1. Actual transparency: We have a duty to act visibly, predictably and understandably to promote participation and accountability. Simply making information available is not sufficient to achieve transparency without accountability.
2. Actual accountability: Ensuring that officers are answerable for their actions and that there is redress when duties and commitments are not met. Report/explain/justify all decisions to members.
3. Integrity: Adhere to moral and ethical principles while rebuilding and protecting unionized values. WE ARE YOU VOICE NOT YOUR EMPLOYER!
4. Veted information: Provide properly veted information while getting it out in real time. Part of being able to provide information is the necessity of keeping and tracking statistics (i.e. tracking operator assaults or violations of FLMA) in processing information properly.
5. Upgrade how we process information: By upgrading our software needs we can shorten the time spent on grievances (example: grievancemanager.com). This would save us time and money with our labor lawyers. No more copying files, physically driving documents to locations, and incurring courier expenses. As a result, our members receive faster and efficient service from their union representatives. Allows our Shop Stewards and Liaisons access to file grievances and allows our Executive Board access to files for management meetings.
6. Rebuild our Shop Stewards program: Our Union is not whole without Shop Stewards who represents and defends the interests of her/his fellow employees but who is also a labor union official. Rank-and-file members of the union hold this position voluntarily while maintaining their role as an employee of the companies we serve. As a result, the union stewards become a significant link and conduit of information between the union representation and rank-and-file workers. Communicate and disseminate official union policy, memos and directives to workers in the shops. Popularize and promote union consciousness and values in the workplace. Shop Stewards will become the Unions Presidential Advisory Committee (UPAC).
Giving back to the membership: 2 Programs
1. Start a grant program with 2 winners. Working with our retirees and create 2 grants for Union members children graduating and going to college.
2. Working with the membership to bring The EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND: This program would allow for funds to go to our members that are in the most need of financial assistance. Although the funds would be temporary and for basic needs, we could really help our members. Re-investing in our membership is the best investment we can make.
Henry Beasley
Your brother on the front line.
UNION STRONG
===============================================================
My response to a question from a member:
First let me say this “we have a systemic issue and that’s inadequate representation of our membership.” As you know over the years we have been trying (with great effort) to raise awareness of what’s going on; to no avail. If we remain on this path things will continue to be status quo; while members are silenced in determining their future for themselves and their families.
Do I have negotiating experience, no. But in order to be a good negotiator you have to have certain things, that's knowledge on the subject that you're negotiating, know where your bottom line is, but the most important thing is how you build your bargaining team. Case in point, although Bruce was an e-board officer in the past, he was not President/Chief negotiator for the union until his election (you can also put Shirley in the same boat). He did what he thought was best in the interest of our Union, I can respect that. But I also say that it is our bargaining team that has to be just as strong in order to get the best deal in the interest of our membership. As a Chief negotiator, you have to be in lock step with the team, you cannot allow infighting to destroy the continuity during the negotiations. Although I’m specifically talking about our last negotiations (although other contracts were a lot more peaceful) we were a powder keg of infighting and self-importance that superseded the member’s needs and cost us. Ultimately, the responsibility falls to the President to lead.
What I do know come December 1st is what the company is after, and that's another swipe at our retirees. Which is off the table, our retirees have suffered enough hardship. Going into the next negotiations we need to reflect on the history of our troubles and why we have thus far ignored the signs. The questions we need to ask is: 1. Why didn’t anyone raise a red flag when the company decided to separate the benefits packages? 2. Why didn’t anyone raise a red flag when the company reported 0% funding in our benefits package? 3. Why didn’t anyone raise a red flag when the company stated the hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities that were associated with our benefits package? 4. Why didn’t anyone pay attention to what was going on in the country, a perfect example is Detroit Michigan’s public unions (https://www.aei.org/publication/the-looting-of-detroits-pensions/ ). All of these things led up to our loss in arbitration and ultimately a loss in our current contract in the tune of $368 million over the next 30 years. Understanding our past can help us go into the future negotiations with knowledge and preparedness.
Lastly, a major thing that we currently do not have is a set “standard” in our contracts. In looking at some of our contracts, I’ve noticed things here and things missing there. Case in point: section 4 in our C-Tran contract follows the Fair Labor Standards Act in road reliefs; the Trimet contract does not, why? In LTD’s contract section 32.13 Work Refusal hand cuffs our operators to the steering wheel; At Trimet we’ve solved that issue with our Red Book on RDO requests. In LTD’s contract Section 36.1 Tool Allowance is up to date; while the Trimet contract is stuck in 2008-2009 without being updated with the increases that were due, and given away because of the inaction from our current administration. Finally, in some of our contracts there are shift differentials that are higher than those at Trimet, LTD’s mechanics receive 60/1.00 respectively, and C-Trans’ (although it’s a different union) receives 1.78/2.23; while at Trimet we are stuck at .25 across the board. With the proper information and documentation with the research to back up our position and set standards; we can accomplish what’s in the best interest of our membership.
This is what I bring to the table, a plan to set a higher standard of representation with the fierce focus on our members needs above our own.
First let me say this “we have a systemic issue and that’s inadequate representation of our membership.” As you know over the years we have been trying (with great effort) to raise awareness of what’s going on; to no avail. If we remain on this path things will continue to be status quo; while members are silenced in determining their future for themselves and their families.
Do I have negotiating experience, no. But in order to be a good negotiator you have to have certain things, that's knowledge on the subject that you're negotiating, know where your bottom line is, but the most important thing is how you build your bargaining team. Case in point, although Bruce was an e-board officer in the past, he was not President/Chief negotiator for the union until his election (you can also put Shirley in the same boat). He did what he thought was best in the interest of our Union, I can respect that. But I also say that it is our bargaining team that has to be just as strong in order to get the best deal in the interest of our membership. As a Chief negotiator, you have to be in lock step with the team, you cannot allow infighting to destroy the continuity during the negotiations. Although I’m specifically talking about our last negotiations (although other contracts were a lot more peaceful) we were a powder keg of infighting and self-importance that superseded the member’s needs and cost us. Ultimately, the responsibility falls to the President to lead.
What I do know come December 1st is what the company is after, and that's another swipe at our retirees. Which is off the table, our retirees have suffered enough hardship. Going into the next negotiations we need to reflect on the history of our troubles and why we have thus far ignored the signs. The questions we need to ask is: 1. Why didn’t anyone raise a red flag when the company decided to separate the benefits packages? 2. Why didn’t anyone raise a red flag when the company reported 0% funding in our benefits package? 3. Why didn’t anyone raise a red flag when the company stated the hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities that were associated with our benefits package? 4. Why didn’t anyone pay attention to what was going on in the country, a perfect example is Detroit Michigan’s public unions (https://www.aei.org/publication/the-looting-of-detroits-pensions/ ). All of these things led up to our loss in arbitration and ultimately a loss in our current contract in the tune of $368 million over the next 30 years. Understanding our past can help us go into the future negotiations with knowledge and preparedness.
Lastly, a major thing that we currently do not have is a set “standard” in our contracts. In looking at some of our contracts, I’ve noticed things here and things missing there. Case in point: section 4 in our C-Tran contract follows the Fair Labor Standards Act in road reliefs; the Trimet contract does not, why? In LTD’s contract section 32.13 Work Refusal hand cuffs our operators to the steering wheel; At Trimet we’ve solved that issue with our Red Book on RDO requests. In LTD’s contract Section 36.1 Tool Allowance is up to date; while the Trimet contract is stuck in 2008-2009 without being updated with the increases that were due, and given away because of the inaction from our current administration. Finally, in some of our contracts there are shift differentials that are higher than those at Trimet, LTD’s mechanics receive 60/1.00 respectively, and C-Trans’ (although it’s a different union) receives 1.78/2.23; while at Trimet we are stuck at .25 across the board. With the proper information and documentation with the research to back up our position and set standards; we can accomplish what’s in the best interest of our membership.
This is what I bring to the table, a plan to set a higher standard of representation with the fierce focus on our members needs above our own.
Henry Beasley talks about ATU757 and TRIMET from al m on Vimeo.
Sounds like old Bruce Hansen campaign promises. And with NO EXPERIENCE of any kind members will get the same results they did with Bruce. At the retirees meeting you said you weren't prepared to speak. Really? A person who wants to be president should be ready for anything at anytime. If you're unprepared with retirees I would hate to see what would happen when management surprises you. Bruce had trouble thinking on his feet and speaking too.
ReplyDeleteAt the retirees meeting you were not very supportive or receptive of a constitutional change that would protect retirees. I see more give aways coming if you are elected.
It's easy to talk game but much harder to play it. Stay on the little league field and out of the majors.
Bob, please tell the truth. I was there to support our retirees and pass on their needs to the membership come the next negotiations.
ReplyDeleteThe meeting was set up in advance to recommend our current representatives. When Hunt spoke of being on vacation, but showed up in a suit and tie; that reeks of machinations.
Would anyone be prepared for that maybe not, but I did speak for over 20 minutes plus I answered every question thrown my way. Since there was prior notice for others they clearly were prepared.
When asked did I support the proposed constitutional change set for the convention, I said “yes.” Did you not hear that point? I also added “what if it fails?” I also offered details on how we can prevent any more retiree giveaways, by rebuilding solidarity so that every member is on the same page come ratification, remember? Was that solution, not good enough? Or do you want our retirees to put all their chips on promises that may fail, or go with solutions that will guarantee protecting our retirees?
Speaking of which what have we gained in the last two contracts that make you feel good?
HB
You don't support changing the international constitution to have retirees vote. You didn't know anything about it when you showed up unprepared. You didn't know or have a clue about the process to change the constitution to have retirees vote. Jon showed up dressed and ready to campaign and ask for retiree support. You on the other hand were totally unprepared and it showed. It also shows you are ill prepared to hold office, lack the ability to hold office and lack the experience to be successful. You try to talk a good game but it fails miserably. TriMet and other outlining property executives would love to have you or Bruce in office.
ReplyDeleteSomeone opposes you and you elude to them being a liar or in Jon's case wearing a suit is an evil setup. Thats a perfect example of how you will never build "lockstep" solidarity. Which by the way "lockstep" sounds pretty lame and brings visions of a dictator and his troops. Being a lame, weak, third world dictator is pretty much how I envision you in office.
http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nkoreatroops.jpg
Well least tell the truth in your comments, you want retirees to put all their money on that proposal, but not answer "what if." We shouldn't be putting out false hope to our members current or retired.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you should share how you wanted to throw new hires under the bus and say that they should not have the right to vote on retiree issues. So there is solidarity your wisdom,I think not.
And just for your information I had a copy of the original proposal that was given to me by our retirees president in the month prior, so please get your facts straight.
Lastly, based on your comments at the meeting your version of a union benefits Labor Relations greatly.
HB
Paraphrase all you want. It simply shows your inability to communicate effectively without putting your own personal spin on it. It also shows you can't be trusted with facts or the truth. As this unions president you would suck. I am going to go out of my way to spread the word... DO NOT VOTE FOR HENRY BEASELY!
ReplyDeleteWell this shows what type of character that you have. Overconfident and can't understand this election was because of your candidates inability to run a clean campaign without using Union resources, and then want us us to pay using Union resources, in and a failed attempt to fight the Department of Labor, which they had no case.
ReplyDeleteSo if you're going to spread the word, start with the truth.
HB
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteParaphrase and spin it anyway you want Henry. Just goes to prove you are a liar and want to manipulate information to suit your own agenda and needs. Obviously you are not in it to represent anyone, but just here to validate your own needs. Definitely shows you are a good manipulator of facts, however it does not hide the fact you are intellectually challenged and would make a worse president than Bruce Hansen. DO NOT VOTE FOR HENRY BEASLEY. He will sell you out.
ReplyDeleteAnd Henry... you are the cancer that is ruining this union. Management at the companies would love to have you in office. A president that is weak, not smart, and can't see the big picture if it landed in his lap. And that is just a few things.
Say what you want from here on out. I have better things to do than waste my time responding to you. I will use my time campaigning against you instead. DO NOT VOTE FOR HENRY BEASLEY! He will sell you out.
I really hate it when people I respect argue with each other
ReplyDeleteGive up the right to strike, never protected retirees.... Check.
ReplyDeleteHB
Give up the right to strike, never protected retirees.... Check.
ReplyDeleteHB
Al I'm not wasting my time with him anymore. Half truths, innuendo and flat out lies is Henry Beasley's campaign. I understand he is desperate, but I also thought he had values. I was wrong. But I am also glad to help expose it. His responses cost him votes when I referred people here to read his BS.
ReplyDeleteDO NOT VOTE FOR HENRY BEASLEY!