Dollar van

Why expose the TWU Local 100 to liability?  It has been reported on August 10, 2010, TWU Local 100, will provide ‘new van service’ however on August 5, 2010, Samuelsen, a Toussaint protege and loyalist was critical of the ‘dollar vans’. We oppose this engagement in financial or business dealings that might be perceived to exploit the public. What is Samuelsen thinking about?

Why a change of heart within five days and why is it TWU Local 100? It was clear that he has impulsive behavior and it was not a well thought out plan. It was an honorable thought to aid our laid off brethren, however incurring liability responsibilities makes it an unattractive venture.

What kind of liability are we talking about? We are talking about the type that crippled Pan Am and TWA who were forced out of business. Simple - accidents, maintenance costs, operating costs, depreciating values of assets and revenues. The margin to be on the positive side of the ledger is minuscule. It maybe viable for a single operator, which leads us to believe the TWU Local 100 dollar vans may operate on the negative side of the ledger.

The elephant in the room is will the TWU Local 100 dollar vans accommodate the disabled and the infirm? Will the dollar vans comply with the ADA? What about others who would feel discriminated clearly those questions point to liability. Now lets weigh liability against economic or other interests such as aid to the laid off brethren. It is obvious that this is not a well thought idea because it is like trying to mix water and oil which would never work.

Lets look at it from the finance end, where is the capital coming from? Maybe from the ‘solidarity fund’ that is why Samuelsen and his TBOU fake phonies were in a rush to get the funds before the launch date in mid-September. That is a possible nexus, and in addition whether TWU Local 100 is a not for profit organization, whether that status will be affected, changed or amended to comply with the tax laws? It only casts a dark cloud over the TWU Local 100 under Samuelsen’s dictatorial draconian ways.

Here again the membership were not engaged in a full discussion. The fat cat Samuelsen has a duty to communicate and he must keep the rank and file reasonably informed, and must seek their consent, must explain this ‘dollar van’ scheme matter sufficiently to allow the rank and file to make their own informed decision about it.