More Boyd Babble?
I just received an "anonymous" 50+ page file apparently sent to every International Officer and other "interested parties"! It was postmarked from Annapolis, Maryland (haha - personal joke)! Certainly it was reminicient of "Clint Babble", "More Clint Babble", and Boyd's specious "interpretation of the UTU Constitution" wherein he found it necessary to actuallly misrepresent the language of the Constitution to interfere in the duties and jurisdiction of the Executive Board entitled Boyd II. Not to worry, the Executive Board didn't find that actionable and doesn't seem to have a clue what their authority actually is? Hell, if I'd been a member I would have had a trial, found him guilty, and censured him with a good old fashioned "bitch slap" for misrepresenting the UTU Constitution!
So here is "little bb's" latest specious interpretation of Article 85 of the UTU Constitution, to wit:
Should be a pdf document that you can reduce the size of if necessary? While everyone knows that only "little bb" can "interpret" the Constitution, subject to appeal within 90 days to the Board of Directors, most people don't really seem to believe these interpretations are often politically motivated and frequently completely subvert the intent of the Framers of the UTU Constitution! Such is the case here and any member with a tad of common sense should be able to see why?
A cursory review of this extensive file indicates more legal expenditures in the near future for violation of the Duty of Fair Representation and since the UTU would not hold up the payment and had to agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Union Pacific Railroad, UTU will get to pay the legal fees AND any monies that should have gone to the proper claimants of record! Ah . . ., nice work guys! Of course, who knows . . . , maybe they'll spend less than the half million they spent to screw Smoot out of $2300 and will be able to make some more BAD LAW?
As eerie music seemed to play in the background, Lord Byron (The Power of One) drifted in and out of consciousness as if his latest fad diet that had got him down to 320 in just three days was causing some type hallucinations; yea . . ., that's the ticket, this is all just a bad nightmar . . . WHACK - Byroon opened his eyes to see a UTU Constitution in one hand and a big red bleeding welt on his other hand. As he attempted to focus it was apparent he was the only student in the UTU's rolling classroom and the blackboard said: "Constitutional Interpretations 101"? WHACK, he felt a sharp pain in his now moderately thin posterior and heard this chilling voice: "I am CEOEPE Ruck and I vill be you instructor for this class; you vill learn how to correctly interpret the UTU Constitution or ve vill punish you"!
"So look big guy, Articles of the Constitution are just like any other writings, they often have sentences that make paragraphs and put paragraphs together to get the final thought across. For Example, let's take the first 24 lines of Article 85 - Duties of General Committee of Adjustment and place it in context with the actual language of each sentence, paragraph, and the Railway Labor Act:
"General Committees of Adjustment shall have authority to make and interpret agreements with representatives of transportation companies covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions - subject to membership ratification in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
General Committees shall investigate all matters properly submitted to them and shall have the authority to alter, amend, add to, or strike out any part, or all, of any matter submitted to them."
Now, obviously paragraph two is dependant upon paragraph one and of course refers to 45 § 152 First wherein the general duties of Carriers and Employees to settle disputes is addressed. We know this because of the interconnection of the next paragraph which states in pertinent part:
"In the event a matter cannot be satisfactorily adjusted, the General Chairman may request the assistance of the International President . . . . "
Obviously "a matter" is one of any "matters" properly submitted and they have the " . . . authority to alter, amend, add to, or strike out any part, or all of any matter submitted to them." as long as it relates to "interpretation of agreements with representatives of transportation companies covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions". And, of course, if you continue to line 24 you will learn that failure to satisfactorily adjust said "matters", can result in a STRIKE!
The relationship between "matter(s)" in the first 24 lines of Article 85 make it abuntdantly clear to even a novice railroad employee that the rights granted to a General Committee of Adjustment ONLY involve "rates of pay, rules, or working conditions" relative to ANY right to " . . . alter, amend, add to, or strike out any part, or all, of any matter submitted to them"!
To clarify for even the most ignorant among us, there is a distintive difference in this right concerning matters of "agreements" and matters of "internal union operations". In the instant case, the June 28, 1996 "letter of agreement" (for lack of a better term - Exhibit "B" of this file) is the original agreement between the parties subject to revision and revision was accomplished by the parties (The General Committee of Adjustment and the UP Railroad) in two subsequent "letters of agreement" identified as Exhibits "G" and "H" which clarified the parameters of the intended resolution to back claims. Said modifications were allowed by UP under the condition that the "Agreement" be accepted by June 28, 1996! Obviously, the agreement was accepted by the GCA and they met (physically) on August 12 and 13, 1996 and adopted a specific internal agreement on how claims would be paid!
Let's review quickly, the GCA makes and interprets agreements consistent with the RLA and the UTU Constitution and has the right to make changes to these agreements with the Carrier on any matter properly submitted to them covering rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. Internal union matters are addressed in the UTU Constitution and are not a concern of Railroad Companies - to the extent that they don't even care about internal ratification of National or System Agreements once they have the signature of the "designated representative"!
The internal agreement above was not subject to the provisions of lines 6-9 but was rather subject to the provisions of lines 46-59, to wit:
"A General Committee may elect from its members a sub-committee and vest such committee with authority of the General Committee of Adjustment to adjust such matters as may be assigned to it by the General Committee. The Chairperson of the General Committee shall be Chairperson of all such sub-committees.
General Committees of sub-committees of General Committees of Adjustment making settlement of matters referred to them shall, with thirty days (30) of such settlement, notify the interested Local Chairpersons and Secretary of the locals in which the matter originated of the action taken.
Actions or decisions of a General Committee shall be binding upon the members and locals under the jurisdiction of such General Committee unless reversed or modified upon appeal as provided in Article 75 of this Constitution."
Obviously, Circular Letter No. 30 (specific internal agreement in pdf above) was the settlement of matters referred to them and they did notify the interested Local Chairpersons and Secretary pursuant to lines 51-55 above (2nd Paragraph)!
So the real question is how could the GCA, with no actions filed against Circular Letter No. 30 within the time frame specified by Article 75, retroactively change the provision of said settlement under the auspicies of the GCA's rights relative to making and interpreting agreements with UP (the transportation company)? Let me repeat that question for the many "hard of hearing rails" out there:
So the real question is how could the GCA, with no actions filed against Circular Letter No. 30 within the time frame specified by Article 75, retroactively change the provisions of said settlement under the auspicies of the GCA's rights relative to making and interpreting agreements with UP (the transportation company)?
Answer: They couldn't without the very specious interpretaion of President Boyd in his 11-15-02 "Boyd Babble" herein above in pdf!
Damn, is it my imagination or does the print keep changing colors and getting bigger? Are we having "some fun" yet? Did UP Railroad agree with this "amendment" to the original agreement? NOPE - they simply demanded (and got) an Indemnity Agreement (yo, Petie - no . . ., not you your honor - sit the "ruck" down, we will pull your chain again later . . . Patsouras - business as usual? - I hope you're not running in Anahiem?)! Why? Well, they ain't stupid, they know they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell if they agreed to this skewed change to the original agreement, i.e., giving money to employees who weren't even hired when this settlement was negotiated!!!!
This concludes our lesson for today! I would be remiss if I didn't also mention I remember General Chairperson Dave Haack and his Vice D. Hinrichsen as they appeared before the Board of Appeal several time during my brief tenure. I only recall that they both presented themselves very well and always had very articulate arguments in their cases before the Board. Having read Circular letter No. 30, there is no doubt in my mind that the "intent" of the letter was to distribute all the claims settlement in a ratio percentage to the "claimants of record" as determined by the "sub-committee" set up in item #1.
Suffice to say the provisions of Circular Letter No. 21, dated November 14, 2002, made a mockery of the original settlement and had no authority under the prevailing internal union Constitution, common sense, fact, reason, or law! Simply another tragic example wherein the majority is allowed to steal the entitlements of a minority for the alleged "good of the group" when in fact it is nothing more than greed, avarice, and corrupt politics as usual within the UTU!
As Mongo once said: "I'm just a pawn in the game of life" and nothing I say has any relevance other than that which I can personally control? I have no say in whether this matter is appealed to the Board of Directors even though it is evident to this writer that the time limit has not yet expired. I can ONLY say that if this matter is appealed and summarily denied by the Board of Directors, as a delegate, I will vote against any Board of Directors member who is shown denying this appeal, consistent with the changed language from the Miami Convention in Article 23, to wit:
"A member of the Board of Directors will not be permitted to participate in the Board's consideration of, or decision on, appeals taken from his/her actions or decisions. Board members will vote on all decisions and actions taken by the Board and will not be allowed to abstain from voting, except as stated herein above concerning his/her actions or decisions. The Annual Report shall show how each Member of the Board of Directors voted on all appeals brought pursuant to Article 75 II immediately following the decision."
Damn, I just "love" that language? Don't "U"? Ah . . ., as stated in the link to this Article, I'm baaaaaaaaaaack, I'm having fun again, and I'm looking forward to the Convention! Always hang in there and have a nice day! Oh, I wanted a "little link" to "UTU's rolling classroom" but was unable to effectively place it earlier? So here it is now and I think most will "get the picture"?
". . . a union on the move . . . to what?
Bankruptcy?