|
|
|
|
St. Louis Edition
Welcome to St. Louis - Pictures from the Gateway to the West!
The arch and church right behind the Regal Riverfront Hotel
TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BOARD OFFICERS
Free speech advocate and El Paso Express CEO Lance Ruck with future UTU President Roger D. Griffeth.
EL PASO EXPRESS The Web Site is Up - Please Visit The El Paso Express Newsletter is on the Internet at the above listed address. Please come visit our site and tell your Brothers and Sisters if you find anything of interest. You have received a hard copy of the St. Louis Edition which was intended for every delegate. However, since a new directory has yet to be put out, you may receive this without being the delegate. Please provide it to the delegate of your local after you have finished with it. The Express thanks you and your delegate will thank you.
The Committee of the W"ho"le? The purpose and function of the Committee of the Whole is to allow Delegates the freedom to debate and consider proposed amendments to the Constitution without the rigid formality of the full assembly. Each Delegate is a member of the Committee and entitled to vote on every question put to the Committee. All amendments submitted under the provisions of Article 13 are printed in the book entitled "Report of the Committee on Constitution, Eighth Convention 1999." Those proposed amendments are the only subjects to be handled while the Committee is in session. The Committee on Constitution will present it's recommendations on each article in numerical order. The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole will not accept any motion to adopt the Committee's recommendations until opportunity has been given to each Delegate who has submitted a proposal on the article under consideration to call up his proposal for consideration. In the event there is more than one proposal, they will be presented in the sequence they are printed in the book. For example, Article 2 has several proposed amendments which can be called up only by the Delegate of the Local which submitted the proposed amendment starting with proposal #1. If a proposed amendment is called up and receives a second - the Delegate of the Local submitting the proposal will speak first on his motion. If any Delegate desires to speak for the motion, he/she must be recognized at the microphone with an odd number -1-3-5. If a Delegate desires to speak against the motion, he/she must be recognized at a microphone with an even number -2-4-6. The mikes also have signs indicating "for" and "against". After debate on the motion has ceased, the maker of the motion will be allowed to close debate. A 2/3 majority is required to adopt an amendment to the Constitution. When the Committee of the Whole completes the handling of proposed amendments, or at any time except when a Delegate is speaking or a vote is being taken, a motion to rise and report or come out of the committee of the whole and into the full assembly is in order. The Rules of Order of the International Convention appear in Article 36 of the UTU Constitution. In voting - every Delegate has the responsibility to vote - a show of hands will usually be sufficient. But in instances where the Chairperson cannot clearly and decisively judge the vote, the Chairperson will ask for division of the house. In other words, the Delegates will be asked to stand and an actual count will be quickly made by members of our International Boards. In order to speak for or against any motion, you must be recognized at an appropriate microphone and inform the Chairperson of you name and local number - utilize the card with your local number when at the microphones so the minute taker can identify you quickly. Be brief as possible so that others can also voice their opinions and views. Anything you have to say on a question will be of great interest to all of the Delegates and accordingly should be appropriate and delivered in a clear and courteous manner. It is just as important for the minority to be heard as the majority.
Will Miami 1999 be different? This writer was a delegate in 1991 in Hawaii and was a member of the International Board of Appeals (yard position) in Chicago in 1995. I shall be a Delegate again in Miami this August. A cursory review of the 1991 and 1995 Proceedings of the International Convention will show that neither delegation came close to addressing the Constitution. In fact, in Chicago we addressed the first 12 articles and article 20 and 92, approximately 20% of the Constitution. Will Miami be different - probably not. If you are hearing rumors that we will breeze through the elections, forget them. Sacrosanct Charlie thinks he is doing such a fine job, that he and his "team" will be returned by a large margin with most of his team being unopposed. Forget it, it won't happen - most elections will be hotly contested and there will be no lack of candidate even though very few have thus far announced. As has been the case in the past, very "little" time will be left for the Constitution and Article 12 will again be about the limit we get to as it will be even more derisive than last time because of the failure of the current Administration to tell the truth about our financial situation. Pleas see my Website for more detailed information on this subject. The past two conventions, this delegate/officer placed more importance on the Constitution than the elections, feeling the officers are merely the temporary custodians of the union between conventions. Indeed, I felt so strongly about it I even ran for Chairman of Committee of the Whole in Chicago, albeit I withdrew after Asst. Pres. Swert withdrew and supported Byron Boyd. I shall not be running this time because I no longer believe any Constitutional changes mean anything unless you can elect a President with integrity. This President ran on a platform that he Constitution would be "Sacrosanct" and he has made an absolute mockery of the Constitution, using his powers under Article 16 to abort any specific provisions with which he disagreed. Another problem has been the lack of work ethic of the delegates themselves. As long as we delegates keep the working hours from 9am to 4pm and never have any evening sessions, there is no chance of handling the Constitution. Since we are in the "best financial shape we have ever been in", it will be interesting to see what Sac-C proposes for his dues increase? But always remember, it is his position that, with the approval of the Board of Directors, he can slap another $2 dollars on you every month after he gets elected.
Make no mistake about it: UTU finances, not BLE politics scuttles unification. Sadly, for UTU members, it's leadership failed them - again - in order to bring about President Little's New World Order in Rail Labor, i.e., the Armageddon Agreement (currently known as the Wage and Rules Panel). Everyone knows the real story by now, The suave, debonair, silver haired Gamblin' Man from Texas threatened the BLE's existence with his specious request to the NMB for a new "train and engine service employee" craft predicated upon 21 NMB 35 on the Florida East Coast. He then used his political clout with the Clinton Administration and the AFL-CIO to change the shotgun wedding into a traditional "voluntary" wedding by presenting the BLE officers an offer they couldn't refuse - big pay hikes, retroactive pension, no election until 2005, etc. (See 28 Principles)!!! President Little and his General Counsel, Clinton J. Miller, III, know in their hearts that terms like "functionally integrated", "overlapping nature of job responsibilities", "shared community interests", "preponderance check of cross-utilization", etc. used in conjunction with the FEC case alluded to herein above doesn't apply on the nations Class 1 railroads. However, they want to play Texas Hold'em with the National Mediation Board because they believe they are functionally illiterate! They really don't expect to win at the NMB, but they now hope they have the political clout to delay the decision until after they are re-elected in Miami in August. It wasn't the recall that made BLE back off this sweetheart deal, it was the realization that UTU's finances were hard pressed to continue their own operations, much less the excessive costs of the new proposed union (See the BLE Letter). Indeed, the letter makes it clear that the UTU President doesn't want to have to address these sensitive issues until after his re-election. It remains to be seen when this President is going to address our true financial condition, if ever. He seems perfectly content to sit on an old fashioned three legged stool and hog-tie the members with the Earnst and Young Report. Problem is I can't find where they ever say our finances are "strong and stable". Of course, I have not yet received my 1998 copy; my 1997 copy simply states what they have always stated: "Accounting records are maintained principally on the basis of cash receipts and disbursements, except that accrual basis accounting is applied to amortize bond discounts and premiums and for certain transfers between funds, departments and the United Transportation Insurance (UTUIA or the Insurance Association) - see Note C. The financial statements omit significant non-cash transactions and disclosures that would be require if the statements had been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles." (See page 56, Report of General Secretary and Treasurer 1997 - red book). But President Little sites no less an authority than Fred Hardin himself from 1989, to wit "...No merger of union members can happen without a vote." Is this the same Fred Hardin who fought against membership ratification for three conventions until the delegates finally passed it over his objection in Miami in 1987? Those who were present in Hawaii will remember that Fred did say there was one out there I could support, i.e., Little and not DuBose. Why, because Mr. Little was a Hardin protege. I guess Hardin got the last laugh when his protege undid membership ratification in the 1996 National Agreement. Did your vote count in 1996? No, and it won't count now either because "u" are not getting a vote on whether you want something or not, "u" are getting a forced vote on "which something" "u" want. If NMB intervenes, there are three choices and all of them are bad and will result in the Armageddon Agreement. Yes, you deserve a vote that counts; it remains to seen if "u" will get one?
Deck Chair Anyone?
Letters to the Editor!!! Lance: Thanks for the opportunity to write an article for the El Paso Express. As a long time reader and supporter of member's free speech rights I am honored to have this opportunity. I must confess, while I don't understand and sometimes don't agree with everything you write, you have effectively created a medium for reflection about our organization. As you know, I have a Campaign Web Page dedicated to my pursuit for the office of International President on the Internet. So far, this process has been extremely useful in allowing me the opportunity to express my positions on the issues facing our membership during the next century. From locations across the United States and Canada reports have been made that articles from my web page have been posted on bulletin boards and distributed at union meetings. In a large part the articles have sparked a new interest in unionism, and the way our members look at our organization. All of the comments received have been positive, and I am very much encouraged by the support I have received from the members and the delegates. Finally, I am told, the members have a place to obtain information other than the traditional UTU News and UTU Web Site. I would like to encourage your reader to check out my web page at http://home.earthlink.net/~jlarnold for more information about my candidacy. Also, I would ask them to get involved in the election process by contacting their local delegate, and relating to them their views on the issues. Congratulations on your web page. I expect you will have much to contribute in the years to come. Roger D. Griffeth Ed: I too am encouraged by the new interest in unionism, in fact, I recently had a call from a gentleman seeking information and wanting to come to a "union meeting". He and some 8 other employees hired out on the UP in January and February of this year. While he said his class has now been promoted to Conductor, they have yet to perform compensated service and have yet to pass their probationary period wherein they may join the union and be protected. Most amazingly, they were promoted under a unilateral training agreement which has not been authorized by the designated union representative and they have taken promotion ahead of senior working employees who have yet to be promoted. I would recommend they cal the 'little" up hotline but I understand that is now a joke amongst the UP employees! It would appear the UP intends to deny these new employees protection under the current hub agreement being negotiated. Union employees are desperate for help and meaningful leadership. I am convinced they have not had it under the current administration. Accordingly, by unanimous vote of the Staff of the El Paso Express, you have the endorsement of the Express and the vote of this delegate! Please do not be concerned that this will in any way hurt your candidacy. Despite the ravings of the hierarchy, the Express has a great deal of credibility with the membership and this writer, former International Board member, local chairman (CT&Y), legislative representative (for-19 years) and delegate is well known within the UTU and is respected and/or feared, depending on "u're own individual philosophy! I stand ready to aid you in your quest to bring the UTU back to the preeminent position it once had in the rail labor community and to unify all rail labor for the benefit of all the working men and women on the nations railroads!
Sac-C, a purebred Hardin protege, now wishes to undo Fred's infamous dual wage structure? Why? Because he is concerned with fairness? No, he knows the post 85 employees now represent or soon will represent the majority of union members! The irony under the new Armageddon agreement will be that if he can get the new employees to vote for the agreement because they get 100% wages, approximately 10% to 20% of the employee on the nations railroads will go furlough! I will be doing an extensive article on this on my web site in the near future - look for it under the title "A little Scam"! Like I told my General Committee, it's easy to support this now, it wasn't to easy to oppose Fred Hardin back in 1984 when those losing the wages hadn't been hired yet. This writer opposed it then because he knew it was wrong. Charlie's plan won't correct it!
It seems the money for the bus did come from the JBI Fund and that the Board of Directors has now seen the wisdom in repaying the money. Rumor has it that the bus was nowhere to be found at the LA Region meeting. Will it make an appearance at the ST. Louis Meeting? I'll be there and I'll let you know on my web site. Did you know that political cartoons and political dissent have been a part of our culture since the founding of the Republic? I didn't know that either until it was brought to my attention by my good friend and brother, Gary Kennedy. He sent me a book called American Aurora written by Richard N. Rosenfeld. I hope your mother is feeling better and look forward to seeing you in Miami! Until then, hang in there, have a nice day, and this cartoon is for "u"!
Admit or Deny? As long as Sac-C is into denial we may as well make a cool game
out of it?
1. Robert W. Earley submitted expenses of approximately $26, 269 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release of 1:94CV0597. A or D 2. Robert W. Earley received a check made out to him personally in excess of $48,000 for those expenses. A or D 3. The Washington firm of Guerrieri, Edmond & Claymon, P.C. has billed UTU over $150,000 in prosecuting Smoot on UTU's counterclaims and attempting to execute the "judgement". A or D 4. Did you put up a $100,000 bond just in case UTU had no right to their Writ of Attachment. A or D 5. Did UTU International pay members of Local 1918 one or two committee days to visit the bus when it was in El Paso late last year. A or D 6. The UTU International pays UTU members who support you to come to Region Meetings and applaud on cue. A or D 7. Did the UTU International pay out approximately $1.6 million dollars to "Special Representatives" in 1998. A or D 8. The Job Benefit Fund shows in the Monthly GS&T Report under "Funds held in Trust". A or D 9. The Job Benefit Fund showed as "Funds held in Trust"in 1995 when you and the Board of Directors determined you could use the money as if it was member's dues dollars. A or D 10. Approximately $2 million was transferred from JBI into the General Fund in March 1999. A or D 11. You continue to "barrow" money from the JBI faster than you are paying it back. A or D 12. Your Washington law firm will argue before the Sixth Circuit that a Federal District Court Judge has no jurisdiction to hear a case filed under 45 U.S.C. 153 First (q). A or D 13. You paid a previous designated legal counsel over $3000 to aver what Bob Earley did at PLB 3882 was within the wide range of reasonableness allowed a union officer. A or D 14. You violated Article 24, lines 13 - 17 (Oct. 1, 1995 Blue Constitution) when you interfered (stopped) with the Executive Board trial of VP Robert W. Earley by using an alleged, illegal "Settlement Agreement and Release". A or D 15. The UTU Board of Directors upheld your interference in the trial by approving the "SAR". A or D 16. You affiliated with a labor union in England that costs UTU $25,000 per year in violation of Article 31, lines 16 -20. A or D 17. You gave Yardmaster Department Officers raises far in excess of those allowed under the Constitution and/or the Employee Agreement. A or D 18. You spent approximately $30,000 of UTU monies for a Designated Counsel Meeting in Arizona recently. A or D 19. You don't know the difference between right and wrong, a lie and the truth. A or D Mr. President, rather than holding what "appears" to be a copy of the Earnst & Young report over your head, proclaiming anyone can have a copy but no copies are available, hold this newsletter over your head and advise the assembly you have circled your answers and now you would like the CEO of the Express to come up and get them and publish on the Express Web site!
Question 1: Is it true the bus has the latest in satellite location systems which can pinpoint it's location within one meter? Question 2: Where the hell was it at 3PM on November 15 when I was at Local 18's office at 1627 Montana looking at an empty parking lot? Question 3: You invited me there but you weren't there, am I entitled to car mileage? Question 4: Is it true that some members from Local 1918 were paid one or two committee days from the International to visit the bus on Saturday, November 14? If yes, did the International also pay any members from Locals 18 and 1571 to visit the bus? Question 5: Unity is defined as "singleness of purpose or actions", "a state of mutual understanding"; hasn't UTU basically told BLE "Merge or Else"? Hasn't every other rail labor organization condemned the actions of UTU? Question 6: Have you ever read the primary legal basis for UTU's averments to NMB, i.e. 21 NMB 35? Anybody on the "Unity Committee" or in the International want to answer these questions? It is often said of myself, and especially Mr. Robert A. Cushing, Jr., recently resigned from the UP, when arguing with supporters of the UTU hierarchy, that we "know to much", i.e., well maybe you know it's all bullshit, but the average member doesn't! The inference being a "Little" Knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially to a corrupt hierarchy. ANNOUNCEMENT: I AM RUNNING FOR .... ooops - Brothers and Sisters: presented within the confines of this humble newsletter is 21 NMB 35 almost in it's entirety (crap - I lost page 5 - but in it's place you will find a substitute page which gives some clue how to access knowledge you shouldn't really have) for your reading pleasure. Read it then go back on UTU's web site and read how "IT'S THE LAW' and Sacrosanct Charlie's promises of guaranteed preservation of craft autonomy might reasonably be questioned? I certainly wouldn't want to ask a UTU member on the FEC for his opinion? Question 7: How much do "Unity Initiative" employees receive in compensation, how many of them are on the payroll, and how much have we spent to date? If the NMB does not allow a vote, would that money have been wasted? Question 8: Is the latest request to stay the decision based upon an attempt to buy-out top BLE leaders? If the answer is yes, would the money come from the Maintenance of Membership Fund, the General Fund, or the Job Benefit Fund? Question: Did UTU pay over $10,000 for Assistant President Boyd's American Express bill approximately one year ago? I'm told it was for travel. Where did he go - on the Space Shuttle, another trip to London or Hawaii?
Special Editorial - Priority Check It is interesting to note the position of our Assistant President and International President with respect to the ongoing "recall" of the BLE International President. They are quite outspoken, both verbally and in writing, concerning the decision of the Federal Court to allow the "recall" to go forward. Seemingly their high school type glee is to deflect attention from the real problem facing the UTU, i.e. our finances are in terrible shape. Our International President has been living like a drunk sailor" spending monies from the Job Benefit Fund, buying a bus, paying all his fair haired "special reps" to perpetuate his lies, and worse, to intimidate the membership to support his administration. But there is a deeper problem, how can our International President speak out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of the "recall". Personally, I don't really know or care about the basis of the "recall', moreover, in a democratic union it is the proper forum for the membership to exercise proper checks and balances with respect to elected officers. Basically, the system works. On the other side of the coin is our International President, and one of his fair haired rogues, Mr. Robert Earley. At the last convention, this is the same Robert Earley who lied to all the delegates, by letting them know he wasn't suing the union. The truth, simply stated, is that Robert Earley did the same thing that the BLE International President did, went to the courthouse to stop the membership from bringing him to justice. When caught selling out a member and the position of the UTU, he filed suit, just like the BLE International President, seeking injunctive relief to stop the disciplinary process. Now it is a well known rumor that the UTU General Counsel, Mr. Clinton J. Miller, III, is styled as the "world's greatest labor lawyer". That may be a point of conjecture, however, our own General Counsel, who is answerable only to our International President, agreed that Mr. Earley was entitled to an injunction to stop charges from being heard against him at the UTU Executive Board. That's right, he agreed to it. (Just in case you were not aware, your dues dollars pay the salary and expenses of our General Counsel.) Once done, i,e. agreeing that Mr. Earley was entitled to injunctive relief, our International President and Mr. Miller started down the path of the "good fight", or more properly staying in the game until they could cut a deal. Then a real problem presented itself, another member picked up where the first member had fallen, and filed charges against Mr. Earley. What did our International President and General Counsel then agree to, not a court ordered injunction to stop the charges, but a "de facto" injunctions. In laymen's terms, that means an illegal and illegitimate injunction. Back room bargaining resulted in the alleged, illegal "Settlement Agreement and Release which effectively denied the members their right to justice. Unfortunately it also allowed the transfer of approximately $200,000 of the members money to Mr. Earley and his attorneys and insured that he would never be brought to justice. Is there something wrong with this true story, or is it just me. How can our International President praise the court for the Northern District of Ohio for allowing the "recall" of the BLE International President to go forward, when he was confronted with the same situation during his administration and allowed the "misbehaving" Bob Earley to walk away scott free, with a pocket full of the members money? Does our International President have his priorities wrong, or is it a priority for the highest elected officer of the UTU to deprive the membership of their constitutional rights and reward an International Vice-President for the most vile deceptive form of union corruption? Just something to about.
Inquiring Minds? Some of my favorite questions from the August 1997 "Atlanta Edition", available on the internet at: http://home.elp.rr.com/elpasoexpress under Archives. 3. It had been previously reported in this newsletter that you "cut some deal" with President DuBose to get him to leave office early. As Mr. DuBose shows as an "International Employee" in 1996, what did he receive $96,047.01 for? Did the Department of Labor recently conclude the payments were improper and stop them? 5. "The Union operates a Job Benefit, Income Security Program. The Fund Balance is $13,811,969. The UTU General Fund is paying back the $8,350,000 loan from this fund. Repayment will be completed by 2004. Management feels this fund is more than adequate to cover any and all future claims from the Program." This newsletter was aware of the $7,000,000 you took from job benefit in November 1995 and filed notice with the GS&T that such use, even with approval of the Board of Directors, was a violation of Trust Law (See Yule Case). When did you take the other $1.3 Mil and what was it spent on? Not the Custom Bus, I hope? Is it OK to violate federal laws as long as you have the approval of the Board of Directors? Do you plan to tap this fund whenever necessary in the future? 6. Three attempts (certified, return receipt) to find the amount of the check cut to Mr. Earley pursuant to the alleged, illegal "Settlement Agreement and Release" remain unanswered. Can you confirm the check was in excess of $48,000 and that the expenses provided by Mr. Earley, pursuant to & 3. B. of the "SAR", provided to this writer at the Board of Directors meeting consistent with his request and notice of intent to sue under 29'431(c), totaled approximately $27,000? Did your payment of approximately $3200 for Mr. Earley's "Correct Record" to the Delegates, wherein he denied he was suing the union, as part of these "expenses" pursuant to the alleged, illegal , "Settlement Agreement and Release" violate 29'48 1 (g)? 11. How much of the member's money are you willing to spend in 1:94CV0485 to argue that what VP Earley did to member Smoot and the Board of Appeals decision was within the "wide range of reasonableness" allowed union officers? In fact isn't it often misquoted? Doesn't it actually say, "A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion."
I HOPE YOU HAVE ENJOYED THE ST. LOUIS EDITION OF THE EL PASO EXPRESS? HANG IN THERE, HAVE A NICE DAY, AND COME MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS!
ST. LOUIS IS HISTORY!
WASHINGTON, D.C. IS THE NEXT BATTLEGROUND! WILL THEY TAKE
|
