me. This behavior is exhibited as follows: usually there are two or three men, decked out in their spiffed up IBT local jackets with each one making full utilization of a domineering stare to intimidate, or call into question an employees manhood or character for wanting to attend an APWA meeting. On several occasions over the past two years, such "guidos" have landed themselves in the local sheriff's office for using more than their threatening glares at APWA meetings. So now we see the IBT playing the same game in Gaffney. Instead of offering reliable information to advance their arguements, the local in Gaffney believes it would better suit their cause to post these mindless "soldiers" (in the mafia sense) to intimidate and deter any of these employees from openly discussing pro-APWA issues and ideas outside the security gate or in the parking lot. Why is intimidation one of the IBT's few reliable methods of persuasion? Surely they can find a better way to advance their position than to use this passive-aggressive intimidation? We don't see the APWA using intimidation in their discussions. During the campaign in Kansas City, typically an APWA leader was flying in on the weekends to hold meetings to discuss and answer questions, which was supplemented with phone calls. Actions speak louder than words. And the fact that the IBT's message doesn't have enough content and validity on its own merit that it requires two henchman to stand at a guard gate 24/7 speaks volumes to me. But thats just my opinion.