Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Proof in the pudding

A little advice: If you want to earn a huge pay scale you better turn in your fruits to your constituents.
That is undoubtedly a lesson that everyone learns - the previous administration of TWU Local 100 under Roger Toussaint has delivered fruits to the benefit of the membership. There are many to be described there, even the last 3 percent raise will be delivered on May 2011. Anyway, if you judge or assess the previous administration, you see that they have been able to deliver fruits to the membership. This is an undeniable fact based on their performance - any reasonable person will conclude that they have earned their pay.
Now the onus is on John Samuelsen and the TBOU leadership. If they can ever deliver any fruits to the benefit of TWU Local 100 membership in the contract of 2012 then they deserve the lavishly awarded pay scale. Here is a forecast, John Samuelsen with his TBOU leadership team will not deliver any fruits to the benefit of TWU Local 100 membership, but rather hand over concessions.
It would appear that the so-called John Samuelsen and TBOU will deliver zero fruits in the 2012 contract. Thus we are not sure what good their claim that they have taken a pay cut is. Is that a signal to the membership of TWU Local 100 that we should expect a pay cut? However maybe they will come with another wild claim - we don't want to be uncharitable.
John Sameulsen with his TBOU team must deliver fruits to the benefit of the TWU Local 100 membership. Before he can run with his wild claims, nothing is believable until John Samuelsen with his TBOU delivers a comparable contract to that of Roger Toussaint, or forever he will be known a midget in performance. First we would like to know where is the property wild claim of 350 Schemerhorn Avenue - that was in the mass membership meeting on November 6, 2010. Now looking back we realize it was just a meaningless wild claim. Moving to a building on 1700 Broadway which is unfriendly towards the membership clearly reveals faulty leadership. Those alone warrant that John Samuelsen with his TBOU are not helping to better TWU Local 100 in any way. It is a ridiculous notion of Samuelsen’s lackeys that his administration be compared to the previous administration.
Clearly John Samuelsen’s performance - or lack thereof - stands in contrast to the work of the previous administration powerhouse of Roger Toussaint which is known for its performance prowess. In the performance race a reasonable conclusion can be made that the previous administration pummeled John Samuelsen’s. The current failed policies, 2010 layoffs, robber baron solidarity fund, and financial irregularities with their wild claims from John Samuelsen and TBOU is a remainder that TWU Local 100 is sinking down the drain. However through our vigilance we will prevail.

1 comment:

  1. Absolutlely silly.
    The last contract was an award from PERB not negotiated. The key factor in that decision was what other unions got not what we negotiated.
    To say this administration has delivered nothing is as folish a statement as you can make.
    Ask any of the Station Agents back to work from layoffs if this admintration delivered anything.

    Ask the Bus drivers' returned from layoffs if this adminstartion delivered anything.

    Fighting the layoffs is a huge achievement you fail to recognize.
    Maybe because you had little to do with it.
    You cannot take credit for it.
    Oh no I forgot:
    you were against helping the laid-off members in the solidarity fund and against them being brought back to work in stations.
    My Bad. I'm sorry.

    Pretty sad when this Union values "what I can get in my contract" over helping thier brothers and sisters who got laid -off.But you have already established your view.

    Funnt thing is you have delivered zero in a contract either. I bet you secretly hope our next contract is a bad one so you can say "I was right." Sad.

    To say JS has delivered nothng in a contract is just plain dumb: he has not had the opportunity to negotiate one yet.

    That is like saying I don't like seafood before you even try it. Childish and silly.

    Or perhaps you are being "tricky". Like the lawyer asking "Mr. Jones how long have you been beating your wife?"
    A leading, unfair question.
    Your list of apologies are growing at an incredible pace.
    Soon you will have to devote an entire blog to apologies.

    ReplyDelete