Message Board

Joe Wright 75 posts Jul 25, 2010 1:02 PM	It is a very fair question. A good friend of mine once told me that you should never tell someone how to vote. You should ask for their vote. You should ask for the privilege to serve them. Sometimes I think that attitude gets lost in the wash. Any union leader should consider it a privilege to serve the membership. It is not a right, bestowed on someone with years of experience, it is a privilege. And that leader, serves the members. He or she serves the members, he or she doesn't rule the members. That's the way it is in any true democracy. The members rule the union, the members get to choose who is best to serve them. So who should you vote for? Should you vote for the person with the most power? Should you vote for the person with the most connections? Should you vote for the same person time after time? Should you vote for the most popular person? No, you should vote for the person who would best serve the membership. The membership as a whole, not any individual, or group, but the membership as a whole.
kuppy 7 posts Jul 25, 2010 2:00 PM	that's pretty general. how about your views on seniority, the health plan, the annuity, or retirement plan? there's alot there...pick a subject.
truckdriver 142 posts Jul 25, 2010 2:36 PM	he wont talk about the h+w annuity or pension because they are all gd
kuppy 8 posts Jul 25, 2010 2:39 PM	ok
Joe Wright 77 posts Jul 25, 2010 2:55 PM	I think our H&W is OK, but we could be better. As I have stated in the past, I believe the members would be better served if we made our plan more like that of Local 251. Please click here to review their plan Section from Local 251 Health Plan
Joe Wright 78 posts Jul 25, 2010 2:58 PM	I think everyone would agree that if our plan was more like theirs, that more of our members would have an opportunity to qualify. There is always room for improvement, and we should always look to move forward and not rest on the past.
Joe Wright 79 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:03 PM	As far as the annuity goes, I think that members should have access to all of their money, not just the money after a certain date. This has been something we have talked about years ago. The money is the members' money and they should be free to choose what they want to do with it. That choice should not be dictated to them.
kuppy 10 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:11 PM	personally, i 'm glad it has been protected, from me, spending money kicks ass! since we've been allowed to get money, i've been to cashier twice. Last Edited on 25-Jul-2010 3:13 PM
Joe Wright 80 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:15 PM	As far as the pension goes, we at the local level can do little to affect it, unless we were to be one of the union trustees of the fund. I do believe however, that the pension fund spends an exorbitant amount of money on the administration of the fund. I believe that more could be done to save money, but it is a mute point because only the trustees of the fund can deal with that. We do need to also look into recruiting younger members of the Teamsters if we expect our funds to be able to handle paying out the pensions of our baby boomers. Accepting new, 40+ year old members is not going to help our pension fund survive for years to come. We need more young Teamsters for our pension funds to thrive long into the future. This is something you will not hear many people talk about, but it needs to be addressed. Last Edited on 25-Jul-2010 4:00 PM
kuppy 11 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:19 PM	back to the h&w. any comment on the transition period when we went from 25's plan, to our own plan?
Joe Wright 81 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:20 PM	That works for you kuppy, but why should someone loose their house because they cannot access the funds? Why shouldn't someone be able to access the funds to send a child to college? How about if a member had to deal with a nursing home situation for an aging parent? In a free society we have to live with the choices we make, good and bad. We should not however, have to deal with someone else making those choices, because we may do something irresponsible. Annuity money is YOUR money and you have every right to it.
Joe Wright 82 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:28 PM	back to the h&w. any comment on the transition period when we went from 25's plan, to our own plan? We cannot change the past, only learn from it. With that being said, I'm not quite sure what you are asking?
kuppy 13 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:29 PM	those are all valid and it would be good if those type cases could be helped. i think we're protecting the many at the expense of the few.
kuppy 14 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:32 PM	we were out of 25's plan and into ours within 60 days (it may have been less) and anyone who bought cobra was re-inbursed. all done by team 82...any comment?
Joe Wright 83 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:53 PM	I love when you say all done by Team82. So what you are saying is that if anyone else was in office that wouldn't have happened? We will never even know the real story of why we were out of 25's plan in the first place. You will hear one version, but we will never know the real story. You could come up with a bunch of "accomplishments" and I could come with a bunch of negative things that we have seen under this leadership. We could debate the past, go back and forth, and both of us would still continue to believe what we believe. Again, I will not fall into this trap and will try to remain positive. One comment I will make however, do you think the bargaining power of a H&W plan the size of Local 25 is stronger than the bargaining power of a H&W plan the size of Local 82? Surely, you must admit, that the more members of a plan you have, the better you position for bargaining the best deal for the members. I would actually like to see a Joint Council 10 H&W plan. That would be extremely difficult because of all of the ego's of the leaders of the individual locals. But can you imagine the power of bargaining a good deal for H&W with 60,000 members versus what we have? I got that number here Joint Council 10 and assume it to be accurate.
Joe Wright 84 posts Jul 25, 2010 4:12 PM	those are all valid and it would be good if those type cases could be helped. i think we're protecting the many at the expense of the few. I have to respectfully disagree strongly with that statement. If we required everyone walking around to wear a helmet, we would be protecting many at the expense of a few. This is an exaggerated example, but that's what a dictatorship is. The dictator makes decisions for the people to "protect" them from themselves. This is an arrogant philosophy. In a free society, we allow people the freedom of choice. The only time we restrict those freedoms is when the freedoms affect others. If society passed laws to "protect" people then smoking, drinking, high fat foods, etc. etc. etc. would be illegal. Our union is a democracy no matter what anyone else may tell you. Members have a right to their money and our union has no right to "protect" the members from spending their own money foolishly. Would it be in the best interest of a member if he were to loose his house because he couldn't access the funds? The members need our union to protect them from injustices at the workplace, not to protect them from themselves.
poland spring 15 posts Jul 25, 2010 4:23 PM	then joe how come tdu says if you dont agree with us your not welcome
Joe Wright 85 posts Jul 25, 2010 5:08 PM	I am no longer a mamber of TDU and haven't been for years, but will try to answer your question anyway. I believe it stems from back in the 80's when a TDU convention was stormed by thugs. Why would you want to be part of an organization that you don't agree with anyway? Would you invite Dave Corbitt to a John Perry campaign rally, or would you say that he wasn't welcome? Here is a link to the TDU web site, if you read some of the things, you will see that their main goal is not to exclude people. But, you can judge that for yourself. TDU Web Site
Joe Wright 86 posts Jul 25, 2010 5:14 PM	This is a cut and paste from an old report on President's Commission on Organized Crime that deals with the TDU convention that was disrupted: On October 15-16, 1983, TDU held its annual meeting at a Hilton Hotel in Romulus, Michigan, outside of Detroit. TDU members rented rooms and a meeting hall and met to express their view. On the first day of the TDU convention, another group of Teamsters--the Brotherhood of Loyal Americans and Strong Teamsters (BLAST), which was founded to oppose TDU and to support the IBT international leadership--set out to disrupt the meeting. BLAST is composed of Teamster members and officials and is backed by incumbent Teamster officials in Ohio and Michigan, including IBT president Jackie Presser. BLAST members travelled to Romulus in cars and at least nine chartered buses, from Cleveland, Youngstown, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo, Ohio, and from Jackson, Flint, and Detroit, Michigan. At the TDU meeting site, the BLAST members shouldered aside a policeman, tried to wrest his service revolver out of his holster, and pulled his keys and hat off and threw them away. The BLAST group took over the microphone at the podium, ran the TDU members out of the meeting hall, and tore down banners. Order was restored only after local, county, and state police arrived on the scene. On the following day, TDU members at the convention received anonymous bomb threats at the Hilton Hotel. Police searched the premises but found no bombs. The BLAST participants in the Page 115 October 15 raid were not rank and file Teamsters. Records from the National Labor Relations Board indicate that the participants in this raid included two local IBT presidents, one local IBT vice president, two IBT secretary-treasurers, three union trustees, one organizer, and at least ten IBT business agents. If you want to view the source document click link below: President's Commission on Organized Crime
Joe Wright 87 posts Jul 25, 2010 5:21 PM	poland spring when I mention democracy, you automatically assume I'm talking about TDU. I am not. Our union is a democratic union, whether you like it or not. If you read the oath of office in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Constitution it says "to preserve and strengthen democratic principles in our Union," You see, democratic principles are written into many of our Teamsters rules and that has nothing to do with the TDU. It has to do with being a good Teamster as outlined by our rules that are now in place.
Joe Wright 88 posts Jul 25, 2010 5:35 PM	An interesting quote from the document linked to above: "Until IBT members are free to criticize their union officers without fear of retaliation, there is little or no chance that efforts other than those of law enforcement can turn the union back to its members." Even the President's Commission saw that internal remedies would not work if IBT members were not free to criticize. Things haven't changed.
Hambone 40 posts Jul 25, 2010 5:58 PM	kuppy 14 posts Jul 25, 2010 3:32 PM we were out of 25's plan and into ours within 60 days (it may have been less) and anyone who bought cobra was re-inbursed. all done by team 82...any comment? N O T ! There were no Team 82 at that time. It was John Perry Bill Dodd Fred Perry Pat Geary Frank Dizzo Havlin Hank Miller That was not what you call Team 82 Kuppy. Far from it!
CHIM CHIM 33 posts Jul 25, 2010 8:45 PM	Kuppy your at least sixty addicted to porn and a weasel with no self control as proof your firing from Champion for looking at porn and not just any porn but animal porn. Here's an idea why don't you try a little self control and grow up and then maybe you can be trusted with your own money instead of being fed it in drips and drabs like the fucking invalid you obviously are.
kuppy 17 posts Jul 25, 2010 9:13 PM	hamhock, ok, john perry established our h&w program. i was trying to spread the credit around. chum , as always an inteligent response. i'll be on the show floor tomorrow, i'm easy to find. calling you a moron, is an insult to real morons. Last Edited on 25-Jul-2010 9:21 PM
kuppy 18 posts Jul 25, 2010 9:20 PM	chumly, i'm 59 and as far as growing up,,,forget it, i'm having too much fun.
truckdriver 147 posts Jul 26, 2010 1:48 AM	ive seen a lot of perry shirts lately joe you mention corbett he shouldnt be invited anywhere
ShowTeam82 61 posts Jul 26, 2010 10:09 AM	"i'll be on the show floor tomorrow, i'm easy to find." You'll be the hamster looking fuck, with his pants down and Perry shirt on!
kuppy 24 posts Jul 27, 2010 5:22 AM	how about seniority, joe? was '03 seniority? to me seniority is by a certain date, date of hire, date you joined ibt, or 82. for us number of months dues were paid might work best; or pension credit accrued. comments? Last Edited on 27-Jul-2010 5:31 AM
kuppy 25 posts Jul 27, 2010 5:30 AM	hamster, in the custom bike scene "the hampsters" are among the elite. i'm not in the hamsters. was it my fuzzy ears? Last Edited on 27-Jul-2010 5:30 AM
poland spring 18 posts Jul 27, 2010 9:16 AM	Joe loves its when ppl argue its the tdu way get everyone divided
sailor 8 posts Jul 27, 2010 3:44 PM	It is the Perry way to divide the men he is a cowardly corrupt cocksucker who will be going to prison very soon.
Joe Wright 95 posts Jul 27, 2010 4:22 PM	poland spring I love it when people debate the issues, too bad you don't have something constructive to add. Kuppy, 03 would have been a form of seniority if it was enforced. Whether you agree with the language or not, it was and still is in contracts. Union officers are duty bound to enforce contract language. They are not given discretion to only enforce the language that they agree with or like. Enforce the contract language, and if you do not like it, do something to change it. That something should involve a democratic process. A democratic process doesn't mean you shop around for places to vote until you get the results you want. It also doesn't mean that you ignore grievances just because you don't like the language. OK, enough of that. I feel the best way to classify members by seniority would be by the number of months dues paid. That would be the most fair and equitable way to deal with it. It would eliminate the advantage for someone who joined twenty years ago and then was absent for whatever reason for fifteen of those years. That person would effectively have 5 years in the union if he or she paid dues for 5 years. Using pension hours would be unfair because you would give an advantage to those who worked a lot of hours because of favoritism, nepotism, a list position, or whatever. Number of months paying dues in my opinion is the most fair way to categorize members by seniority. It's not a perfect system, and people would complain, but it seems the fairest to me. If someone has a better idea, I'm completely open to it.
mad as hell 3 posts Jul 27, 2010 4:24 PM	Vote for John Perry the best leader on earth. He is teflon nothing u tdu pukes say has ever stuck. waste more money trying u loser maggots
JOLLY RODGER 4 posts Jul 28, 2010 12:48 PM	Sean O brion and local 25 they enforce contracts they enforce seniority better health plan retiree benifits no rats 12000 members so there is plenty of work for us all a real union hall deliver concrete so they can stop the carpenters at the first step and get us work real organizers not booby real strike force not jojo and other rats real political power not perry picking losers sean please take us away from the FBI rats
Perry Lover 54 posts Jul 29, 2010 1:14 PM	All due respect to Sean O'brien, but what does he know about moving and storage, or Trade show work / matters? Could he help? DUMP, WIPE, FLUSH, PERRY!
Mr. Lim Jones 5 posts Jul 29, 2010 4:23 PM	vote for Joe he is honest and Team82 are the rats who stole your seniority.