You have a right to protest and complain to the Department of Labor, here is the address:
U.S. Department of Labor, OLMS
District Director
201 Varick Street, Room 878
New York, NY 10014
Phone (646) 264-3190
If you are a member of TWU Local 100 in good standing you can request from the Department of Labor to make public of those ‘forty one (41)’ current officers and challenge the election of 2009 of TWU Local 100, that they should be barred from holding office.
John E Samuelsen president of TWU Local 100 Take Backward Our Union TBOU should be bold by revealing the names of the current officers who were in bad standing ‘forty one (41)’ sooner rather than later, he should be bolder by kicking them out of office. He should not tolerate those current officers who were in bad standing however do not hold your breath, he loves them and he will protect them. You will have to pay for the legal fees that is a cavalier arrogance with the membership dues.
It is understandable if the membership feels that John E Samuelsen president of TWU Local 100 Take Backward Our Union TBOU is out of touch. With fairness means to the membership who work hard and play by the rules and who are feeling this bad standing issue only exposes Samuelsen’s true colors by ignoring this issue, it is obvious he does not have a little bit of sympathy with the membership who feel he is out of touch. When do you think he will recognize this issue of bad standing - we believe he will not deal with bad standing based on this below.
John E Sameulsen president of TWU Local 100 Take Backward Our Union TBOU - on Tuesday June 29, 2010 - Executive board meeting minutes on page 3, paragraph 4 says ‘In regards to the investigation that is being conducted by the Department of Labor there is anticipation of names of those that attended the International Convention to check if they were in bad standing. President Samuelsen will litigate on behalf of those at Local 100 found in bad standing ...’. We do not agree with his point of view, why waste the membership funds in defending those officers who were in bad standing. It is obvious he is out of touch, he is a nice family man but he has poor judgement.
TWU International and TWU Local 100 are facing difficult and challenging circumstances in regards to the bad standing issue. The current leadership instead of rising to the occasion in cleaning the mess they have created they chose to litigate and protect current officers who were in bad standing. It is obvious that they are out of touch and are not concerned with what affects the membership in improving their livelihood prospects.
5 posts on bad standing. Do you realize we have a contract fight going on?
ReplyDeleteSo we should allow liars and scabs to negotiate for our dues paying members? What's wrong with you?
ReplyDeleteThe solution to the problem may very well be worse than the cure.
ReplyDeleteYou would propose cutting loose perhaps 41 officers right before contract negotiations?
How does that make any sense?
Even in the remotest fashion?
These negotiations will be tough enough with a full compliment of officers dealing with it.
Imagine what happens if you go with less than a full force.
So if you a really thinking of the best interests of the membership, right at this moment, the answer is quite simple and devoid of politics:
Let the DOL investigation run it's course and follow whatever their recommendations are.
It is very likely that they will not demand the removal of officers at this present time.
Perhaps they will later. Fine.
The only one who would want L100 to go into negotiations at less than full strength is probably the MTA and those obsessed with TWU politics.
And on the outside looking in.
The "41" should be replaced immediately they lied and scammed the membership. And lets take it another step. Anyone given a staff position by any of the "41" should be let go as well.
ReplyDeleteRemember the International has three representatives out of Local 100 who who are NOT QUALIFIED to hold office.
I wonder if the folks who post on this blog paid their dues?
I'll go you one better.
ReplyDeleteSince whoever won election in the first place benefited from the work of those you say are not qualified, then perhaps the entire election should be done over.
After all, why should those who benefited from the work off the unqualified be allowed to gain from it.
ridiculous yes.
but no more ridiculous than sabotaging contract talks a month before we get into them.
I wonder also about those who hide behind cute names.
These are troubling times for us all. :)
Did you pay your dues?
ReplyDeleteAll paid up. How about you?
ReplyDeleteOdd there is a Paulp listed as a non-paying member in Tommy Creegan's testimony before the fraudulent E Board. Guess that can happen when you hide behind cute names.
ReplyDeleteI paid my dues plus an additional 10% of my salary when I was working.
Indecently what happen to the $95,000 dollars the retirees gave to the "Solidarity Fund"?
Not a cute bane but my name.
ReplyDeleteWere you named Trans or talk by your parents?
True, I was accused by Creegan of non-payment of dues.
The charges were thrown out by Eboard.
I never knowingly did not pay my dues.
And I am paid 100% now.
BTW I know who you are too.
I guess that makes us even.
You are someone who for years worked for the TWU and made a 90K salary most of the time.
Some kind of director or something.
I believe you really specialized in dirty work, behind the scenes talking and plotting.
I guess you could call it "intel-work." Slandering, challenging, debating and basically running interference for whoever signed your checks.
The only question is now who’s signing your checks these days?
Someone who promised you a job if they win the Presidency?
From your post I have a pretty good idea who that is.
remember the 3 biggest lies in the world:
the check in the mail;
I love you;
and
if I win the election I will take care of you.
True, I was accused by Creegan of non-payment of dues.
ReplyDeleteThe charges were thrown out by Eboard.
I never knowingly did not pay my dues.
And I am paid 100% now.
Did you read the above before you wrote it? You are contradicting yourself and the DOL does not allow for exceptions like,"never knowingly not pay my dues"
Your charges were thrown out by the same people on the Eboard who are guilty of the same thing! Not paying their dues.
I see this is going nowhere,
ReplyDeletewhoever promised you a job,
are feeding you lines like a ventriloquis
The DOL will take whatever action they deem as necessary in the matter of what went on in the last election.
What you seem to be avoiding is how did the 2009 TWU election committee, a part of the administration that you served under, allow so many candidates with problems, get approved to run for office?
Are you avoiding that because you were part of the same administration as the 2009 election committee or some other reason?
What you and many others seem to be doing is looking at the problem and trying as hard as possible to correct it but not trying to figure out how this problem happend.
WHy you and others are approaching this problem in this way puzzles me.
Do you think that those 41 put themselves on the ballot or they were approved by the 2009 election committee?
My last post on this issue I do not wish to make this a debate site or a side show.
Wrong again. The three officers elevated to the International at the 2009 Convention and from the administration I worked under must be removed as well.
ReplyDeleteEnd of story