OHAP Elections

[Jasper]

You could have said a lot of things about Mike that i would have believed, this ain't one of them. I also heard the rumor that he originated the letter, so I also asked, and he denied it absolutely. In fact he said that he would never but an unsigned letter out. Mike has never been afraid to say what he wanted to whenever he wanted to and anyone that has ever had any dealings wiht him knows that. You guys need to come up with a better strategy for discrediting someone than this.

Pischone also tells people that he was a committeeman in Lorain.When?I spent many years in Lorain and I don't remember any committeeman called Pischone.Also I hear that he calls himself a Vietnam vet. He was in the navy which he joined AFTER Vietnam. And youy think that he's gonna tell you the truth.The guys on days in the garage won't call him because of his lying,and he's their rep.Most people don't bother to respond to unsigned letters I hope that nobody responds to the latest trash,then maybe the authors will get the message.Put your name on it or forget it.

[Irish_Dad]

This aint a joke. Theres some guys I don't know for BC. I want to know more about who I'm voting for I'm sorry if you have a problem with that. Mike P is a hard guy to know because he's too busy talking about other people and thats the truth and to bad if you don't like it. Aint to many of us like all the s&%t thats been going down all over the plant. We don't want to make the same mistake again. I'm just going on who I talked to campaning. Those guys come to us we don't go to them. I don't get you. You don't believe Mike P can do no wrong? You don't believe thats what he's saying what do you need? a video? Whatever. I just know what he said to me and thats what I'm going by. I seriusly don't remember him at Lorain but he says hes from there. You saying that aint true? Or you just don't want me asking questions about what he's saying? If he says something to me that I think is whacked then I'm gonna call it like I see it.

 

I am saying that I do not believe Mike was the author of the second unsigned letter. You claim to know a little about Mike, have you ever known him to be shy with his opinions? It has been my experience with Mike on the floor, at the union meetings, wherever, that if he had something to say he by God said it and the consequences be damned. I did not say Mike is a saint, nor did I say anything about any other comments he made. What I said is, I do not believe that he is the author of the second unsigned letter. As far as any question you have, ask away I could care less.

[Irish_Dad]

Dunno? I asked Irishman again through IM and he never responded. I had Yates come through my Area today. I never met the man before, I did however ask him a few questions. Now I'll wait for the rest of the ticket to come through and do the same.

 

Some things are still unclear, and it will be interesting to hear the rest of the candidate's responses to the same questions.

 

 

I wasn't aware that Yates had a ticket. Did he tell you this??

[Irish_Dad]

This aint a joke. Theres some guys I don't know for BC. I want to know more about who I'm voting for I'm sorry if you have a problem with that. Mike P is a hard guy to know because he's too busy talking about other people and thats the truth and to bad if you don't like it. Aint to many of us like all the s&%t thats been going down all over the plant. We don't want to make the same mistake again. I'm just going on who I talked to campaning. Those guys come to us we don't go to them. I don't get you. You don't believe Mike P can do no wrong? You don't believe thats what he's saying what do you need? a video? Whatever. I just know what he said to me and thats what I'm going by. I seriusly don't remember him at Lorain but he says hes from there. You saying that aint true? Or you just don't want me asking questions about what he's saying? If he says something to me that I think is whacked then I'm gonna call it like I see it.

You know I just re -read some of the post from the past couple of days and I do believe I may have been wrong. I believe you do know who wrote the unsigned letter attacking the

Solidarity Soldiers caucus. You wrote it didn't you. You announced it before it hit, you started talking about it again before anyone else. I had a hell of a time even finding one to read, yet you know all about it. All of this to discredit Mike P,. I did not see him as that big a threat to you guys, but maybe I'm wrong. This smells like something right out of Karl Roves play book.

 

Edited Sat. 4/19/2008

I did just hear of a second reason to put out an unsigned letter and then blame Mike. Perhaps you did so that the Soldiers of Solidarity could drop a few more unsigned letters of their own. See that way you can say well Mike did it so it must be fair. Sneaky Sneaky :shades:

Edited April 20, 2008 by Irish_Dad

[Furious1Auto]

I wasn't aware that Yates had a ticket. Did he tell you this??

I lumped him together with Nick, because he is still part of the current administration. The questions I had for him pertain partly as to past practices during this term.

 

Let me clarify, it will be interesting to hear from the rest of the current administration seeking reelection on a one to one basis. I wonder if there will be consistency in the answers I get.

[Irish_Dad]

I lumped him together with Nick, because he is still part of the current administration. The questions I had for him pertain partly as to past practices during this term.

 

Let me clarify, it will be interesting to hear from the rest of the current administration seeking reelection on a one to one basis. I wonder if there will be consistency in the answers I get.

 

This election will be interesting to say the least. Before you Lump (despite the temptation to give some of these guys lumps) ask who is supporting who. I know Bruce isn't supporting Jerry, so unless some else is running I'D have to say that be default he is supporting Nick.. I also know that Nick is severely allergic to caucuses. He doesn't have or want one. Until this election we have never had to deal with caucuses.

Quite honestly I look at any caucus as a group of self serving politicians trying to save a little cash and increase their own public awareness by riding someone else's back. I do not believe that those people who are members of the caucus believe that they have selected the best possible candidate for each of the positions they have designated. I mean just look at the disparity in backgrounds, professionally and personally. How could you possibly know all of the people in our plant well enough to determine that these few are the best qualified candidate for the job? Did they speed date or something?

Or is the purpose of the caucus to get people elected that will do what the caucus leaders want? It seems to be more the latter than the former to me. I mean why else support some one you know very little about. You don't need to know anything other than the fact that you can sway them when you want. Cut's way down on the getting to know you part of a relationship. Oh and before any of the Soldiers of solidarity start, that is my opinion. Calling me names and otherwise acting childish will only make my opinion become that much stronger.

[Furious1Auto]

This election will be interesting to say the least. Before you Lump (despite the temptation to give some of these guys lumps) ask who is supporting who. I know Bruce isn't supporting Jerry, so unless some else is running I'D have to say that be default he is supporting Nick.. I also know that Nick is severely allergic to caucuses. He doesn't have or want one. Until this election we have never had to deal with caucuses.

Quite honestly I look at any caucus as a group of self serving politicians trying to save a little cash and increase their own public awareness by riding someone else's back. I do not believe that those people who are members of the caucus believe that they have selected the best possible candidate for each of the positions they have designated. I mean just look at the disparity in backgrounds, professionally and personally. How could you possibly know all of the people in our plant well enough to determine that these few are the best qualified candidate for the job? Did they speed date or something?

Or is the purpose of the caucus to get people elected that will do what the caucus leaders want? It seems to be more the latter than the former to me. I mean why else support some one you know very little about. You don't need to know anything other than the fact that you can sway them when you want. Cut's way down on the getting to know you part of a relationship. Oh and before any of the Soldiers of solidarity start, that is my opinion. Calling me names and otherwise acting childish will only make my opinion become that much stronger.

It's something new to me also, we practice some sort of quasi adaptation of government politics at OHAP. Generally speaking the term "Caucus" means voters within a geographic area (State to state) from one party or another within government politics. At OHAP it means a Chairman candidate, his subordinates running with him, and their constituents or supporters. If the term was used properly in parallel as it relates to government politics, it would refer to each dept (Paint, body, trim, chassis, and so on) as a caucus. Rather then each party and it's supporters.

 

It is very important to see to it that we have an executive board that works well together, and are like minded. Dissension from the members steers the governing body if they listen, but dissent in the within the committee causes weakness to the local. strength comes from speaking in one voice without wavering. That does not mean that they have to fight a war over every minute issue, but that when something affects the whole membership they have to support one another to ensure cohesion.

 

Nothing could be worse then to have a good chairman, while his subordinates undermine everything he does. The membership might not like some of the decisions made for them, but if the decisions are made out of principle and are clearly because of the situation at hand then it has to be transparent.

 

Good leaders listen to their members and despite their own will must bend to the will of the members. I had the benefit of being present at two important meetings, I really listened to the arguements and am still reviewing what I have learned, and balancing against principle and past practice and have drawn some conclusions. Some opinions I formed directly after the meetings have changed based on further evaluation, I'm waiting to corroborate some of the facts as reveled second meeting.

 

I was impressed with Nick's ability to negotiate new work, and his constant use of the words "business case" as it applies to our plant in the procurement of new work. It was interesting to find out were it came from. I found a thread as of late were it was discussed by Level, our resident BOF I-Rep.

After reading his statements it was clear that it came from the I-UAW and that certain tools are afforded the sitting chairman for this purpose. It demonstrated the support from the I-UAW, and made it clear the strategy, tools, and practice of making a business case is a little more boilerplate then what it appears to our local members. This one thread was specific to trades, but it is obvious that it is the means by which all new work is/will be secured.

 

Simply anyone elected for Chairman will be given the same support by the I-UAW. Both candidates have brought work to our plants in the past and I don't think procurement of new work is going t be the key issue in this election in light of that fact. Handling of rights and the will of the membership coupled with day to day practices has to be a priority to the new Chairman.

 

One issue I raised with Nick directly after hearing his take on an MOA, was the prior practice of being able to vote group leaders out. The fact is that in the recent past I have witnessed group leaders helping foreman to establish job standards, this can't be tolerated.

 

In the last two rebalances two jobs were eliminated next to me, and I ended picking up nearly all the work. "Day shift sets the standard" everyone has heard this mantra. Well my dayshift operator came from Sandusky ACH, and was not accustomed to the type of work we do. He took on the work with little fight, and it is to the point our job can hardly be held down by anyone for a length longer then it takes to relieve for breaks. The constant calling for a standards Rep also did not work in our favor, because he never came to investigate.

 

Nick's take is that it is better then it has been in the past, and that the problem with being able to vote out a group leader allows for the violation of senior employee's rights to bid and hold the job if they wish. I took note of his arguement, but we part on this issue! Seniority rights are important, but in such an important job were it affects the entire team if they are not fair or present when needed it is rediculos to suggest that his rights should trump the stability and performance of an entire team. Not solely for the purpose of setting standards, but in the commission of their work.

 

Our group leaders do not have the most physically challenging job in a given area, but it is the most important position in that they are the keepers of our quality control team per team. They are the ones who report and handle defects that we identify, they are the ones who provide emergency relief, they are the ones who make corrections to ensure our process continues to flow when issues arise. If a person does not, or can not efficiently handle this job then the members of the team are the ones who suffer. So why then should the team not have control over who will remain in these positions? It's a "no brainer," Bid it by seniority and give the assembly workers the ability to eliminate those who don't cut it. I don't see it productive to alienate the rights of the majority, to preserve the rights of the minority!

 

There are other issues, but I'm still evaluating information.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Irish_Dad]

It's something new to me also, we practice some sort of quasi adaptation of government politics at OHAP. Generally speaking the term "Caucus" means voters within a geographic area (State to state) from one party or another within government politics. At OHAP it means a Chairman candidate, his subordinates running with him, and their constituents or supporters. If the term was used properly in parallel as it relates to government politics, it would refer to each dept (Paint, body, trim, chassis, and so on) as a caucus. Rather then each party and it's supporters.

 

It is very important to see to it that we have an executive board that works well together, and are like minded. Dissension from the members steers the governing body if they listen, but dissent in the within the committee causes weakness to the local. strength comes from speaking in one voice without wavering. That does not mean that they have to fight a war over every minute issue, but that when something affects the whole membership they have to support one another to ensure cohesion.

 

Nothing could be worse then to have a good chairman, while his subordinates undermine everything he does. The membership might not like some of the decisions made for them, but if the decisions are made out of principle and are clearly because of the situation at hand then it has to be transparent.

 

Good leaders listen to their members and despite their own will must bend to the will of the members. I had the benefit of being present at two important meetings, I really listened to the arguements and am still reviewing what I have learned, and balancing against principle and past practice have and drawn some conclusions. Some opinions I formed directly after the meetings have changed based on further evaluation, I'm waiting to corroborate some of the facts as reveled second meeting.

 

I was impressed with Nick's ability to negotiate new work, and his constant use of the words "business case" as it applies to our plant in the procurement of new work. It was interesting to find out were it came from. I found a thread as of late were it was discussed by Level, our resident BOF I-Rep.

After reading his statements it was clear that it came from the I-UAW and that certain tools are afforded the sitting chairman for this purpose. It demonstrated the support from the I-UAW, and made it clear the strategy, tools, and practice of making a business case is a little more boilerplate then what it appears to our local members. This one thread was specific to trades, but it is obvious that it is the means by which all new work is/will be secured.

 

Simply anyone elected for Chairman will be given the same support by the I-UAW. Both candidates have brought work to our plants in the past and I don't think procurement of new work is going t be the key issue in this election in light of that fact. Handling of rights and the will of the membership coupled with day to day practices has to be a priority to the new Chairman.

 

One issue I raised with Nick directly after hearing his take on an MOA, was the prior practice of being able to vote group leaders out. The fact is that in the recent past I have witnessed group leaders helping foreman to establish job standards, this can't be tolerated.

 

In the last two rebalances two jobs were eliminated next to me, and I ended picking up nearly all the work. "Day shift sets the standard" everyone has heard this mantra. Well my dayshift operator came from Sandusky ACH, and was not accustomed to the type of work we do. He took on the work with little fight, and it is to the point our job can hardly be held down by anyone for a length longer then it takes to relieve for breaks. The constant calling for a standards Rep also did not work in our favor, because he never came to investigate.

 

Nick's take is that it is better then it has been in the past, and that the problem with being able to vote out a group leader allows for the violation of senior employee's rights to bid and hold the job if they wish. I took note of his arguement, but we part on this issue! Seniority rights are important, but in such an important job were it affects the entire team if they are not fair or present when needed it is rediculos to suggest that his rights should trump the stability and performance of an entire team. Not solely for the purpose of setting standards, but in the commission of their work.

 

Our group leaders do not have the most physically challenging job in a given area, but it is the most important position in that they are the keepers of our quality control team per team. They are the ones who report and handle defects that we identify, they are the ones who provide emergency relief, they are the ones who make corrections to ensure our process continues to flow when issues arise. If a person does not, or can not efficiently handle this job then the members of the team are the ones who suffer. So why then should the team not have control over who will remain in these positions? It's a "no brainer," Bid it by seniority and give the assembly workers the ability to eliminate those who don't cut it. I don't see it productive to alienate the rights of the majority, to preserve the rights of the minority!

 

There are other issues, but I'm still evaluating information.

 

When you say that the International provides the tools necessary for a chairman to make a business case please remember that Jerry was also once a chairman. Also if you ask Jerry he will tell you that Ford refused to announce the new unit, he supposed got for us, until the day after the election. His claim at the time was that Ford and teh i

International deliberately withheld the announcement to negatively influence his re-election campaign.

 

Actually you were not able to vote a Team leader out in the Mariner system either. You could ask to have the person removed and the union and company would work with the team and the team leader to resolve any differences. If after this mediation, the team leader was removed, the position was filled by seniority bid. As far as I know not one team leader was ever removed.

I don't know of you ever worked under the "vote them out vote them in" system, but it had significant problems. A team leader could be removed for literally anything. The leaders were removed for not providing extra breaks to the team members, for not helping a worker build up so they could have an easier job later in the afternoon, for not covering a relief man who wanted to leave early. I never heard of one being removed for not ensuring that quality work left his area or for failing to keep his boards up to date. I know it sounds great that we would all work together to build the best product we can in the most efficient method we can. Ask around to see what was better about the team concept process. See if what you feel is important in team concept is what other people felt was best about team concept practiced at OHAP. Also keep in mind that if team concept led to better quality or more cost effective methods will would still be practicing it today. Let us know what you find out.

[Jasper]

This election will be interesting to say the least. Before you Lump (despite the temptation to give some of these guys lumps) ask who is supporting who. I know Bruce isn't supporting Jerry, so unless some else is running I'D have to say that be default he is supporting Nick.. I also know that Nick is severely allergic to caucuses. He doesn't have or want one. Until this election we have never had to deal with caucuses.

Quite honestly I look at any caucus as a group of self serving politicians trying to save a little cash and increase their own public awareness by riding someone else's back. I do not believe that those people who are members of the caucus believe that they have selected the best possible candidate for each of the positions they have designated. I mean just look at the disparity in backgrounds, professionally and personally. How could you possibly know all of the people in our plant well enough to determine that these few are the best qualified candidate for the job? Did they speed date or something?

Or is the purpose of the caucus to get people elected that will do what the caucus leaders want? It seems to be more the latter than the former to me. I mean why else support some one you know very little about. You don't need to know anything other than the fact that you can sway them when you want. Cut's way down on the getting to know you part of a relationship. Oh and before any of the Soldiers of solidarity start, that is my opinion. Calling me names and otherwise acting childish will only make my opinion become that much stronger.

iasked Bruce who he was supporting for chairman and it was NOT Nick.How come the orange shirts were delivered to Nick's home?REMEMBER WHEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON KNOWS A SECRET ,IT'S NO LONGER A SECRET!!As for caucuses ,I asked around and guess what!Wrong again.They tell me that there were numerous caucuses in local 2000.Examples were ,THE HUNTER CAUCUS,THE SOLIDARITY TEAM[OLD]THE FAIR DEAL TEAM ETC.CAN'T YOU GET ANYTHING RIGHT?

[Furious1Auto]

When you say that the International provides the tools necessary for a chairman to make a business case please remember that Jerry was also once a chairman. Also if you ask Jerry he will tell you that Ford refused to announce the new unit, he supposed got for us, until the day after the election. His claim at the time was that Ford and teh i

International deliberately withheld the announcement to negatively influence his re-election campaign.

 

Actually you were not able to vote a Team leader out in the Mariner system either. You could ask to have the person removed and the union and company would work with the team and the team leader to resolve any differences. If after this mediation, the team leader was removed, the position was filled by seniority bid. As far as I know not one team leader was ever removed.

I don't know of you ever worked under the "vote them out vote them in" system, but it had significant problems. A team leader could be removed for literally anything. The leaders were removed for not providing extra breaks to the team members, for not helping a worker build up so they could have an easier job later in the afternoon, for not covering a relief man who wanted to leave early. I never heard of one being removed for not ensuring that quality work left his area or for failing to keep his boards up to date. I know it sounds great that we would all work together to build the best product we can in the most efficient method we can. Ask around to see what was better about the team concept process. See if what you feel is important in team concept is what other people felt was best about team concept practiced at OHAP. Also keep in mind that if team concept led to better quality or more cost effective methods will would still be practicing it today. Let us know what you find out.

If what your saying is true then there should be limitations as to why a group leader could be replaced, like ignoring alarms, not calling back defects and communicating them to the repair station, pissing and moaning over having to give emergency relief. The idea of using the ability to vote a group leader out in order to force them to do your job, or to have them make it possible for you to leave early is not right. We get paid to do a job, and if we don't care it could cost us all.

 

I never worked under an MOA, but when I heard that this was part of the agreement I was happy to be coming to OHAP. I then was under the assumption that that was how it would operate when we got here.

 

We had the same sh-t in Lorain, guys would put a radio on and all of the sudden they thought they were better than those who built the product. They thought they were management. I never did that, when I wore a radio I knew I had one advantage over laborpool. If the foreman gave me trouble and being that I was still a union employee, I had a radio to be able to call my own committeeman!

 

When I suggested being able to vote out group leaders it was not for the reasons you mentioned, but once again that one position affects 10 people and they should have that right. Think about it from the managements standpoint also. It is beneficial for everyone in the group to have that power if employed correctly. I think the culture has changed quite a bit since the last time it was employed, we have lost allot of people who did not care and did not want to be here through the buyouts. Most of those who remain care about what we do and understand we have to be the best. Just our group lost 4 people with the "I don't care" attitude. We still have a few plant wide, but not nearly as many as even 3 years ago. I think that different class of people would make the difference in how the such a system is employed in the future.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Irish_Dad]

iasked Bruce who he was supporting for chairman and it was NOT Nick.How come the orange shirts were delivered to Nick's home?REMEMBER WHEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON KNOWS A SECRET ,IT'S NO LONGER A SECRET!!As for caucuses ,I asked around and guess what!Wrong again.They tell me that there were numerous caucuses in local 2000.Examples were ,THE HUNTER CAUCUS,THE SOLIDARITY TEAM[OLD]THE FAIR DEAL TEAM ETC.CAN'T YOU GET ANYTHING RIGHT?

 

 

Excuse me, there have been no caucuses since 1993. That was when the Progressive Action Caucus was so soundly defeated. Wait a minute wasn't Jerry a part of Don Schnur's caucus at that time? So since we all learned to think for ourselves in 1993, there have been no caucuses. If anyone on this board, or in the plant, believes that Bruce Lee Yates is supporting Jerry for chairman please let me know, I have some land in Texas I can let you have at a bargain. I personally have no idea where any shirts were delivered, but I do know that some Soldiers of Solidarity were seen taking labels from the boxes that shirts were delivered in. Jasper if you have anything you want to add to the conversation please feel free to publish a signed letter like the rest of the candidates, Unless you are too busy composing the unsigned one you plan to drop next week that is. What was that about secrets??

Edited April 22, 2008 by Irish_Dad

[Furious1Auto]

Excuse me, there have been no caucuses since 1993. That was when the Progressive Action Caucus was so soundly defeated. Wait a minute wasn't Jerry a part of Don Schnur's caucus at that time? So since we all learned to think for ourselves in 1993, there have been no caucuses. If anyone on this board, or in the plant, believes that Bruce Lee Yates is supporting Jerry for chairman please let me know, I have some land in Texas I can let you have at a bargain. I personally have no idea where any shirts were delivered, but I do know that some Soldiers of Solidarity were seen taking labels from the boxes that shirts were delivered in. Jasper if you have anything you want to add to the conversation please feel free to publish a signed letter like the rest of the candidates, Unless you are too busy composing the unsigned one you plan to drop next week that is. What was that about secrets??

Two things about Avon that really drive me nutz. The stigma attached to unsigned letters, and the use of the words "Cutting a Hog!" What, are we a bunch of pig farmers? Can't you guys say "Back door deal" or a "Gentleman's agreement" or "Secret arrangement or something. GEEZ "Hog cutting" sounds so unsophisticated. O.K. I'm done with my rant, I think I'll go "Cut a Hog" or write an unsigned letter or something. Better yet I'll save the trouble and go install brakes on my pick-up truck to get something worthwhile done!

Edited April 22, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[truthshallset youfree]

The so-called chairman who couldn't come out on the floor for the last three years comes out on the floor now campaigning! He works 4 hours and then campaigns 4 hours doesn't replace himself and then comes down to the hi-line to campaign with us leaving us without a chairman! Nice job! Once again the membership is put second. Why can he take 4 hours off when he wants but we can't. How come he doesn't have to replace himself but other guys do? And don't say he was available if they needed him because you can't campaign on company time!

[xXBucktoothgeekXx]

The so-called chairman who couldn't come out on the floor for the last three years comes out on the floor now campaigning! He works 4 hours and then campaigns 4 hours doesn't replace himself and then comes down to the hi-line to campaign with us leaving us without a chairman! Nice job! Once again the membership is put second. Why can he take 4 hours off when he wants but we can't. How come he doesn't have to replace himself but other guys do? And don't say he was available if they needed him because you can't campaign on company time!

:happy feet: What do ya mean you can't campign on compamy time? Jerry doesn't have a problem doing it. Brummitt, Michael nor Triplett have a problem doing it. Who is Jerry's boss that would allow such a thing? :happy feet: :happy feet:

[truthshallset youfree]

:titanic: Aaww boohoo boohoo! We're all cryin for you. Yea cryin while you get ready to haul your fat do nothing ass back to the line :happy feet: Your a fuckin hypocrit who can't stand it now that the shoe is on the other foot. Yea theres a tear in my eye you lazy fuck!

[jester13]

The so-called chairman who couldn't come out on the floor for the last three years comes out on the floor now campaigning! He works 4 hours and then campaigns 4 hours doesn't replace himself and then comes down to the hi-line to campaign with us leaving us without a chairman! Nice job! Once again the membership is put second. Why can he take 4 hours off when he wants but we can't. How come he doesn't have to replace himself but other guys do? And don't say he was available if they needed him because you can't campaign on company time!

 

 

OMG... ST. NICK came to the line, and he brought presents with him...Jackets. April must be a really cold month up north in labor relations.

[Jasper]

Excuse me, there have been no caucuses since 1993. That was when the Progressive Action Caucus was so soundly defeated. Wait a minute wasn't Jerry a part of Don Schnur's caucus at that time? So since we all learned to think for ourselves in 1993, there have been no caucuses. If anyone on this board, or in the plant, believes that Bruce Lee Yates is supporting Jerry for chairman please let me know, I have some land in Texas I can let you have at a bargain. I personally have no idea where any shirts were delivered, but I do know that some Soldiers of Solidarity were seen taking labels from the boxes that shirts were delivered in. Jasper if you have anything you want to add to the conversation please feel free to publish a signed letter like the rest of the candidates, Unless you are too busy composing the unsigned one you plan to drop next week that is. What was that about secrets??

I am of the opinion that the BRUCE in question was Bruce Click as from what I hear NO one wanted Yates identified with them.As for unsigned letters,the only one that I am aware of was one that clearly came from those supporting the incumbent chairman.However I do tend to agree wiyh you that there will be more unsigned junk and I wold encourage the membership to IGNORE anything that is unsigned.Let me guess the land you have in Texas is probably located in Crawford,a little ol'e ranch.Thought so!

Are you implying that before 1993 that people in the OHIO ASSEMBLY PLANT could't think for themselves.Seems to me that you are suffering a relapse.Remember HELP is only a phone call away.

[Irish_Dad]

I am of the opinion that the BRUCE in question was Bruce Click as from what I hear NO one wanted Yates identified with them.As for unsigned letters,the only one that I am aware of was one that clearly came from those supporting the incumbent chairman.However I do tend to agree wiyh you that there will be more unsigned junk and I wold encourage the membership to IGNORE anything that is unsigned.Let me guess the land you have in Texas is probably located in Crawford,a little ol'e ranch.Thought so!

Are you implying that before 1993 that people in the OHIO ASSEMBLY PLANT could't think for themselves.Seems to me that you are suffering a relapse.Remember HELP is only a phone call away.

 

Actually he Bruce we were discussing is Bruce Yates (Read the thread). AS far as the 1993 comment, you are partially right and if I offended anyone I apologize. But that is what a caucus is all about isn't it? We select your candidates for you so you needn't bother you pretty little head. Now are you implying that this caucus is similar to those that Jerry named for you??

Edited April 24, 2008 by Irish_Dad

[Irish_Dad]

:titanic: Aaww boohoo boohoo! We're all cryin for you. Yea cryin while you get ready to haul your fat do nothing ass back to the line :happy feet: Your a fuckin hypocrit who can't stand it now that the shoe is on the other foot. Yea theres a tear in my eye you lazy fuck!

 

 

I believe Ole Bucky forgot that there are different rules for you Soldiers of Solidarity types. Shame on you Bucky. Jerry can campaign whenever he wants, he can ride other campaigners around on his company buggy whenever he wants, and if you question that well your just mean.

[Harry Bennet]

which one promised more down weeks?

[RATONDALINE]

Did we ever find out why so many posts were removed? It was nearly a whole page, I believe.

Hey Spring, you have been awful quiet. So quiet I had to register instead of just reading the post. Whats up with you?? Now I have to figure out how to work this thing. :reading:

[RATONDALINE]

:happy feet: What do ya mean you can't campign on compamy time? Jerry doesn't have a problem doing it. Brummitt, Michael nor Triplett have a problem doing it. Who is Jerry's boss that would allow such a thing? :happy feet: :happy feet:

As for campaigning on ford motor company's time,....the entire structure in office now participates in that activity. Its been going on years and will continue to go on. Just my three cents worth. :shades:

[Spring]

Hey Spring, you have been awful quiet. So quiet I had to register instead of just reading the post. Whats up with you?? Now I have to figure out how to work this thing. :reading:

 

Participate in what?! This? Pass. Besides I've been a bit busy! Campaigning on my OWN time! Ratondaline, what did you need to know?

[Spring]

Participate in what?! This? Pass. Besides I've been a bit busy! Campaigning on my OWN time! Ratondaline, what did you need to know?

 

 

Irish Dad, saw Ladikos and gave him the jacket for the homeless vets.

[Furious1Auto]

Irish Dad, saw Ladikos and gave him the jacket for the homeless vets.

I'm dying mine black embroidery and all! The jacket was not docked from my pay, so spending a few dollars to make it what I want wont hurt.