Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="804brown" data-source="post: 811841" data-attributes="member: 29553">Mistake, on the dues issue, here we go again.&nbsp; It seems that the old board was supposed to put in that raise up to $73/mo in Aug 2009 and purposely didn&#039;t for political reasons- THEY WERE RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION!&nbsp; According to the Teamster Constitution they were mandated to put that raise in but didn&#039;t because they were in a tough campaign.&nbsp;Row A broke the bylaws of our Constitution but their buddy in Washington , Jr Hoffa let it slide and did not trustee them as a reward for their support.&nbsp; If the new board ever did the same, our executive board would be put in trusteeship! Once again, the old board (Row A), just like the pension problems were exposed AFTER their 2006 re-election, thought they could put the raises off until after their 2009 re-election (NOT).&nbsp; Row B came in and with the Feb 2010 raise (Row A supported split raise by the way)&nbsp; kicked in, the dues had to go all the way to $74 instead of $73.&nbsp; This proves once more that the old board (Row A aka Row C) ran away from their responsibilities and left their mess for others to clean up.&nbsp; That was not leadership.&nbsp; Now the old board and their little band of clueless followers cry &quot;look what Row B did when they got in!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Listen, Row B did what it had to to BECAUSE ROW A DIDNT DO WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="804brown, post: 811841, member: 29553"] Mistake, on the dues issue, here we go again. It seems that the old board was supposed to put in that raise up to $73/mo in Aug 2009 and purposely didn't for political reasons- [B]THEY WERE RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION[/B]! According to the Teamster Constitution they were [B]mandated[/B] to put that raise in but didn't because they were in a tough campaign. Row A [B]broke[/B] the bylaws of our Constitution but their buddy in Washington , Jr Hoffa let it slide and did not trustee them as a reward for their support. If the new board ever did the same, our executive board would be put in trusteeship! Once again, the old board (Row A), just like the pension problems were exposed [B]AFTER [/B]their 2006 re-election, thought they could put the raises off until [B]after[/B] their 2009 re-election (NOT). Row B came in and with the Feb 2010 raise (Row A supported split raise by the way) kicked in, the dues had to go all the way to $74 instead of $73. This proves once more that the old board (Row A aka Row C) [B]ran away[/B] from their responsibilities and left their mess for others to clean up. That was not leadership. Now the old board and their little band of clueless followers cry "look what Row B did when they got in!" Listen, Row B did what it had to to [B]BECAUSE ROW A DIDNT DO WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE![/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification