Ed: Congratulations Brother (I have no problem calling you brother
because I found you in the UTU email directory, a CSXT employee as I might have suspected
from the tone of your email), you made the Express. Obviously, it is true. I suppose
one could make a good argument that I took a beating in Chicago, i.e., page 26 of the
Proceedings of the Seventh Convention shows: R. W. Earley - 325, L. E. Ruck - 75, and S.
J. Thompson - 207. And of course, I lost my incumbent yard position on the Board of
Appeals also, i.e., page 52 on the second ballot: L. E. Ruck - 227, G. D. Welch - 383!
Charlie had a pretty powerful machine in Chicago and I attribute the Earley victory on the
first ballot to a backlash from the delegates who thought "dirty politics" was
used against Earley. Indeed, Mr. Earely advanced the theory that everything was
"politically" motivated and he wasn't suing our union. Most delegates couldn't
distinguish between the truth and dirty politics.
Relative to your next allegations, you are only partially correct. Yes,
initially I did make some of my fellow Committeemen mad. I had received a call from a
member who wanted to know, now that I was returning to the Committee after a 4 year
absence, if I would allow them to put the whole Committee in by acclamation in one stroke
as was done last time. I said absolutely not and decided the best way to open up the
political process was simply to announce as a candidate for General Chairman. I had no
qualms with this because I was immensely dissatisfied with my General Chairman and the way
he handled my Local's business. As I told my wife and several close friends, "I don't
mind running, I'd hate to win"! And the problem was taking my family away from my
aging father, whose life mainly centers around my children.
After arriving in Kansas for the meeting, several members approached me
and flat stated that they couldn't support me but they wanted the General Chairman out
(apparently he treated a lot of locals as he did mine). I suggested the same person I had
tried to get to run four years previous, Committee Secretary Jim Huston. They said he
wouldn't run and I said get him the votes to win and he will run. The General Chairman
tried a power move the first day to move up the election and failed in a roll call vote. I
knew there was a chance then. Sac-C and little bb appeared for two days and brought
no less than 6 Intl. VP's down to support the General Chairman. After all, they certainly
didn't want Lance Ruck getting control of a major General Committee. As they worked to
insure my defeat, we worked behind the scenes to insure the General Chairman's defeat.
While the former GC learned the night before the election that Huston
was the candidate and not Ruck, he thought Huston would withdraw when nominated. He
learned that would not be the case the day of election when Huston received over 22
seconds! Huston defeated the former GC by a vote of 27 to 8! We then installed the Vice
General Chairman and a new secretary by acclamation. The final day of the meeting
(Saturday), I suggested every committeeman be allowed 5 minutes to say anything he wanted
and each spoke in turn. Only one was very dissatisfied with what had happened and
mainly because he had been left out of the loop. He let everyone know how he felt in no
uncertain terms and he received no applause whatsoever. However, I respect him for
having the courage to state his opinion, even though I disagreed with it and I spoke with
him several times at the St. Louis meeting in an attempt to "mend fences" and I
think we made some progress.
I received a great round of applause for my "little" speech,
i.e., something to the effect of don't judge a book by it's cover,don't be afraid to speak
your mind, and participate to the fullest! Once the new committeemen had an opportunity to
see how I participate, I think that I earned their respect. I know two things for
sure, I don't have to worry about my members being screwed because the GC doesn't like me
and our General Committee is closer than it has been in many years. I even understand
there is a harmonious and healthy work atmosphere at the General Committee offices now
with everyone part of the team!
Accordingly, while I did irrate some initially, I know of no one in my
Committee who is still mad at me and I did not "get trounced" as I did not run
for General Chairman. All in all, I thought I did rather well? In fact, I had two goals at
the beginning of 1999 (resolutions if you will), get a new General Chairman and get a new
President. I'm half way there and the other half is only a matter of time (Miami 99)!
While it is true I do attack some International officers, it is often
because I believe they are "working hard" to mislead the members rather than
represent them. While I love my union, I can no longer concur that it is
"great"; we are despised by the rest of rail labor and our leaders have
unnessacarily placed us on the threshold of destruction. While you may wish or believe
that no one is listening to me, I seriously doubt that is the case. Arguendo, you
are correct, I would still put out information that I think needs to be viewed by union
members, whether under my union titles or my "alter ego" (private joke), CEO of
the El Paso Express.
If you believe the Board of Appeals missed the Smoot Case, I will assume
you have read it rather than simply accept the word of Robert W. Earley? You, or any of
"u", can find it in the Grey Book - 1993 Report - Board of Appeals. Hell, I'll
put the whole case on this site if that's what is necessary. I have not made anything a
"federal case"! Ken Smoot made it a "federal case" when his lawyer
filed 1:94CV0485 in the Ohio Federal Court. Robert W. Earley made it a state and
federal case when he filed cases in Maryland and Ohio, the latter againt the UTU Executive
Board (1:94CV0597). Mr. Earley made it a Federal Case when he sued me for $6 Million in
1:94CV0674! IF you believe selling out the "final and binding" decision of the
Board of Appeals, a member's claim, and violating federal labor law intended to protect
union members from unfair labor/management practices is a "MISDEMEANOR", I bet
you also think Bill Clinton didn't "have sex with that woman"?
At this juncture, I think, absent the confidential information which was
attached with my General Chairman Announcement (and
you nor any of "u" who are not members of the GO-009 Committee have no right to
view that), it would be beneficial to place that letter in the record, without exhibits. I
would respectfully request any of "u" reading this to click and read before
"u" continue. Specifically, I believe it (the letter) gives tremendous insight
concerning your one remaining question, which I have deliberately saved for last, i.e.,
"What good have "U" ever done for this Union?"
As I was writing this today, I had a call from a senior employee from
New Mexico who is charged with formal investigation concerning an on duty injury. While he
is not in my local, his former Local Chairman recommended he call me for representation?
Why? Because I am a legend in my own mind? No, because I have been representing employees
in formal railroad investigations since 1976. I have been to 40 or 50 of these
investigations. I understand the game and I play it well. I "just do it"
at the local level and then I write appeals which can stand on their own in a Public Law
Board. At latest count, some 12 to 15 employees I have represented have received back pay
from Public Law Boards, totaling over $300,000 in back wages! Have I done any good for
this "Great Union"? NO, I did good for this Union's great members! See More Appreciation as a minor example.
I have challenged specious Public Law Board decisions for myself and two
or three members in the courts since the early 80's. Never won one yet, of course, but
never had to pay the other sides (Carrier's) legal fees. We (my members and I) spent
nothing, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain this corrupt system of
arbitration. Have I done any good for this "Great Union"? NO, I continue to
fight for the rights of this Union's great members, i.e., to expose a fraudulent, corrupt
system of arbitration within the railroad industry!
When this union got caught red handed selling out a member and the Board
of Appeals decision, did I lay down when they "cut deals" to make the problem go
away? No, I filed my own charges and entered the fray head on. When they sued me and
continued their abuse of process, did I quit? No, I spent tens of thousands of dollars out
of my own pocket, intervened in the courts, went to the Supreme Court, and am still
fighting as you read this. Have I done any good for this "Great Union"? NO, I
continue to fight for the rights of this Union's great members, i.e., to insure that they
will be held accountable for their actions and they will never get away with this again!
I don't see any point in continuing for you, albeit for "u"
might well be worthwhile and informative. Will you be in Washington, DC? If you are,
come meet me. Get a copy of the Executive Session Transcript, read it, and then tell me
you still support Earley. I just made my decision to go to the Washington, DC Region
meeting right now! Will I go because I want to be elected a Vice President of this
"Great Union"? NO, I will go because I want to do whatever I can for this
Union's great members, i.e., first and foremost is defeating Charlie Little to insure the
survival of both UTU, BLE, and Rail Labor!
In closing, let me ask you a few questions, although I see you were not
a delegate in Chicago and are not now the delegate to Miami from your local. In 1995
at Chicago, Charlie's team and machine got him elected, yet they had to beg for a $2
dollar increase and only got it when International Officers allegedly offered a % of their
pay to help our financial situation. Do you think the delegation in Miami will be willing
to give Charlie a big dues increase this time when we are "strong and stable"
financially? Do you think they would be willing to accept a $100 special assessment on
each of their members to repay the JBI Fund? Do you think they will accept a $6 or more
increase to fund the "takeover" of BLE? Do you think they will accept an
additional $2 per month to fund the continuation of the "Special
Representatives"? I submit to you that the answer to all those questions is NO!
Accordingly, Roger Griffeth, whose expertise is in finance, is the only candidate who can
bring the union back to financial stability without any dues increase! Think about it and
come meet me in Washinton if you attend.