Regarding 4th Preferring of Charges - August, 2011
I think it's important to understand the dynamics of these men in their quest to go as far as to want a fellow member blackballed. Margulies would never have gone this far without the, support and encouragement of Day, Olsen and their VERY anti-Union fee objector (wanna be legal advisor) Jeff Welch. Whatever happened or didn't happen between Margulies, Day, Olsen, Booker and myself certainly didn't involve the Union to this degree. In fact, Margulies didn't even show up to vote for it the first time in April. And I was told he again didn't show up for the Monday meeting in August. No reason for him to show up they already had a plan in place.
Final vote count - Yes-1, No-84, and Abstained-6.
The point is that Day goes from one department to the next and from one manager to the next and when he runs out of managers and departments he goes to the Union and when that doesn't work he goes to International. His reputation at this point is one who works at exclusion. I have heard from several sources that his plight in life appears to get people 'on his side' against others. When he didn't get anywhere on the other two Preferring of Charges he started reporting Hunt to International and even went so far as to "Preferring Charges" against him, until Hunt succumbed from the pressure by serving me and posting the "Preferr of Charges" requiring that it become part of the agenda and posting it in Union boxes and the ATU website. And then, the worst part is that all these people are gathered round for Union business and what they get is all this NON-UNION PERSONAL BULLSHIT. Day takes his crap to people who really do care about and make room and time in their lives to go to Union meetings. It's all a scam and Jon Hunt lets him do it!
ACCORDING TO THE ATU CONSTITUTION, IT'S ILLEGAL TO REVEAL THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS just as it's illegal to reveal secret union business.
BUT - ACCORDING TO DAY AND MARGULIES, POSTING MEMBERS NAMES AND BADGE NUMBERS ON A PUBLIC BLOG HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH the ATU CONSTITUTION. They believe the posting of names and badge numbers on a public blog is the same as posting someones personal home address and that constitues enough evidence to have someone (like me) blackballed from the union UNLESS, of course it's Steve Fung or Margulies himself.
Wording in legal documents or contracts such as the ATU Constitution are NOT ambiguous. An address is an address - not a badge number. MARGULIES AND DAY HAVE EVEN GONE SO FAR AS TO ACTUALLY START POSTING SECRET UNION DOCUMENTS ON THEIR PUBLIC SITES - wich is clearly a VIOLATION.
For those of you who believe Margulies is pro-Union - check these out: (Jeff Welch is an EXTREME ANTI-UNION HATER who gives freely of his anti-union bashing advice to Margulies and Day. ) I believe this is what one would call a "WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING", if you know what I mean. Forgive me for tooting my own horn but I've been saying all along Margulies is responsible for posting sensitive Union information regarding our benefits on his blog that ended up being seen by the Conservative anti-union Common Cause and Cascade Policy Group (John Charles) and wonTrimet the Golden Fleece award.
I PROVED THE FIRST 'PREFERRING OF CHARGES' WAS A SCAM BUT HUNT DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. HE WOULDN'T EVEN RESPOND BACK. THE SAME PROCESS USED TO NOTIFY MEMBERS OF THE PREFERRING OF CHARGES AGAINST ME THE FIRST TWO TIMES SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED TO NOTIFY THE MEMBERSHIP EXONERATING ME.
THE SCAM AND NEW PREFERRING OF CHARGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN IT. EVERY MEETING, EVERY PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED.
REGARDING THE FIRST PREFERRING OF CHARGES COMPLAINT:
Had they gone about it professionally and in good faith I could have respected that process. Who is there among us that has been accused of something that wouldn't welcome the opportunity to prove their innocence? But, when my accusers (Day, Margulies and Olsen) went on their witch hunt and in order to get the required signatures they had to devise a mission that wasn't only deceptive in nature but included the participation of co-workers WITHOUT telling the co-workers what they were getting themselves in to. Chris, John and Al deceived the Union, members from all properties, their signatories and co-workers. The e-mails and online drama - it was all a scam - at MY expense.
The vote was 108 NO to 3 YES. (18 abstain) They needed 60%.
I OBJECTED TO THE FACT that the charges he presented to potential signatories of his petition were:
1.) 18 pages of single typed, single spaced unsubstantiated rhetoric. He went so far as to include a paragraph which stated how many coworkers were 'in fear' of signing something against me." Like I was violent. Now I hear from Jeff Ackerson that coworkers are in fear of me because I've been labeled 'obsessive'. "Angry Ellen is obsessive" Run for your lives....
2.) presented to co-workers during work hours inside the bullpen area when I was present.
3.) presented, according to some of the signatories in a rush, asking them to sign something WITHOUT reading it, "for the Union".
4.) In one case when informed by the signatory that he had "no time to read it", Mr. Day replied, "You know me, you know you can trust me." And, a very embarrassed signatory later told me, "That is the last time I will ever sign something without reading it."
5.) told me, "I didn't know I was signing something to have someone blackballed!"
6.) "I signed it because everyone else at the table did."
7.) "paperwork? I didn't see any paperwork."
8.) Signatures of the various petitions didn't match. One was missing making that petition void. One signature from the same person (Al Margulies) was completely different making that petition void. Margulies even responded to the 'comments' section of my blog explaining he was 'so drunk he couldn't see what he was signing.', making that petition not just void but illegal.
9.) He sent out, (I am told) hundreds of e-mail to managers, co-workers, media, the Black Caucus e-mail list, bloggers in Portland and Washington, etc including his 18 pages of unsubstantiated, unjustified Preferring of Charges against me.
A petition was even found on Chris Day's Blog asking members of the general public to involve themselves with our workplace and our Union. There were 16 results. One of the results, I am told came from the 14 YO child who is the alleged victim of Chris Parker.
Again, had they gone about it professionally and in good faith I could have respected that process. Had it been done outside of my work environment - like in the parking area. Not one signatory approached me asking for my side. The negativity was viral. I had followers of Al and Day's blogs on my bus, recognizing and approaching me on the streets, in stores I frequent. It was all NEGATIVE. Not like anyone was asking for my autograph.
I filed Respectful Workplace and IT violations to HR ONLY against Al Margulies and Chris Day Other than the two of 'em, I did NOT ask that anyone else be investigated for signing. One signatory was contacted but only because they wanted verification of the process used in order to obtain his signature. In fact, we were all victims of the scam. HR talked with Chris in person and Al over the phone. My complaint wasn't even worthy enough for HR to require Al's presence. Chris Day's actions were found in violation of Respectful Workplace and Internet Technology. But he didn't get admonished for it until he had enough time to get me again and again - literally months later. Al got off scott free.
WHY DID THE BOYS DO THIS? THIS IS WHERE THE SCAM STARTED:
Clicking the image will make it larger.
Through the first preferring of charges they discovered a few things:
First, only the 3 of 'em (Day, Olsen and Booker) were interested in using their Union membership to vote YES.
Second, not many members showed up to meetings.
Third, if they changed the wording around they could use it as a devise to make their effort appear as though they had actually won.
So, they changed the 108 against, 3 yes and 8 abstain vote around to mean:
If 60% of you all had voted FOR the Preferring of Charges - it would have meant (based on their logic) that ANYONE could slander you and WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION you could actually have them thrown out of the Union. - which means you could force them to work without Union protection and benefits but they still have to pay dues.
BUT, if only 3 of you voted FOR the Preferring of Charges and the measure clearly failed it meant that ANYONE could slander you and WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION you could still accuse them of still being guilty of slander.
Their motive - either way was designed to slander me. I was still the one who had been publicly scrutinized by people who've never met or talked with me. Yes or No vote - my head was still under the guillotine.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.