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
Members Sold Out by TU
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="CleanUpHitter" data-source="post: 4997384" data-attributes="member: 92948"><p>Your allegations of corruption, etc., simply because you’re not happy with the Panel’s decision (and it was a Panel of 3 who were all in agreement), amount to nothing more than blatant campaigning. You know nothing about this man, yet you choose to attack him simply for potential political gain. This Teamster leader that you attack was just re-elected by acclamation for the third straight election to his position of President of Local 822. You should understand that these are the Teamsters who know JW best. He was elected President of his JC 83 and a Trustee on that H&W&P Fund. That Pension Fund is over 100% funded. He is well known and respected across the entire Country, yet you attack him personally and accuse him of being corrupt. And yet, as it has been pointed out, you have provided no facts, other than the decision you don’t agree with, to support your corruption allegations. I’m going to help you with the facts of this case.</p><p></p><p>It was stated by the Company and confirmed by the Union during questions that the “call list” was staffed at a number more than was required by the local agreement. The Company called all available qualified drivers including day-off feeder drivers and feeder drivers on vacation. No driver accepted the work. You claim that all means were not exhausted and everyone was not called, yet you also claim that the facts of the case are “not available”. You can’t have it both ways. I suspect you’ve known these facts all along but chose to conveniently leave them out.</p><p></p><p>You also claim that there was a 3-minute executive session. Anyone who’s been to the National Panel knows it takes more than 3 minutes to get everyone out of the room! I also believe that the parties are called back in and the decision is read aloud.</p><p></p><p>You state that you have “years of grievances on committee hold”. JW didn’t put those on CH, but I don’t hear you screaming corruption about that.</p><p></p><p>As far as tying the other 150 grievances to this “pilot” case, that was an agreement made between the Local and the Company. Don’t lay that at the Panel’s feet.</p><p></p><p>You call the entire TU slate corrupt on at least 3 occasions. You say that because they are on the same slate, therefore they are also corrupt as you <em>claim</em> JW is. How do you square that with the fact that a candidate on the VH slate was found guilty of colluding with an Employer to have one of his members issued a warning letter? All the brother did was exercise his right to campaign according to the rules for the opposing slate. The ES ruled that the candidate violated the rules and ordered the warning letter rescinded. Using your theory, which I don’t subscribe to, the entire slate should be condemned for that action of one candidate. There’s quite a difference between empty allegations and proven guilt.</p><p></p><p>Your only evidence for your corruption allegation is a decision that did not go your way. Three experienced Teamsters looked at the facts of the case and all agreed that the case had no merit. How do you know there was corruption involved? The answer is “you don’t”. Teamsters should be able to disagree with each other without accusing the other (especially with no evidence) of corruption. You say it’s a “cancer on the slate”. Why do you care? You’ve already called everyone on the slate corrupt! The truth is that you want it to be a cancer on the slate because you’re campaigning for VH.</p><p></p><p>You say it’s “sickening and should be glaringly obvious”. Frankly, it is sickening and glaringly obvious that all your statements are self-serving, baseless, and politically motivated. You trash your Union on the internet, with no evidence to back it up, for anti-union attorneys to use against us in organizing campaigns. That sounds like a complaint I’ve heard a few times over the years about another group.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CleanUpHitter, post: 4997384, member: 92948"] Your allegations of corruption, etc., simply because you’re not happy with the Panel’s decision (and it was a Panel of 3 who were all in agreement), amount to nothing more than blatant campaigning. You know nothing about this man, yet you choose to attack him simply for potential political gain. This Teamster leader that you attack was just re-elected by acclamation for the third straight election to his position of President of Local 822. You should understand that these are the Teamsters who know JW best. He was elected President of his JC 83 and a Trustee on that H&W&P Fund. That Pension Fund is over 100% funded. He is well known and respected across the entire Country, yet you attack him personally and accuse him of being corrupt. And yet, as it has been pointed out, you have provided no facts, other than the decision you don’t agree with, to support your corruption allegations. I’m going to help you with the facts of this case. It was stated by the Company and confirmed by the Union during questions that the “call list” was staffed at a number more than was required by the local agreement. The Company called all available qualified drivers including day-off feeder drivers and feeder drivers on vacation. No driver accepted the work. You claim that all means were not exhausted and everyone was not called, yet you also claim that the facts of the case are “not available”. You can’t have it both ways. I suspect you’ve known these facts all along but chose to conveniently leave them out. You also claim that there was a 3-minute executive session. Anyone who’s been to the National Panel knows it takes more than 3 minutes to get everyone out of the room! I also believe that the parties are called back in and the decision is read aloud. You state that you have “years of grievances on committee hold”. JW didn’t put those on CH, but I don’t hear you screaming corruption about that. As far as tying the other 150 grievances to this “pilot” case, that was an agreement made between the Local and the Company. Don’t lay that at the Panel’s feet. You call the entire TU slate corrupt on at least 3 occasions. You say that because they are on the same slate, therefore they are also corrupt as you [I]claim[/I] JW is. How do you square that with the fact that a candidate on the VH slate was found guilty of colluding with an Employer to have one of his members issued a warning letter? All the brother did was exercise his right to campaign according to the rules for the opposing slate. The ES ruled that the candidate violated the rules and ordered the warning letter rescinded. Using your theory, which I don’t subscribe to, the entire slate should be condemned for that action of one candidate. There’s quite a difference between empty allegations and proven guilt. Your only evidence for your corruption allegation is a decision that did not go your way. Three experienced Teamsters looked at the facts of the case and all agreed that the case had no merit. How do you know there was corruption involved? The answer is “you don’t”. Teamsters should be able to disagree with each other without accusing the other (especially with no evidence) of corruption. You say it’s a “cancer on the slate”. Why do you care? You’ve already called everyone on the slate corrupt! The truth is that you want it to be a cancer on the slate because you’re campaigning for VH. You say it’s “sickening and should be glaringly obvious”. Frankly, it is sickening and glaringly obvious that all your statements are self-serving, baseless, and politically motivated. You trash your Union on the internet, with no evidence to back it up, for anti-union attorneys to use against us in organizing campaigns. That sounds like a complaint I’ve heard a few times over the years about another group. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Members Sold Out by TU
Top