Home arrow Forums arrow The Soap Box arrow Lasting Impression comments

Lasting Impression comments

page: prev  1, 2
Display posts from previous:
Author Message
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:03 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3620
Location: the 'puter
And the 504 rule
Quote:
Is there a difference between a felony conviction and a misdemeanor conviction for
purposes of the bar? No.(emphasis mine)
That's not to say *they* won't try to twist it and rationalize it.

Does it matter if it's specific? The question isn't whether or not it's written black and white in the rules. The question should be whether or not a convicted criminal in a leadership role is acceptable on any level. And the answer should be no, rationalize all they want - it's not acceptable!

ps - and after hansen does the right thing and fires Lomax's ass, this can be impetus to update and clarify the 504 rules. Tell them that too!

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
Lynda P.
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:23 pm

Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 114
Quote:

Is there a difference between a felony conviction and a misdemeanor conviction for
purposes of the bar? No.(emphasis mine)


Yes, thanks again. I did see that it matters not whether the conviction is felony or misdemeanor...

There is a list of crimes (misdemeanor or felony, matters not) listed which would Bar an individual from holding Union office.

My point is that, can it be that I just don't see sexual solicitation on the list in section 504. Have I missed it? It should be...I've missed it somewhere, right?

I keep looking...what have I overlooked? If you see that, I would be ever grateful for a heads up...copy/paste? I'm contacting someone by email today and I want to not have missed anything. I want to be able to quote ( for extra PUNCH) that the crime of sexual solicitation (misdemeanor included is a crime listed in section 504 that bars an individual from holding. That's what I am looking for.

If you can believe it, committing certain misdemeanor crimes do not bar an individual from holding Union office.

I just want to be RIGHT ( to the interpretation of the precise crimes barring...)in section 504 before I WRITE and stand up in the June Eboard meeting to make my proposal.

Of course UFCW should have fired his ass long ago. no doubt. I agree... 100%

And yes, of course, any crime, from urinating in public, drunk driving, pot possession ( oh never mind, that's legal in some places, graffiti, the list goes on...all crimes-misdemeanor or not, should prevent an individual from holding Union Office. AND, THEY SHOULD ALL be drug tested on a regular basis.

Mostly,the crime of robbing the Active Members to support their obscene salaries should immediately remove most of those Union Officers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....and sure, I'll state that in the June Meeting!
Back to top profile :: pm
Lynda P.
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:52 pm

Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 114
Quote:
Does it matter if it's specific? The question isn't whether or not it's written black and white in the rules. The question should be whether or not a convicted criminal in a leadership role is acceptable on any level. And the answer should be no, rationalize all they want - it's not acceptable!


Thing is, to file a complaint with the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) concerning Prohibition against Certain Persons Holding Union Office or Employment...
I believe that their list of "crimes barring..." in section 504 will matter.

Fact-->I was involved in the challenge of Local 5 2012 Election of Officers. I've spoken in depth with two of those DOL individuals...they stick to the standards, even as low as THOSE seem to be.

UFCW do the right thing? It's way too early for jokes like that.
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:09 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3620
Location: the 'puter
Quote:
...they stick to the standards, even as low as THOSE seem to be.
That's how civil disobedience got it's start no? We can accept *their* rules and/or *their* interpretations as is or not. Assuming outcomes - they win hands down. Make the complaint - let the onus to do the right thing or not fall on the keepers.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
Lynda P.
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:38 pm

Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 114
Yep, Sharyn, I'm in total agreement..that's how I found myself on this Eboard in the first place...

Trying to make a difference...

I'll keep making the complaints. I'll keep asking the hard questions. I'll never back down from what I believe needs to be addressed.

Been Doing it for 34 years in this Union.

I've never been one to sit on the sidelines. Ask JB.

I'll continue to do and say what I feel is appropriate and right for me to get involved in, as well as do my best to juggle that with being an amazing mom, Nona and employee.

Sure thing, I'll try to lead by example those sadly uninformed Members who will struggle along long after I've left. Ill keep writing the letters, emails...

Sometimes something sticks to the wall, eh?

We got a new election,no? THANK YOU ROGER RIVERA, JB...
Back to top profile :: pm
Scott Schroeder
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:51 pm

Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 1253
Location: Some where on the mountain
Ive made my apologies for the post and Sharyn took the proper remedy to appease those I obviously offended, but I have to say now that Im glad I made the post! My post has actually stimulated a real conversation on the seriousness of the actions and behavior of this public figure head within the UFCW!

Gawd-damn! If we dont have ourselves a real meeting and conversation going on here!

To Lynda's point...

Quote:
Thing is, to file a complaint with the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) concerning Prohibition against Certain Persons Holding Union Office or Employment...
I believe that their list of "crimes barring..." in section 504 will matter.

Fact-->I was involved in the challenge of Local 5 2012 Election of Officers. I've spoken in depth with two of those DOL individuals...they stick to the standards, even as low as THOSE seem to be.


She is dead on right here. I've also dealt with the DOL investigators and despite what kind of overwhelming evidence you may have that union officers are fucking over their membership and if your evidence doesn't fall in their little rule book category dues paying members are basically screwed.

It's my opinion and by my experience and viewing the results of others who have taken their cases to the DOL and by recent books I've read, the DOL was put in place to protect big business and their labor faker friends.

That said Sharyns quote says it all in my opinion.

Quote:
Does it matter if it's specific? The question isn't whether or not it's written black and white in the rules. The question should be whether or not a convicted criminal in a leadership role is acceptable on any level. And the answer should be no, rationalize all they want - it's not acceptable!

ps - and after hansen does the right thing and fires Lomax's ass, this can be impetus to update and clarify the 504 rules. Tell them that too!


GREAT conversation all!

Maybe now we can bring some more lurkers out of the wood work and get their opinions and or they can contribute to this valuable conversation on the Steve Lomax issue?

Anyone...thoughts or opinions?

_________________
People oppressed will eventually rise!
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 7:17 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3620
Location: the 'puter
Quote:
I've also dealt with the DOL investigators and despite what kind of overwhelming evidence you may have that union officers are fucking over their membership and if your evidence doesn't fall in their little rule book category dues paying members are basically screwed.
Breaking news - the labour process is not member friendly - it's structured to keep labour peace (aka: shut working People down) - who fucking knew! That's why and how uncharted got here folks.

If you read a lottle (sic) cynicism in my post(s) that's because there is. Freak, if I had a penny for every time in my time as a steward that someone stood down because 'they' said or 'he' said... I'd be living retirement on the white sand beaches of the Bahamas next door to union dudes ripping off member pension funds.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
John Briley
Post Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:39 am

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 2150
Quote:


****-

Weve received your email. Someone should be contacting you soon.

- ****


U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Labor-Management Standards
**** District Office


Kudo's once again to the Enforcer!

It appears that the Enforcer has a scheduled upcoming interview with the DOL re: Gordon Steve LOMAX.

Be sure and keep us posted Enforcer.

Thank You
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 9:06 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3620
Location: the 'puter
one of the others wrote:
What, now, is the difference between corporate or union "companies"? At least we should all know/expect that corporate's intent is to wring out every cent in profit and satisfy the stockholder's need to make money on their money (investment). So, what is the union's excuse for such personal enrichment?
I was talking to a safeway's backstage person yesterday and we were discussing the sale (regardless of whatever is said to confuse the issue) and it's a done deal (of course) and has been from day one. The new guys are, and have been, infused in the company from day one.
He said most of the stores that would have to be sold would be in southern California and Arizona or maybe the Sacramento area.
He said that the union is (I'm paraphrasing) self fulfilling and has been working, in that capacity, with the companies (not the membership) for about 40 years. Great, huh.


_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
Enforcer
Post Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:37 pm

Joined: 05 Dec 2013
Posts: 250
@ John Briley: The lasting impression shirts have arrived! Here's one of them:


UFCW 770 - John Grant Lasting Impression Shirt.

Call me to discuss the other shirt designs. I did however send you the Lisa Pedersen and Shaun Barclay lasting impression shirts in the mail. Enjoy.
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:59 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 2150


Quote:
Somewhere in the Pacific:

Music to float by......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfSLuEj99d0&app=desktop

Back to top profile :: pm
Home arrow Forums arrow The Soap Box arrow Lasting Impression comments
Page 2 of 2
page: prev  1, 2
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group