We will continue to document the history of the Bruce Hansen presidency between now and the next election.
Below is a presentation that Bruce Hansen made to the Trimet board of directors last June.
Remember that Mcfarlane said at the very beginning that all he wanted was for union employees to give up the 100% health benefit in favor of the much degraded 80% benefit with much higher deductibles and copay's.
As we know now Mcfarlane achieved his goals. And I have yet to see anything in writing as to why this 'deal' was to the benefit of the union members.
I couldn't care less that "82%" of those who voted (more than 900 didn't even bother to vote) voted yes.
Apparently they were all 'talked into it'.
The only explanation I have heard from members is 'this is the best we can get' and if we don't vote yes there will be '400+ takeaways when we lose in arbitration '.
In other words the whole deal was achieved by 'scaring' union members
I didn't go the the 'official meeting' so I don't get to know what the rational is for the president supporting this.
One of my big issues with our union is that if we don't go to the meeting we just don't get to know anything about union business.
How is that a proper policy?
I didn't go the the 'official meeting' so I don't get to know what the rational is for the president supporting this.
One of my big issues with our union is that if we don't go to the meeting we just don't get to know anything about union business.
How is that a proper policy?
So where is the ATU official statement as to why members needed to take Mcfarlane's 80% insurance?
It doesn't exist!
It doesn't exist!
When there exists nothing in writing what that really means is
'we have no good explanation'.
The union got nothing in exchange that I am aware of, except a higher clothing allowance.








