Internet Explorer, Google Chrome & PDF Files

I started working on the Internet many years ago (back in the days of dos commands, remember ping?) and was mighty impressed when Internet Explorer first came out. I no longed had to remember a bunch of esoteric commands and the internet was was actually becoming a useful tool.

I used no other browser (well, occasionally NetScape) for all those years but I think I've changed my loyalities. I downloaded a copy of Google Chrome and I have to say "I'm impressed". Impressing me doesn't take a lot so I leave it to the reader to download their own (free) copy and decided for themselves.

I particulary like the "tab" feature for opening new windows. Internet Explorer has tabs but Chrome has a much more intuitive feeling, at least for me, and I seem to navigate between windows more easily with Chrome.  It's a very simple download and installation.

On a different note, I'm looking for a way to get all of my PDF files to open in a new browser window rather than asking if you want to download. I've finally learned enought to be able to ask (hopefully) intellegent questions about what I need to do. 

I'll gladly offer any help to I can give to anyone interested in creating their own blog. I've learned a lot in the last month so I actually consider myself at the early novice stage and I'm certainly willing to share what I've learned. Happy blogging!

Article by Mr. Ben DeGrow - Education Policy Analyst

Setting the Standard for Pro-Worker Transparency:
Ensuring Financial Disclosure from Colorado's Public Employee Unions

I invite everyone to click on the title of this post to read an article by Mr. Ben DeGrow, Education Policy Analyst at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado.

I'm not sure that I've ever talked about how I feel about unions in general so here goes:

I am not anti-union!

I am, however, very anti-"taking my money for your benefit". A union belongs to the members just as America belongs to the people and union officers or government officals work for all of us who pay the bills!

When you lose my respect and trust, I'm going to do my damnest to fire you!

Typo Correction

I noticed that I had mistakenly referred to DOL OLMB in my letter to ATU International. I'd like to make a correction: The correct oversight entity is Department of Labor (DOL), Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS not OLMB).

On a personal note, my daughter called me and jokingly said "Dad, you need to start checking underneath your truck before you start it". I laughed and told her "Don't worry, this is 2009 and not the days of the Jimmy Hoffa thugs." "Besides" I added, "This is only a disagreement among adults and I'm sure we'll come to some conclusion according to the law."

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)

Fiduciary Duties

Under Title V, union representatives are obligated to manage union business for the sole benefit of the members. Individuals who violate their fiduciary duty may be sued in federal court.


Enforcement

Members who wish to sue union officials for violation of the fiduciary duty provisions must first request that the union itself take action. If the union does not take action within a reasonable period of time, the members may request permission of the court to sue.

I already have links to The Association For Union Democracy home and LMRDA pages and I think it's time to take a closer look at what LMRDA allows. So many potential lawsuits, so little time!

I have requested that the local cooperate with me and I've come to the following conclusion:

Either I'm not being taken seriously or someone thinks they have something to hide. I honestly don't know which but it no longer matters. I faxed ATU International a letter (posted) asking that they "investigate" the local's financial affairs and supply the information I require.

Four months is considered a "reasonable" period of time so we'll see what happens between now and the end of July.

Blog Renovations

The blog is undergoing major renovations and I'll try not to break anything.

I've "hot-linked" all the document files so if you click on a link you'll get (Internet Explorer, other browsers may look different) the File Download Box instead of opening a file host window:

Save will prompt you for a location and Open will open a new Adobe window and display the document.

I'm also starting to experiment with simple tabs to organize the blog a little better.

ATU Constitution

It is not only what we do, but also what we do not do, for which we are accountable.

Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then for money.

Moliere

After several days of trying, I was finally able to get a copy of the ATU Constitution and you can read it by clicking on the title or the link in my .pdf link list.

I'm really curious about the $14,920 in cash that Local 1755 had when it "went away". I'm beginning to understand the "why" but the "how" is very much a mystery to me and I don't understand why I can't get answers.

"Silence gives consent." So runs an ancient maxim of common law, and from that maxim flows a widely applied legal principle: the rule of tacit admission. On the theory that an innocent man would loudly deny a serious charge, the rule holds that a suspect silent in the face of an accusation has tacitly admitted the crime.

TIME - May 5th, 1967

Interesting. I have no additional comment.

Update on my printer problem

The title of the post will take you to Lexmark thread on "fixyourownprinter.com", one of the forums I'm following.

Lexmark was "kind" enough to overnight me a new black 4A & color 5A cartridge for my printer. Have ink will print!

That's a temporary solution for me alone and I've written to Colorado Attorney General Suthers to ask if the Colorado Consumer Protection Act might apply. The act has some of the same provisions as Magnuson-Moss but realistically, I don't think I'll get a lot of satisfaction and my next letter will be to the FTC.

Once again, if you've ran into the cartridge scam by Lexmark or any other printer manufacturer, use my new email address:

mma.lexmark@gmail.com

The most solid advice for a writer is this, I think: Try to learn to breathe deeply, really to taste food when you eat, and when you sleep really to sleep. Try as much as possible to be wholly alive with all your might, and when you laugh, laugh like hell. And when you get angry, get good and angry. Try to be alive. You will be dead soon enough.

William Saroyan

Welcome To The New Visitors

Zum deutschen Besucher Willkommen. Danke.

I hope I managed to convey the message properly, it's been many years since I've tried to use the language.

To Jürgen, GiGi and Paul:

You guys always made me feel welcome and I sincerely appreciate it. It's been a lot of years now and I wish we had stayed in touch. I have many fond memories of cold, snowy nights, good food, better beer and great companionship!

I lost track of Mary about five years after she joined me in the states. You remember we always had a rocky relationship (guilty as charged!) and she moved back to California and applied to medical school. Perhaps you can take the girl out of California but you can't keep her out! She did look pretty good at the beach :-). Sorry we never made it to the Baltic.

The last time I talked to her, she was studying hard and had met her true love. I hope she found the happiness and fulfillment she deserved.

Stolen From "A Few Good Men"

Lt. Sam Weinberg (played by Kevin Pollack):
I strenuously object? Is that how it works? Hmm? "Objection." "Overruled." "No, no, I strenuously object." "Oh, you strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider."

It's utterly without merit? Is that how it works? Hmm? "It's without merit". "It has merit." "No, no, it's utterly with merit." "Oh, it's utterly without merit. Then I'll take some time and reconsider"

I must ask the question, does "utterly without merit" have some special meaning that isn't conveyed by "without merit"? I think it's important I understand the distinction since it's me being talked about.

A Brief Grammer For Lawyers

Did You Know?

Welcome to the "Did You Know" post. When I went to work for First Transit in 2006, I had to, as a condition of employment, sign an agreement that I would allow First Transit to deduct union dues from my wages. Like a good little sheep I did so and allowed that deduction from my wages for over two years. A pox unto me for not taking the time to understand what my rights were and where my money was going!

I believe that a fully informed union member (or agency fee payer) is a happy union member (or Agency Fee Payer) so today and perhaps from time-to-time in the future, "Did You Know?" "Your local actually has an obligation to keep you informed but I don't remember ever being told a lot of the information so I'll hazard a guess and venture the opinion that all the local wants you know is what they consider beneficial to them. Here goes:

Did you Know?
That prior to July 1st, 2007, Local 1001 only represented Public Employees and had no specific state or federal financial disclosure obligations. When First Transit employees joined Local 1001, the rules changed and as a local representing Private Employees, they are required to file a yearly form LM-2 with the Department of Labor (unless the revenue's drop below $250,000 dollars a year and then it's an LM-3). You, the dues payer, are the union and the officers and other employees work for you! I think that's something very important to remember. Local 1001 filed a 2007 LM-2 in 2008 (just a tiny bit late :-) and the 2008 filing is due April 1st, unless the local requests a hardship exemption. A possible exemption circumstance might occur, for example, if the local didn't have anyone who knew how to enter the information or all their pencils were broken.

Did You Know?
That for the six month period, July 1st through December, 31st, 2007, the Local 1001 had cash receipts of $644,264, cash disbursements of $614,184 and on December 31st, 2007, had assets of $1,306,951. I had no idea I was that wealthy! Laidlaw and Veiola both joined Local 1001 in 2008 and I can't wait to see the 2008 LM-2.

Did You Know?
That there were 17 "Agency Fee Payers" out of 2,205 total RTD and First Transit employees on December 31st, 2007. There may be other ways to become an Agency Fee Payer but the way I'm aware of (and have posted) is under a Supreme Court decision known as Beck. These employees have the same "protections" as any other employee but pay only their fair share of union cost and no tribute, i.e. a lessor amount than the other 2,188 employees. In return, they gave up the right to attend union functions or vote in elections. I'd really like to know who those 17 are/were and I'll help others with the Beck process if you contact me.

Did You Know?
That you paid the officers and employees of Local 1001 (salary+allowances+reimbursements) a total of $260,592 for the six month period July 1st through December 31st, 2007. I sure didn't realize I was responsible for that large a payroll. It makes me feel important!

I'll close by saying that I'm absolutely not making the claim that anyone is guilty of any wrong doing. All the information posted is already public and it's the members right to know how their money is being spent.

My New Printer Is Gathering Dust

I purchased a new Lexmark X 4690 printer in early February and I thought it was wonderful for the first 45 days I owned it. Great price and it has built in WiFi so I love the fact that I don't have to find a USB cable every time I want to print something.



There is nothing wrong with the printer but ten days ago, I was again reminded of something that has long annoyed me and I've decided to protest. I'm tired of printer manufacturers trying to hold consumers hostage with their schemes to force us to buy their ridiculously high priced ink cartridges!



It's long been known that cartridges supplied with new printers are "short filled" and don't last very long. All you have to do is weigh an off the shelf cartridge and the difference is apparent. It didn't surprise me when the black Lexmark #4 cartridge started getting low after about 100 pages. I did what I always do, get the trusty drill out, make a small hold in the cartridge, fill it with ink and let it sit for a few hours. I put the cartridge back in the printer and still had a low ink warning. After a few more pages, the printer "told" me that my cartridge was out of ink and in order to continue to print, I had to order a new "Genuine Lexmark" ink cartridge.



I like to think I'm smarter than an inanimate hulk of metal and plastic but I admit defeat. To this day, it sits there with an evil grin and refuses to print in black. After an hour of trying to thwart Lexmark's cartridge protection scheme, I thought I'd found a solution but it turned out that I had stumbled onto Lexmark's "printing continuation" and all I was doing was depleting the Lexmark #5 color cartridge. I had forgotten you can get black by mixing primary colors.



Seems like a lot of work for little gain, you say. Consider that a new black cartridge might cost $25 and that I can refill it for about two bucks. It voids the warranty, you say. Nonsense, I reply. Besides, the scam is to sell you a printer at "cost" (very cheap) and make a profit on the ink. As a side note, that doesn't seem to be the Canon and HP business model. You might pay a little more for the printer but they don't try to hold you hostage on the ink. Back to the story.



As I recall, Epson was one of the first to put a chip on every cartridge and disable the cartridge after a certain number of pages even though the cartridge still had ink in it. A $5 chip "resetter" took care of the problem. Lexmark has taken the scam to new levels by a scheme they call their "Cartridge Return Program". The theory is that they "own" every Genuine Lexmark cartridge through patent/copyright/whatever and that it's illegal for any third party to duplicate the technology. Lexmark puts a chip with a serial number on the cartridge and has even gone as far as installing "reporting" software (spyware) on your computer when you install their printers. Wow, they sure go to great lengths to protect their ink business but the plan is failing, take a look at Lexmark v. Static Control. Ink is a cut-throat business worth hundreds of million of dollars a year and these guys are trying to protect their profits at the expense of the consumer! Our protection is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Click on the title of this post to go to Wikipedia and get the explanation.



My printer takes a Lexmark #4 black and a #5 color cartridge and the new cartridges are available at a number of local outlets but no one has came up with a way to refill the used cartridges. The same seems to apply to all the newer Lexmark printers regardless of which cartridges the printer uses. That would appear to violate Magnuson-Moss so Lexmark offers, in my case, a 4A and 5A cartridge that are not a part of their "Cartridge Return Program". In theory, at least, they are refillable. The X 4690 is a new printer model and I haven't found anyone who's actually tried it. The Catch-22 is that the "A" models are only available as an on-line order from the Lexmark store!



Thinking that might also be a potential Magnuson-Moss violation, I sought advice over the Internet and we devised a plan to "test" Lexmark. I started calling them and offering three options: tell me how to disable the chip on their #4 and #5 cartridge (they're not going to do it because I'd immediately post the information and it would be known world-wide in 72 hours), refund my money so I could use it to buy a new Canon or send me a #4A and #5A from the Lexmark store. It took 3 1/2 hours but I'm happy to report that my new cartridges are on the way and I hope to use my new printer for a couple of years and get 5 or 6 refills before I have to purchase new cartridges.



My advice is to spend the extra bucks up front and buy an HP or Canon but sometimes Lexmark (or others) offer such an attractive deal, they're hard to pass up. I'm getting in the game a little late but I'm going to try and do my little part. I've made a similar post on the major printer discussion sites and I've created a new email address to collect the names of other folks who are tired of spending their hard earned money for "crap":



mma.lexmark@gmail.com



I like to stay busy and hopefully there is enough interest to start exploring some type of class action against Lexmark under Magnuson-Moss. Rest assured that I haven't forgotten my other responsibilities that include, but are not limited to, looking for a new job, keeping the blog current, researching legal questions, avoiding seeking multiple remedies in a "hasty" manner, using my own situation as an positive example for others, attempting to deflate blimps (AKA gas-bags) and making a sincere effort (hopefully with good humor) to help others and protect my rights.



Stay tuned, 72 hours is almost upon us and I expect to make some important posts in the near future. I am a little disappointed with the response but the positive is that the blog has had over a hundred visits in 24 days and someone from the Philippines stumbled across it. Thank you.

Local 1755 Update

On March 7, 2008, in the County Court of Adams County, Colorado, William J. Kohut, former Treasurer of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1755, pled guilty to a one count felony charge of forgery. On May 23, 2007, Kohut was charged with theft (one count), identity theft (one count), unauthorized use of a financial transaction device (one count), and forgery (one count), in connection with his alleged conversion of union funds totaling $2,839.65. The plea follows an investigation by the Denver District Office.

I was curious as to what happened to Mr. Kohut and found the above item on the pages of The Union News:

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/04/unions-kept-olms-very-busy-in-march.html

I haven't found out if he was sentenced to restitution or not. I wasn't a member when Bill was treasurer and I'd like to know if anyone ever got their money back?

January 10th, 2009 CBA Ratification Election

Lest any reader think I've forgotten that I, and perhaps others, didn't get the chance to cast a secret ballot in the January 10th, 2009 CBA ratification election, please rest assured that the following entry is prominent in my todo list: "Pursue enforcement of rights as guaranteed by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, As Amended".

I wouldn't want to again be chided for my "hasty exploration of multiple remedies" (that hurt my feelings) so I want to assure everyone that I'm only exploring one avenue at a time. I have verified that DOL OLMS isn't interested so onward and upward.

I would suggest that all members of unions everywhere take a little time to read 29 U.S.C. 411, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). I've posted a couple of links to The Association For Union Democracy website. One will take you to the home page and the other goes to a copy of the LMRDA.

Thanks!!

Many, many thanks to ids at The Bolgger Guide!

Click on the title of this post to view The Blogger Guide.

Your step-by-step "Rounders with a wider post area" was invaluable in helping me improve this blog. Thanks again!

INSANITY

Insanity: When you do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

Albert Einstein

I'm confused, as is usually the case, and in order to try and understand, I'm going to make some assumptions. I know that's dangerous but I have to try and "unconfuse" myself.

We know that on December 5th, 2007, Warren George, ATU international President, and Oscar Owens, ATU International Treasurer, "signed" a Local 1755 Terminal LM-2 report and submitted it to DOL. For those who don't remember, Local 1755 represented First Transit Employees until William J. Kohut apparently decided to "take the money and run". A friendly wave and a big "howdy" to Mr. Bill.

We know that as of June 30th, 2007 Local 1755 ceased to exist and on that date, ATU Local 1755 had $14,920 in cash and an account payable of the same amount (I remember something about balancing entries! I might get the hang of this someday). We also know that the First Transit employees "merged" into ATU Local 1001 on July 1st, 2007 because Holman and Julio signed an LM-2 saying we did.

I assume that Charles Cook, Local 1755 Trustee, wrote a check on the Local 1755 account, payable to Local 1001, in the amount of $14,920 (or electronic transfer or something). It was our money so I assume it had to follow us in some manner, I sure never gave my share to anyone else. I also assume that Local 1001 has an account receivable entry of $14,920 and a deposit into some cash account for the same amount.

We know that Local 1755 was placed in Trusteeship on or about July 6th, 2006 and that the Trustees were paid by ATU International for their service until that local "went away". I assume the $14, 920 represents dues by by First Transit employees from July 6th, 2006 until June 30th, 2007.

God Bless The Internet and public disclosure laws!

I've assumed that Local 1001 got the money but maybe it went to the International; either way it begs the question to ATU International and Local 1001:

Hey, what did you do to earn our money during that period?

I think everyone employed by First Transit during that period, who had dues withheld, ought to be asking the same question. I have no idea what laws are applicable and I suppose I need to find out. Sigh, so many laws, so little time. Perhaps my new friends at the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation can at least point me in the right direction.

I'm pretty certain I'm going to have more questions regarding the money that all the members have paid into the Local 1001 coffers while I was a Local 1001 member.

Estoppel

Once again my post points to Wikipedia, this time for the definition of estoppel.

I was particularly interested in equitable estoppel and I was confused by the statement "equitable estoppel can only be used as a defence". I kept thinking "Defence only, how does that help me?" Finally, someone much smarter than me pointed me to a simple example that I could understand. I was truly impressed with the beauty of the logic. The example:

Sue rents an apartment from Joe and her lease states the rent is due on the 1st of every month. After Sue moves in, she talks to Joe and Joe tells her it's OK if she pays on the 10th of each month instead of the 1st. Sue pays on the 10th for several months and one day she gets an eviction notice from Joe. He says that the lease states the rent is due on the 1st and that Sue has violated the lease by paying on the 10th. An eviction hearing is scheduled. How does the judge rule?

In Sue's favor! Sue asserts equitable estoppel as a defense to Joe's legal claim that Sue has violated the lease. Joe made Sue a promise that she relied on and Joe can't "harm" Sue by changing his mind even though the lease still states rent is due on the 1st, i.e. he is estopped from asserting his rights under the lease.

The example is, of course, a hypothetical.

I'll take the liberty of extracting (the full letter is posted) the Subject of a letter I received: "FMLA Notification".

I leave anyone bored enough to actually read my post with two simple questions to ponder; was a promise made and was I harmed when, and if, that promise was broken?

Binding or Persausive Precedent?

I trust Wikipedia as an accurate source so the title of the post will take you to the Wikipedia definition of precedent if you're interested.

I am surprised that no one has yet pointed out that I have voiced a number of arguments based on non-binding precedent so I thought I'd save them the trouble and say "Yes, I know that". That begs the hypothetical question, say, if the Third Circuit has decided, on appeal, an issue a couple of times, why would I think the Tenth Circuit would follow a path 180 degreees opposed?

Hypothetically, of course.

Perhaps we'll test that theory someday.

New Document Link

I received a letter today, posted it as a .pdf file and as usual, feel the need to make a couple of comments.

Yes, Mr. Carter, what are your views? You have been conspicuously absent and I've never even met you. I assure you that if you tell me what your views are, I'll post them unedited.

I have a suggestion. I'd prefer email's with a .pdf attachment instead of U.S.P.S. letters. If I haven't responded within a day or two, resend it to make sure I've gotten it. That will save the members money and save me the trouble of scanning the letter and perhaps posting it.

Sarcasm Society

The following stolen from the Sarcasm Society web page:

Sarcasm SocietyTM

We would love to hear what you think!

Welcome to the Sarcasm Society. There is nothing more beautiful than sarcasm. That is definitely an overstatement but it should balance the moronic comment which says that sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. Now, whoever made that statement was desperately in need of a rectal broomstick extraction procedure.

Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

End "Stolen" Page

I've taken the liberty of extracting one line from an email I received:

"Sarcasm does not become you."

My earlier post dealt with the issue but I decided (because I can :-) that the line was deserving of a post of it's own.

I am an amateur compared to the average Brit and the British are surely the most civilized people of the world. We Americans are the "back-woods country cousins", correct? People might enjoy watching the BBC House Of Commons coverage to see the art of sarcasm taken to it's highest form.

I might also suggest that, since First Transit is owned by First Group and First Group is headquartered in Scotland and Scotland is part of the Commonwealth and the House of Commons is the lower House of Parliament, I am allowed, nay, expected to be a little sarcastic at times.

And I'm not being sarcastic!

A Quote I Love!

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

Mark Twain

Visitor Map

I just noticed that the dot in Southern California (Los Angeles, San Diego?) grew to the next size in the last day or so.

Regardless of who you are and why you visited the blog, Thank You. It is important to me.

Perhaps I'll close every post with a quote I like. Here's my first:

"You can call horse manure pixie dust if you want. It ain't gonna smell any different"

My father, L. L. Seale CMSgt. Ret. 1920-2007 "God Rest His Soul in Peace"
( and it's unlikely he ever called it manure :-)

The Law Of Unintended Consequences

I admit that there is something I never considered when I started my Don Quixote quest. My actions are costing every dues paying members of ATU Local 1001 some amount of money. I've come to realize that anytime you complain about the actions of any entity that can forcibly collect money from you, from the smallest HOA to the Federal Government, they will use that money to defend their actions. I offer my heartfelt apologies to the folks who are paying the bills! The only possible condolence I can offer is the hope that things will get better because of what I do and that perhaps the officers of your union will actually do the job you've hired them to do next time. Realistically, I don't think it my actions will have any great effect but who would have guessed that this country would come into existence because a few early Americans didn't think King George was treating them fairly? In no way would I ever compare myself to the great men who founded the U.S.A. but we all have our tiny part to play.

I think back, many more years that I care to admit, to my Business 101 course and remember that the primary objective of any business endeavor is to make a profit. I am a strong proponent of a free market but I've been spoiled. I spent my life in the computer industry and always worked for companies that certainly wanted to make a profit but also had a corporate philosophy that actually recognized the employee as as the lifeblood of the corporation. First Group (laughingly in my opinion) has a Corporate Social Responsibility Policy and perhaps there are those who actually believe the CSR has some effect, at least in some parts of the world. In reality, the policy is that unless you're able to drive a bus, you become a liability and the company will provide only the minimum required by law (and may fail there) unless the individual employees take it on themselves to acknowledge you still exist. To those individuals, I extend my sincere thanks, it meant a lot to me.

I am not trying to suggest that any company has a "cradle to grave" responsibility for an individual. BULL HN (formerly Honeywell Large Systems Division) laid me off in 1990 (with a tidy little severance package and other perks) but I will guarantee that had I become ill while employed by them, or any of the other high tech companies I worked for, I would have been treated much differently.

It would not have taken five months for HR to contact me for the first time, someone from HR would have been at my bedside as soon as I was able to talk to them and they would have kept me informed! Someone from HR would have would have insured my Short Term Disability payments were started and not made me wait six weeks to get my first check. Someone from HR would have checked on me regularly, not just because it benefited the company but because the company felt it was their responsibility. Loyalty begets loyalty. I was in a coma for nine days and not able to get out of bed for almost a month so I must have been pretty sick. The company did not have a legal obligation to help me put my life back together but what about a moral obligation? I'm a human being and it is immoral to discard someone when they lose their place as a cog in the machine. I'm not special, my statements apply to all workers. I attribute what I contend are legal violations, as being allowed because the individual is of little or no concern to First Transit or First Group. Fire me if you want to and any moral responsibility be damned! To the company, I was strictly a risk benefit analyses statistic. I have no animosity toward anyone at First Transit but a strong distaste for the corporate culture. Laws are laws and they are not meant to be broken as some would jokingly suggest.

If anyone had ever suggested that I'd learn to drive a transit bus when I was 60 years old, I likely would have thought they were nuts. Times change for the individual and driving a bus provides a necessary public service as well as an individual job. I always tried to give an honest days work for a (lousy) days pay. I was proud to be able to help someone in some small way; just being able to safely get someone home after they'd put in a hard day themselves made me feel useful.

Ron M. never lied to me when he hired me and I think folks will remember that I complained very little about the sixty hour weeks or the big stick the company wielded in very forceful manner. Besides, who can live on $11.67 an hour so the overtime was necessary just to live above the poverty level. I was spoiled and naive when I went to work for First Transit but I did it of my own choice so I won't complain about the conditions that existed for the 19 or so months I actually drove.

Some have suggested that I'm sarcastic (true, to a point) and that my sarcasm is uncivil and a sign of disrespect. Sir, it's pretty easy to earn my respect but you cannot demand it! As far as civility goes, I try to never raise my voice and I would never make a public statement that I think so-and-so is a moron even if I thought so to myself. I don't feel that way toward anyone at this time but I do believe that too many people feel I'm just a minor annoyance and should go away quietly. Sorry, that's not going to happen! Folks, I honestly believe they think we're stupid because we drive a bus and that makes us less important or "beneath them". That is a sign of disrespect!

It's also been suggested that I am too public with my protests. Yup, and proud of it! I'm a big Tom Martino fan (hmmm, I haven't talked to Tom yet) and he likes to say "cockroaches scramble when you turn the light on". Please don't take offense, I am not implying that the company, union or any individual is a cockroach, only that if you do or write or say something, be proud of it and when you make a mistake as we all do, take responsibility. My God, whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? For your information, Tom Martino is a Denver consumer advocate and AM radio host who calls himself "The Troubleshooter" You can find his website if you're interested.

I need a good survey question and I'll buy a beer (or soda or iced tea or..) for a suggestion. I see that I hold the minority view for my last question but I think there may have been some "ringers" in the mix
:-)

In closing this post, I'd just like to say that at one time, some folks could have admitted they made mistakes and said "Larry, let's get together and see what we can come up up" and I would have been satisfied. Well, with the help of family, friends and a lot of good luck, I put my life back in some semblance of order. I am reasonably healthy, I can satisfy my needs and I'm happier than I have been in a long time because I have a cause I strongly believe in. I could never understand how a 12 year old could blow themselves up for a cause. It still baffles me on a logical level but I think I'm starting to get a glimpse at the emotional satisfaction someone might gain.

Jimmy Hoffa Must Be Smiling!

It's time to revisit the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act", AKA card check, AKA HR 800. I think Wikipedia is balanced so click on the title of this post to go there.

In the interest of fairness, you can read the AFL-CIO defense at:

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/

or an opposing viewpoint from The Heritage Foundation at:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Labor/bg2027.cfm

I suspect you know who I agree with so I won't bore you with my views.

New PDF Files

I have no comments on my new documents except to say "Hey guys, PDF is short for portable document format". Why make me convert them from word before I can post them?

I also want to thank Mr. William B. Jones for taking the time to at least look at this blog. I feel special!

Response to Gary

I sent Gary a response and I hope we can finally put this Article 34 nonsense to bed once and for all. I publicly stipulate (and have agreed since day 1) that First Transit did not violate Article 34 (B) of the CBA. I have always claimed they violated "just cause" but for whatever reason, their response has always been "Article 34". Oh, well, I guess when you have no defense the only strategy you can follow is circle the wagons and make your last stand. Or, perhaps I'm just not capable of getting the "big picture" and I really am a fool :-).

12 visitors (not counting me) to the blog yesterday! Keep going guys (and gals). I really would like to hear from other folks who were terminated from employment at First Transit in the last couple of years, particularly if you were on FMLA and/or Medical Leave of Absence prior to termination. FMLA has a two year (three under certain conditions) statute of limitations.

ATU Local 1001 CBA Ratifaction Election

I have a couple of questions for the officers of the local. I don't have copy of the new CBA but as I understand it, the contract was effective January 1st, 2009. Isn't it normal practice for the new contract to take effect as of the date the old contract expired? Perhaps I'm wrong but how is to the members benefit to lose a month of the raise? Perhaps I could get it straight in my simple mind if you'd send me a copy of the contract.

On a similar note, the website, http://www.atu1001.org/, still does not have an updated copy of the CBA. The election was held on January 10th, 2009 and I'd think that it's not that difficult to get a .pdf document on the web; I do it all the time. I'm unemployed and am applying for the job if it's the lack of a qualified person that's keeping you from posting it. Gee, do you think that counts as one of my job search contacts for the week? It's a serious offer and my rates are pretty reasonable.

As I promised in a earlier post, I have filed a complaint regarding the contract ratification election held January 10th, 2009. The complaint goes to the Department of Labor, Office of Labor and Management Standards. Here's the email address if you're interested: olms-public@dol.gov

Your rights are protected under 29 C.F.R. 458.2 known as The Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations. Click on the title to this post to read the law. Here is the ATU Local By-Law covering elections. Read it yourself and decide if the local violated your rights:

SECTION 28

Contract Motions

All motions on contract amendments and renewals shall be reduced to writing before being voted upon.

The EB shall determine how new contract changes or modifications in any present contract shall be submitted to a referendum vote of the Membership at special meetings.

Prior to any vote being taken on a contract, the following procedure will be followed:

a) A printed copy of the contract proposal(s) will be made when possible.

b) It will be made available to the Membership forty-eight (48) hours prior to a vote being taken
for ratification when recommended by the contract committee. When the contract committee
recommends non-ratification, the vote will be cast at the conclusion of said meeting.

c) In the event of a strike or lockout, paragraph (b) above shall not be binding.

Here is my email to the DOL OLMS:

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to file a formal complaint against Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1001 whose contact information is as follows: ATU Local 10013315 W. 72nd Ave.Westminster, CO 80030303 412-1001303 412-1597 (fax)

The specifics of my complaint are:

I was employed by First Transit and denied the right to vote in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ratification election held January 10th, 2009. Some number of other members of ATU Local 1001 who were employed by First Transit were also denied the right to vote in the same election because of duty responsibilities or lack of notification.

That ATU Local 1001 did not follow the local by-laws in notifying the collective bargaining unit members regarding the proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement and that the election to ratify the Collective Bargaining was in violation of the local by-laws and the rights of all the collective bargaining unit members were violated by the local.

I support my contentions based on the facts as I know them and based on conversations with Mr. Howard Alton, Vice-President, on February 25th, 2009 and a conversation with Mr.Rudy Trujillo, Recording Secretary, on March 4th, 2009. Mr. Alton and Mr. Trujillo both took the position that the "notice was posted" at the work site and the union had no obligation to notify members who were on medical leave and away from the job site. This would also affect other members who did not go into the job site for the short period the notice was posted. I did visit the local web site, http://www.atu1001.org/ on a regular basis and notice was never posted on the web site.

In my conversation with Mr. Trujillo, he also informed me "besides, we wrapped this up in four days and didn't have time to call anyone. Ask your shop steward why he didn't call"

I was a member in good standing on January 10th, 2009. I will be happy to supply the local by-laws on request.

Sincerely,
Larry W. Seale
larrywseale@gmail.com
- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: DOLNCC <DOLNCC@gcrm.com>Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:32 PMSubject: Union Election-DOL007To: larrywseale@gmail.comCc: olms-public@dol.gov
Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of Labor National Contact Center.
If you have questions or concerns regarding the election of Union officers it is the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) that enforces internal union democracy, financial integrity, union elections, and protects the rights of union members. You may contact the Office of Labor Management Standards at (202) 693-0123 or you can send an email to: olms-public@dol.gov.
You may also visit their website at http://www.olms.dol.gov/ for additional information.
Thank you,
The U.S. Department of Labor National Contact Center
Disclaimer: "This response is for information purposes only and does not constitute an official communication of the U.S. Department of Labor. For an official response, please write: U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20210."
[THREAD ID:1-10OTXN]

-----Original Message-----
From: larrywseale@gmail.comTo: <DOLNCC@gcrm.com>Subject: Compliance Assistance
DOLFROM:larrywseale@gmail.com
DOLREFERRINGPAGE:HTTP://WWW.DOL.GOV/CGI-BIN/COMPLIANCE_CONTACTUS.ASP
DOLZIPCODE:80514
DOLAGENCY:OASP
DOLINQUIRY:Compliance Assistance
DOLSUBJECT:Enforcement of 29 U.S.C. 411 Title I
DOLHELPRESOURCE:DOL Personnel,NLRB
Message:I was not given the opportunity to vote in a contract ratification election held on January 10th, 2009 by ATU Local 1001. The way I read the "Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations", the local committed a U.S.C. violation. I also have reason to believe that the election itself violated the local by-laws. I have contacted the NLRB & DOL OLMS but as yet have gotten no help with regard to compliance assistance. Thank you.

IMPORTANT - Colorado House Bill 1076

Marty, this could affect you and anyone else who draws Social Security retirement and gets terminated from employment in Colorado. Colorado (and only three other states plus the District of Columbia) have a Unemployment Insurance Benefits offset provision in state law.

Under the law, if you draw Social Security, your Unemployment Benefits are reduced $1 for every $2 you receive in Social Security. At first glance, you might say "Makes sense" but think about who it affects and what the effect is. I worked for a long time, and paid into the system, to get to where I could draw benefits. Unemployment is meant as a partial income replacement for workers who lose their job through no fault of their own. Would it make sense to deny or reduce a woman's benefits because she had a husband who still had an income?

Fear not, I suspect AARP has been lobbying in Colorado and Representative Sal Pace of Pueblo (Thank you, Sir) introduced HB 1076 that would do away with this inequity. The bill has passed the House and is being considered in the Senate. There is a committee hearing scheduled for Friday and it could be up for a full Senate vote before the end of March. If passed, it would take effect immediately.

I urge all Colorado workers currently drawing Social Security (and those who think they might collect someday but will still need to work) to contact all the Colorado Senators to insure that HB 1076 becomes law.

FMLA Violations - Remedies

It turns out I have some more free time today and I'd like to continue with more information on FMLA, this time regarding your remedies if your FMLA rights have been violated.

First, I'd like to pat myself on the back and point out that this blog has had 45 visitors to date, 44 from coast-to-coast and 1 from the UK (Scotland perhaps?). I'm a very up front person and when I feel wronged, I want to take my case to the public. I also want to do whatever possible to insure that no one else is subjected to the same indignities and hopefully I'll have the resources and energy to continue for many years to come. The Internet is a wonderful thing and there is a growing group of sites devoted to employee rights, usually started because one person said "it's wrong to treat me that way". I hope to become a small part of that network and advocate for the individual in their dealings with both the company and union.

Some very little part of me is actually grateful that the union and company refuse to take me seriously. I have a "cause" that I believe in and I haven't exercised my mind to this extent since I left the high tech world almost ten years ago. I now (tongue-in-cheek, of course, and only in my free time without interfering with any other obligations I might have :-) declare myself to be a union "deorganizor" and employee rights advocate. On to the important issues.

You feel that the company has violated your FMLA rights so what do you do? As with any Federal law or regulation, some Federal Agency or Department has oversight authority and you have the right to file a complaint. This is all new territory and I have exercised that right (not about FMLA) and have been pleasantly surprised so far. The Federal Government does listen to the citizens occasionally.

If you decide to file a FMLA complaint with DOL, they will investigate your complaint and eventually make one of three possible findings:

1. Your complaint has no merit and dismiss it.
2. Your complaint has merit and they will take it to binding arbitration.
3. Your complaint has merit and the DOL will file a Federal lawsuit on your behalf.

If you go to arbitration, or DOL files a lawsuit, and you prevail, you are entitled to certain damages such as back pay and reinstatement. The monetary damages will be doubled if the deciding body determines "wilfull" intent. Here's something interesting: DOL and the courts appear to take the position that the company, i.e. HR personnel, are the experts and it's their job to understand and apply the law. Therefore any violation is wilful. Tough standards!

The biggest advantages I see are complaining to the Federal Government only takes a single contact on your part and it costs you nothing. You are dealing with the Federal Government so it might not move as quickly as you'd like but we can agree that the wrath of the government is nothing to take lightly.

Another option is to contact a private attorney and possibly file a civil lawsuit, most likely in a US District Court. District Courts are a part of the Federal Trial System and you are entitled to trial by a jury of your "peers". My observation here is that if you go before a judge or arbiter, they will apply the law to your case and make a decision. A jury can "vote their heart" and unless the decision is totally outrageous, it's likely to stand appeal. Rest assured that a decision in your favor will most likely be appealed to the Circuit Appeals Court and even possibly to the US Supreme Court. Companies with the resources do not like to lose, not just because you might get some monetary award but because they like the way they do business and don't want to change.

Your attorney will not be free, i.e. FMLA/Labor attorneys don't typically take these cases on contingency as in the case of injury or malpractice. According to statistics, it costs a company around $80,000 to defend a civil FMLA case, win or lose! It goes up astronomically to appeal. I'll assume that the cost to bring a suit is similar. I don't have 80K so does that mean I can't sue?

FMLA (and other Federal Laws) allow a successful plaintiff's attorney to recover "reasonable" fees and costs, with the hourly rate based on the attorneys "expertise", in addition to any monetary damages the plaintiff might receive. The law also allows an attorney to claim a "premium" on their fees since the law recognizes that the plaintiff has an inherent disadvantage in these types of cases. As far as I can tell, what the attorney claims is pretty subjective and it might not be unusual for a plantiff to receive a $5,000 award and the plaintiff's attorney to receive $20,000. The definition of succesful also appears to be pretty loose. Let's say as a plaintiff, you claim five FMLA violations and the company is found guilty of only one violation. The attorney will claim entitlement to fees and cost because they were successful.

Let's look at the "facts of life"an attorney has to consider before taking you on as a client:

Do you get along or are you a "pain-in-the-arse"?
Does your claims have merit?
How much is it going to cost to pursue your claims?
How much do you stand to recover?
How much does your attorney stand to recover?
If you're successful, best case, can the company take the loss?

I'm sure I've omitted details but this gives you an idea of what to expect. Labor attorneys understand that few of us have the resources necessary to file a lawsuit and in my opinion, look at these cases as a "roll of the dice". How much will it cost them versus what the potential gains are. I am not suggesting that it's totally mercenary; you must have a case that both you and your attorney believe in, regardless of the basis for that belief.

Now that you've found an attorney and reached a fee agreement, what can you expect? You can come to a settlement agreement with the company at any time up to the point where the final court of jurisdiction makes their decision (and afterwards if you'll settle for less, the company sure ain't gonna offer you more).

You file your lawsuit and the company will ask for a summery judgment. All that means is that the company tells the court your claims have no merit or your claim is filed in the wrong court or cites some other legal reason why the judge should dismiss the lawsuit without it going to trial. If you have a reputable attorney, your claim will most likely "survive"summary judgment. What happens now? You wait! This is not a speedy process and it's likely to take two years to go to trial.

You go to trial and win. The jury awarded you some amount (as I said, up to almost 12 million in one case) but the company is going to try and not pay you a dime! They appeal to the Circuit Appeals Court and you wait again, perhaps another three years.

You win the appeal and now the company faces a choice. It's already cost them a lot of money so do they want to take a chance after losing twice or do they get out the checkbook and pay you either for the award you received or try to negotiate a settlement? Potentially, they could appeal to the Supreme Court. You might die but your claims live on. Do you want your rotten kids to benefit from the fruits of your hard labor (Just joking Kari, I love you)?

That's the best case senario. You could lose at any time so your choice of attorney's is very important. Do not proceed unless you're in it for the long haul and you (and your attorney) are convinced you have a strong case. Better to just file a complaint with the DOL and see what happens.

Once again, this is my opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. I like to think I'm a knowlegable lay person. I do a lot of research but I'm very far from infallable and if anyone ever disagrees with any thing I write, please take the time to disagree with me. I guarentee an open forum as long as you remain civil.

Your FMLA Rights - Important!

There is a link in my blog, Links to important sites, to the DOL web site where you can read the law. The elder President Bush twice vetoed the bill and President Clinton finally signed it into law in 1993. Basically, the law says that a company must grant up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, in a 12 month period, to employees if certain conditions are met and that the employee has the right to return to the same job they held before taking FMLA. There are a number of ways that the company can define the 12 month FMLA period. The general conditions are:

Only applies to companies in the U.S. or a U.S. territory with 50 or more employees within 75 miles of the employees job site.

The employee must have a legitimate reason for requesting FMLA, i.e. serious illness, serious illness of a family member, birth of a baby, adoption; Read the law.

The employee must have performed 1250 of work for the company in the last 12 months.

The employee must be currently employed and have worked for the company for at least 12 months within the last seven years.

Some states grant additional benefits and any company may grant more than 12 weeks of leave in any or all 12 month periods if they want to. FMLA defines only the minimum requirements.

Right or wrong, the compliance burden is placed on the company. DOL and the courts have taken the position that FMLA is a "strict liability" (any FMLA violation, regardless of how minor, is a de facto violation of FMLA) and the affected employee has the right file a complaint with the DOL or sue the company in an appropriate court. Wow, under that definition, I feel sorry for the company. FMLA is a complicated matter but the company HR professionals are required to understand it. DOL and the courts have also taken the position that the law shall generally be interpreted in the manner most beneficial to the employee. There is some protection for the company because the law only provides for specific double damages and does not allow a "punitive" award. It's interesting, however, to note that there has been a jury award (reversed on appeal) of almost 12 million dollars in one case.

Here's my public service announcement to the company, the employees and the union. You folks need to get together and discuss how the CBA affects FMLA. I an not a lawyer so please don't take anything I write as fact, get a legal opinion. I have and I'm convinced I'm correct.

The first little twist is Article 30 (E) of the CBA dealing with personal holidays. You have the right, with certain conditions, to use any entitled personal holidays as "sick time". In my case (and for whatever it's worth) I was never given the option and sent the company a Demand for Payment of Wages. The company honored my demand and send me a check for 16 hours. I suspect it was more to appease me than anything else.

Now, it gets really interesting. The CBA does not address the issue of using vacation as sick time and in general FMLA allows a company to force an employee to use any paid time off concurrently with FMLA. There are exceptions and the CBA may put you in the exception category. Court decision and Arbitration lean in that direction but each case must be judged on it's own merit.

I'll make this statement since I am convinced I'm correct: FMLA at First Transit is "paid" leave and under FMLA an employee may agree to (BTW, I never did) to use their vacation concurrently, consecutively or not at all. It's the employee's choice and not a company decision. "Ridiculous", you say! I reply, "Take the time to read and understand the law". Article 27 (D) of the CBA requires the company to provide 26 weeks of Short Term Disability for the employee and that provision defines FMLA (and Medical Leave of Absence up to a total of 26 weeks) as "paid"leave. Please reference Repa v. Roadway Express, Hendricks v. Compass Group and others for, admittedly non-binding, decisions. Also, your vacation "rights" are guaranteed in the CBA and if the company decides that you have to take vacation while on any type of leave, it's potential CBA violation.

If anyone think I'm just blowing hot air, then there's nothing else to say. I would still, however, like an answer to the question I've asked before: I was placed on vacation from September 21st, 2008 through October 4th, 2008 while I was already on FMLA. What was my exact "duty status" for that two week period?

To date, I've done most of the research on my own (and consulted with a number of attorneys for advice). I'm 100% convinced that I am correct in most, if not all, of my interpretations of the CBA and applicable laws and regulations that apply to company, the employees and the union. I caution the reader not to take what I write as fact and not to apply my situation to your own except in general principle. My opinions are offered only as a place to start and to suggest that you not take anyone's word when you're told something you disagree with. You always have the right to a second, third, etc. opinion and the ultimate decision maker is the U.S. Supreme Court.

First Group Corporate Social Responsibility Policy

For the folks who are unaware, First Group has a pretty detailed Corporate Social Responsibility Policy and a part of the policy states:

CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS
This code applies to all of the operations of FirstGroup and its subsidiaries and
sets out the minimum standards which the Board of FirstGroup expects from
staff in their internal and external dealings with colleagues, customers,
stakeholders and third parties.

1.1 Basic Standards of Conduct

(a) We will conduct every aspect of our business with honesty, integrity and
openness, respecting human rights and the interests of our employees,
customers and third parties.

(b) We will respect the legitimate interests of third parties with whom we
have dealings in the course of our business.

(c) We will maintain the highest standards of integrity – for example, we will
not promise more than we can reasonably deliver or make commitments
we cannot or do not intend to keep.

1.2 Employees

Each FirstGroup company

(a) is committed to creating and maintaining a safe and healthy working
environment for its employees.

(b) will strive to create a workplace in which there is mutual trust and
respect and where every person feels responsible for the performance
and reputation of our company.

(c) will respect the individual and each other’s rights, customs and traditions
including the right to freedom of association and the right to decide
whether or not to join a trade union and will negotiate in good faith with
the properly elected representatives of its employees.

(d) will work towards achieving a diverse workforce, recruiting, employing
and promoting employees only on the basis of objective criteria and the
qualifications and abilities needed for the job to be performed.

(e) will maintain good communications with employees through our
information and consultation procedures.

(f) will assist employees in realising their potential.

Click on the title of this post if you're interested in the complete document. Take a look at 1.1(a) and 1.2(b) in particular. For some odd reason, I don't think First Transit complied with the policy in my case.

Accordingly, I sent the following email to First Group Compliance and Ethics:



To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Larry W. Seale and I am an ex-employee of First Transit, Denver/Longmont. Per the Compliance, Monitoring and Reporting requirements, I wish to inform you that I consider there to be a breech of the CSR policy, to wit: Section 1.1 and Section 1.2. I will not go into the full story at this time but I have created a blog with details and document postings. It is getting lengthy so it would be pretty time consuming to read the entire story but you can reference the blog or contact me for details:

http://www.ftemployeerights.blogspot.com

There are a couple of points I consider germane to my claim that First Transit treated me in an unethical and unfair manner. I was an excellent employee as my personnel file will show and I always did my job to the best of my ability. I was terminated not because I broke a rule but because I contracted a very serious illness. When the saga started, all I wanted was my job back and I attempted to present my claims in a logical manner. I now sense a "circle the wagons" mentality with First Transit management because they refuse to admit there were serious breeches of Federal Law, my Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Company Policy (if there was actually a formal policy in effect at the time).

Here are some facts:

I was out for five months before I was ever contacted by HR and that contact was a letter which was later dismissed as a "mistake" and is now ignored as if it were never sent. I complied with all conditions of the letter. That letter, and all letters I have received from First Transit, have a link in my blog.

My next contact with HR almost a month later. Ms. Mitchell-Robson, First Transit HR manager, called me, told me I was terminated and that she had sent a letter to that effect. After a number of attempts to determine what "just cause" (defined by my CBA), I contacted First Group by email and Ms. Therien, HR Director Central Region called me. In the end, both she and Ms. Mitchell-Robson have taken the position that I was terminated per the CBA. I am sorry, but unions are in place to protect jobs not fire employees and the CBA does not in any manner state I should have been terminated. I understand that the company is allowed to implement rules (as it should) to cover situations not addressed in a CBA and on numerous occasion, I have have asked for the specific rule or policy that allowed for my termination and I keep getting the same tired answer, "per the CBA". Is it possible that the company did not have a formal policy in effect? How hard would it be to say "Rule XYZ" covers your situation and show me that rule? It is interesting to note that First Transit issued a new Employee Handbook in February, 2009 (after I was terminated) and that handbook goes into detail and would have allowed the company to administratively terminate me.

I was given a set of rules that I had to follow as a condition of employment. I did so! It is a two way street, the company also has a set of rules and I demand that they follow them. Anything less is certainly a breech of the First Group CSR Policy, my CBA and potentially applicable State or Federal law and regulations.

Thank you.

.pdf File Link List

I checked my mail today and there has been (for me at least) a very exciting development concerning the relationship between ATU Local 1001 and me. I'm not sure if I can talk about it right now but I'll post it as soon as I get the O.K. You might ask Holman or Bill Jones, maybe they'll tell you.

I've been ranting about the union and just ignoring First Transit. Just so no one thinks I've forgotten them, I've added a new gadget to my blog. It's a linklist to my letters and other interesting .pdf documents. Some of the documents are pretty large so I'd suggest you don't attempt to read them unless you have a high-speed internet connection and have some time to waste. You also have to have an Adobe product to open them. If you have any doubts about having Adobe, you can get Adobe reader (free) at: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/

I'm hosting my files on a free site so there are several steps to reading the documents. Perhaps, I'll turn loose of a couple of bucks and use the premium service so my links will be true "hot links". For now, you click on a link and it will open a MediaFire window. Click Click Here To Download and you'll get a File Download box. Click Open and the file will download and open in an Adobe window.

The company sent me the first letter, dated December 19th, 2008, telling me to apply for FMLA and sent me a termination letter dated January 26th, 2009. "Wait", I protest, "I'm on FMLA". "Nope, that was a mistake and you're fired". Both letters are posted.

There is a legal doctrine known as equitable estoppel (you made me a promise and I relied on that promise) and I invite anyone interested to look at the analysis of Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 52-60

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1121652

So, after I'm fired I asked the company "Why?" and they answered "Article 34 of the CBA". I've read Article 34 a hundred times and no where does it mention termination. I invite anyone to show me differently. The CBA states that an employee may only be disciplined, including termination, for "just cause" but allows the company to make "reasonable Rules and Regulations". The new employee handbook has several pages describing an administrative termination process but that handbook, i.e. policy, was not implemented until after I was fired.

I've asked both the company and union to show me were the CBA or policy allowed them to fire me and all I've gotten is the same tired answer "Article 34". I've come to the conclusion that the company had no formal policy in effect and they were just winging it. You're welcome to examine the documents and decide for yourself.

As far as the December 19th, 2008 letter goes, the company is just trying to ignore it, I guess hoping it will disappear. Sorry, I have a lot of copies :-)

In closing I'd like to remind you about our conversation with Gary shortly after he became the General Manager. He attended our meeting and told us that the operation was going to change for the better (I applaud him, it did get better in a lot of ways) and that he expected excellence from everyone, including himself. I gave 100% and did my job. Did everyone else? Fess up guys, you know you screwed the pooch big-time.

atu1001.org no longer suspended

Thank you. I can access the site again. Must just have been a fluke (FM)

Hey guys, forget to pay your bill?

Account suspended
Account for domain atu1001.org has been suspended

Imagine my surprise when I tried to go to the local's website a few minutes ago and got the above message! I need to stay up to date with the latest news and http://www.atu1001.org was a valuable resource. Please pay the bill or whatever you have to do to get it back. I'm sure there are members in good standing who miss it.

The "whois" (registration information) results are:

Domain ID:D107344047-LROR
Domain Name:ATU1001.ORG
Created On:01-Sep-2005 16:38:09 UTC
Last Updated On:21-May-2007 04:54:44 UTC
Expiration Date:01-Sep-2010 16:38:09 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Wild West Domains, Inc. (R120-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-032469991
Registrant Name:David Hermosillo
Registrant Organization:DH Recreation Services
Registrant Street1:PO Box 390186
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Denver
Registrant State/Province:Colorado
Registrant Postal Code:80239
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7202996849
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:dhrecreationservices@comcast.net
Admin ID:GODA-232469991
Admin Name:David Hermosillo
Admin Organization:DH Recreation Services
Admin Street1:PO Box 390186
Admin Street2:Admin Street3:
Admin City:Denver
Admin State/Province:Colorado
Admin Postal Code:80239
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.7202996849
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:dhrecreationservices@comcast.net
Tech ID:GODA-132469991
Tech Name:David Hermosillo
Tech Organization:DH Recreation Services
Tech Street1:PO Box 390186
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Denver
Tech State/Province:Colorado
Tech Postal Code:80239
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7202996849
Tech Phone Ext.:Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:dhrecreationservices@comcast.net
Name Server:NS3.CMJENTERPRISES.NET
Name Server:NS4.CMJENTERPRISES.NET
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:

ATU Local 1001 LM-2

I thought it would be interesting to share some more information off the LM-2 the local filed for July 1st through December 31st, 2007 (six months). I've already posted the amounts that went to Holman, Julio, Rudy and Howard so I won't repeat it.

All Officers and Disbursements To Officers

Yvette J. Saazar - Past Business Agent $4,536
Anthony K. Hauck - Chief Steward $5,395
Angelo Martinez - Chief Steward $3,763
Dustun Marinez - Chief Steward $4,257
Harlan K. Parran - Chief Steward $3,386
Todd K. Platten - Chief Steward $10,799
Yogi Williams - Chief Steward $690
Daniel P. Delin - Chief Steward $3,904
David D. Foltz - Chief Steward $2,584
William R. Fuson - Chief Steward $7,314
Michael D. Harvey - Chief Steward $6,262

Total Officer Disbursements (includes officers already mentioned) - $171,186

Disbursements to Employees

William B. Jones - Lawyer $42,438
Daniel Sundquist - Organizer $20,431

Totals Received by Employees Making Less Than $10,000 - $26,536

Total Employee Disbursements - $89,406

I have no reason to believe, nor do I in any way suggest, that the local is being ran in any way that should trouble the members. All I'm doing is gathering public information and posting it in a convienant place for the folks who pay the bills.

email sent to Local 1001

« Back to Sent Mail Archive Report spam Delete Move to Inbox Labels More actions Mark as readMark as unreadAdd starRemove starArchiveNot spamCreate eventFilter messages like theseMute
1 of 4 Older ›2007 & 2008 LM-2 and SchedulesInboxX
Reply to allForwardReply by chatFilter messages like thisPrintAdd to Contacts listDelete this messageReport phishingReport not phishingShow originalShow in fixed width fontShow in variable width fontMessage text garbled?Why is this spam/nonspam?

Larry Seale to Holman, Julio, ylamarwilliams show details 7:53 AM (3 minutes ago) Reply

March 15th, 2009

Mr. Holman Carter
President, ATU Local 1001
3315 W. 72nd. Ave.
Wesminster, CO 80030

Dear Sir:

I understand that the CBA, ratified January 10th, 2009 is available for distribution. I was a ATU Local 1001 member in good standing on that date and request that you furnish me with a copy. My mailing address is at the end of this email.

I have a number of questions regarding the LM-2 the local filed with DOL for the period of July 1st through December 31st, 2007. DOL does not post any of the schedules and they are necessary to fully understand the filing. Please tell me where I can either view the schedules or obtain copies of my own. Please inform me of any cost involved in the process.

I will be requesting the same information for your 2008 filing on April 2nd, 2009. I assume that you will ether file by the due date or request a hardship extension. If you request an extension, I would appreciate being notified of your reason for requesting the extension.

All the information I've requested is available through DOL but as a member in good standing for those periods, it is my belief that the union MUST supply the information upon my request. I realize that this email does not constitute a "formal" request so I will wait seven (7) days and if there is no response, generate a letter asking for the same information. Toward that end, I would appreciate it if you would furnish me with contact information for Mr. William (Bill) Jones.

Thank you for your time. I eagerly await your prompt reply.

Larry W. Seale
larrywseale@gmail.com
Reply Reply to all Forward

Your BECK Rights

My earlier posting regarding BECK was incomplete/incorrect. I've removed that post and will provide correct information here. I apologize and will attempt to more fully verify the information I'm given in the future so my postings are accurate and complete. The correct sample letter is posted at the end.

Your "rights" (collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance) under the CBA remain the same except you can't attend union functions or vote in union elections. Your will retain your seniority. You will still have to pay a "fee" for the union service but the union will not be able to use any part of your fee for causes such as supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (card check). For a more complete explanation of BECK, click on the title of this post.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: Had I'd known about BECK two years ago, I'd have exercised my rights. I was just too lazy to research it. I'll prepare the letters for anyone and pay the certified mailing cost for the first person who wants to give it a try.

It is illegal for either the company or union to retaliate in any way and it's actionable either by filing a complaint with the NLRB or filing a civil suit if you suffer any retaliation. I would still suggest contacting the Right to Work Legal Defence Foundation and talking to a staff attorney prior to proceeding.

Sample Letter Begins:

TODAY'S DATE HERE

UNION PRESIDENT'S NAME
UNION ADDRESS

Dear Sir or Madam:

In accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Patternmakers v NLRB, I hereby resign my membership with the union, (insert union name), effective immediately.

Furthermore, I wish to exercise my rights pursuant to Communication Workers v Beck, and declare myself to be a Beck objector. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Beck decision, I object to the use of my dues money for any purposes other than those related to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance processing in my immediate bargaining unit. Any fees that are not related to these financial core activities should be immediately deducted from my dues, pursuant to the procedures outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I also desire to exercise my rights to a full accounting performed by an independent auditor and a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge any fees before an impartial decision-maker. I further insist that any disputed fees be placed in escrow pending a final determination as to the appropriateness of any asserted charges.

Please provide me with an accounting as soon as possible. Until such time as an accounting is provided to me, please escrow all of my dues that are not subject to an immediate rebate. If there will be any delay in obtaining a full accounting, please advise me as to when this information will be forthcoming.

Accordingly, I also hereby notify you that I wish to authorize only the deduction of representation fees from my wages. If I am required to sign a new deduction authorization form to make that change, please provide me with the necessary form.

Any further collection or expenditure of dues or fees from me made without the procedural safeguards required by law will violate my rights under the National Labor Relations Act and/or U.S. Constitution.

Finally, please consider this objection to be permanent and continuing in nature. I would appreciate a prompt response to my request.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
YOUR HOME ADDRESS
YOUR COMPANY'S NAME
YOUR WORK LOCATION

ATU Local 1001 LM-2 Filing Date Reminder

Q. What is the required due date for Forms LM-2, LM-3, and LM-4?

A. The report must be filed within 90 days after the end of the labor organization's fiscal year (12-month reporting period).

I try to be a helpful person and I couldn't help but notice that ATU Local 1001 didn't file the required LM-2 for 2007 until December, 2008. That seems to be a little late according to DOL and I've added a countdown gadget to my blog as a reminder of how much time they have left to file for 2008.

Thanks aren't necessary, it's my civic duty.

January 10th, 2009 Contract Ratification Election

TITLE I -- BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Bill of Rights

(29 U.S.C. 411)

SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.-- Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.

Did you get a chance to vote in the election? I didn't and was told this morning that it was a dead-end to pursue it but in another conversation, I was told to look at 29 U.S.C. 411. Hmmmmm. So many laws - so little time!