local400future Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 You mean involved like YOU, sucking Tony OFF.....You are the P.O.S. and everyone on here knows it...Al Coscia is a biggest sellout yet.....and also for a guy who is so involved you never show up to any of the meetings. Oh, well I heard you went to this weeks Executive Board meeting to sell the membership out....Great Job Al! I love it when I disagree with you I am automatically a sellout. Does that mean if I agree with you that I am a buy in? Like I said, you can't bully me into doing anything. There was nothing to support Lenny's protest AND it was not filed in a timely fashion. He knew about Ron being retired a year ago and did nothing, but now that Tony retires he's a union fighter? It's nothing but a vendetta and your are blind if you can't see that. I'm sorry, but I am not going to support a protest from a member with a grudge without rock solid proof. Lastly, I've missed three joint council meetings because of work and one executive board meeting because of a meeting at my daughter's school. The proper people were notified. Yes, it is you business to know if I was there or not, but no, it is not your business to know why. In the spirit of goodwill, I decided to give you the reasons. All are valid btw. Our union is broken. Getting involved is the only way to fix it. All the hate and insults you sling around make you look like an ass, but since no one knows who you are you don't really seem to care. You can sling all the insults you want at me. They don't mean crap unless you can say it to my face. That said, you can imagine me going down on Tony if that's what brings you pleasure. I guess everyone has some sort of fetish, but that one's a little odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 mOre to come. pinelli did not bring th appeal to the joint council but laid this all at the eboard feet. as we knew would happen, the suckies at 400 failed to act and this goes on. Just read everything I wrote to Romeo400member and apply that to yourself also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSenseAlwaysWorks Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) Edited November 24, 2009 by CommonSenseAlwaysWorks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I love it when I disagree with you I am automatically a sellout. Does that mean if I agree with you that I am a buy in? Like I said, you can't bully me into doing anything. There was nothing to support Lenny's protest AND it was not filed in a timely fashion. He knew about Ron being retired a year ago and did nothing, but now that Tony retires he's a union fighter? It's nothing but a vendetta and your are blind if you can't see that. I'm sorry, but I am not going to support a protest from a member with a grudge without rock solid proof. Lastly, I've missed three joint council meetings because of work and one executive board meeting because of a meeting at my daughter's school. The proper people were notified. Yes, it is you business to know if I was there or not, but no, it is not your business to know why. In the spirit of goodwill, I decided to give you the reasons. All are valid btw. Our union is broken. Getting involved is the only way to fix it. All the hate and insults you sling around make you look like an ass, but since no one knows who you are you don't really seem to care. You can sling all the insults you want at me. They don't mean crap unless you can say it to my face. That said, you can imagine me going down on Tony if that's what brings you pleasure. I guess everyone has some sort of fetish, but that one's a little odd. It amazes me that despite all of the info provided a so called inteligent person or group of persons, thet group continuously fails to act. Well some more info is below that is a basis for many of the constitutional premises cites previously. someone who uses a compute to communicate to a membership such as the future, shouldn't have a hard time finding this info themselves in order to make a rational decision for the local regardless of his person feellings as he says he does. the terms "properly constitute officer" are clear in where it comes from, what could the local be liable for now that the bums are not properly constituted officers, and say they get in a car wreck going to negoiate with visteon highland park, which was announced at the Joint Council meeting sunday??? the bond company is still getting their money, our should I say ours, and will not have to pay out if something happens. great job by the eboard at 400 on behalf of the members!!! 29 CFR § 453.22 Prohibition of certain activities by unbonded persons. (a) Section 502(a) provides that persons who are not covered by bonds as required by that section shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. This prohibits personnel who are required to be bonded, as explained in §453.8 from performing any of these acts without being covered by the required bonds. In addition, this provision makes it unlawful for any person with power to do so to delegate or assign the duties of receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of such funds or property to any person who is not bonded in accordance with the provisions of section 502(a). 29 USC sec 501(a) Every officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative or employee of any labor organization (other than a labor organization whose property and annual financial receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value), or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, who handles funds or other property thereof shall be bonded to provide protection against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on his part directly or through connivance with others. The bond of each such person shall be fixed at the beginning of the organization’s fiscal year and shall be in an amount not less than 10 per centum of the funds handled by him and his predecessor or predecessors, if any, during the preceding fiscal year, but in no case more than $500,000. If the labor organization or the trust in which a labor organization is interested does not have a preceding fiscal year, the amount of the bond shall be, in the case of a local labor organization, not less than $1,000, and in the case of any other labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, not less than $10,000. Such bonds shall be individual or schedule in form, and shall have a corporate surety company as surety thereon. Any person who is not covered by such bonds shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. No such bond shall be placed through an agent or broker or with a surety company in which any labor organization or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization has any direct or indirect interest. Such surety company shall be a corporate surety which holds a grant of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under sections 9304–9308 of title 31, as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds: Provided, That when in the opinion of the Secretary a labor organization has made other bonding arrangements which would provide the protection required by this section at comparable cost or less, he may exempt such labor organization from placing a bond through a surety company holding such grant of authority. (B) Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Search this title: 29 CFR § 453.22 Prohibition of certain activities by unbonded persons. (a) Section 502(a) provides that persons who are not covered by bonds as required by that section shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. This prohibits personnel who are required to be bonded, as explained in §453.8 from performing any of these acts without being covered by the required bonds. In addition, this provision makes it unlawful for any person with power to do so to delegate or assign the duties of receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of such funds or property to any person who is not bonded in accordance with the provisions of section 502(a). 29 USC sec 402(n) “Officer” means any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body. 29 CFR § 401.14 Officer. Officer means any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/d...02----000-.html http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....14&idno=29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laidofflocal400member Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 It amazes me that despite all of the info provided a so called inteligent person or group of persons, thet group continuously fails to act. Well some more info is below that is a basis for many of the constitutional premises cites previously. someone who uses a compute to communicate to a membership such as the future, shouldn't have a hard time finding this info themselves in order to make a rational decision for the local regardless of his person feellings as he says he does. the terms "properly constitute officer" are clear in where it comes from, what could the local be liable for now that the bums are not properly constituted officers, and say they get in a car wreck going to negoiate with visteon highland park, which was announced at the Joint Council meeting sunday??? the bond company is still getting their money, our should I say ours, and will not have to pay out if something happens. great job by the eboard at 400 on behalf of the members!!! 29 CFR § 453.22 Prohibition of certain activities by unbonded persons. (a) Section 502(a) provides that persons who are not covered by bonds as required by that section shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. This prohibits personnel who are required to be bonded, as explained in §453.8 from performing any of these acts without being covered by the required bonds. In addition, this provision makes it unlawful for any person with power to do so to delegate or assign the duties of receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of such funds or property to any person who is not bonded in accordance with the provisions of section 502(a). 29 USC sec 501(a) Every officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative or employee of any labor organization (other than a labor organization whose property and annual financial receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value), or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, who handles funds or other property thereof shall be bonded to provide protection against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on his part directly or through connivance with others. The bond of each such person shall be fixed at the beginning of the organization’s fiscal year and shall be in an amount not less than 10 per centum of the funds handled by him and his predecessor or predecessors, if any, during the preceding fiscal year, but in no case more than $500,000. If the labor organization or the trust in which a labor organization is interested does not have a preceding fiscal year, the amount of the bond shall be, in the case of a local labor organization, not less than $1,000, and in the case of any other labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, not less than $10,000. Such bonds shall be individual or schedule in form, and shall have a corporate surety company as surety thereon. Any person who is not covered by such bonds shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. No such bond shall be placed through an agent or broker or with a surety company in which any labor organization or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization has any direct or indirect interest. Such surety company shall be a corporate surety which holds a grant of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under sections 9304–9308 of title 31, as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds: Provided, That when in the opinion of the Secretary a labor organization has made other bonding arrangements which would provide the protection required by this section at comparable cost or less, he may exempt such labor organization from placing a bond through a surety company holding such grant of authority. (B) Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Search this title: 29 CFR § 453.22 Prohibition of certain activities by unbonded persons. (a) Section 502(a) provides that persons who are not covered by bonds as required by that section shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. This prohibits personnel who are required to be bonded, as explained in §453.8 from performing any of these acts without being covered by the required bonds. In addition, this provision makes it unlawful for any person with power to do so to delegate or assign the duties of receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of such funds or property to any person who is not bonded in accordance with the provisions of section 502(a). 29 USC sec 402(n) “Officer” means any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body. 29 CFR § 401.14 Officer. Officer means any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/d...02----000-.html http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....14&idno=29 Hey 400member, I bet Al knew that already, I mean he knows everything! JUST ASK HIM!!! Reading some of his posts it just amazes me that he wants to be involved in union business, because listening to him....He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground......Just my opinion..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 It amazes me that despite all of the info provided a so called inteligent person or group of persons, thet group continuously fails to act. Well some more info is below that is a basis for many of the constitutional premises cites previously. someone who uses a compute to communicate to a membership such as the future, shouldn't have a hard time finding this info themselves in order to make a rational decision for the local regardless of his person feellings as he says he does. the terms "properly constitute officer" are clear in where it comes from, what could the local be liable for now that the bums are not properly constituted officers, and say they get in a car wreck going to negoiate with visteon highland park, which was announced at the Joint Council meeting sunday??? the bond company is still getting their money, our should I say ours, and will not have to pay out if something happens. great job by the eboard at 400 on behalf of the members!!! 29 CFR § 453.22 Prohibition of certain activities by unbonded persons. (a) Section 502(a) provides that persons who are not covered by bonds as required by that section shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. This prohibits personnel who are required to be bonded, as explained in §453.8 from performing any of these acts without being covered by the required bonds. In addition, this provision makes it unlawful for any person with power to do so to delegate or assign the duties of receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of such funds or property to any person who is not bonded in accordance with the provisions of section 502(a). 29 USC sec 501(a) Every officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative or employee of any labor organization (other than a labor organization whose property and annual financial receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value), or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, who handles funds or other property thereof shall be bonded to provide protection against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on his part directly or through connivance with others. The bond of each such person shall be fixed at the beginning of the organization’s fiscal year and shall be in an amount not less than 10 per centum of the funds handled by him and his predecessor or predecessors, if any, during the preceding fiscal year, but in no case more than $500,000. If the labor organization or the trust in which a labor organization is interested does not have a preceding fiscal year, the amount of the bond shall be, in the case of a local labor organization, not less than $1,000, and in the case of any other labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, not less than $10,000. Such bonds shall be individual or schedule in form, and shall have a corporate surety company as surety thereon. Any person who is not covered by such bonds shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. No such bond shall be placed through an agent or broker or with a surety company in which any labor organization or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization has any direct or indirect interest. Such surety company shall be a corporate surety which holds a grant of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under sections 9304–9308 of title 31, as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds: Provided, That when in the opinion of the Secretary a labor organization has made other bonding arrangements which would provide the protection required by this section at comparable cost or less, he may exempt such labor organization from placing a bond through a surety company holding such grant of authority. (B) Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Search this title: 29 CFR § 453.22 Prohibition of certain activities by unbonded persons. (a) Section 502(a) provides that persons who are not covered by bonds as required by that section shall not be permitted to receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. This prohibits personnel who are required to be bonded, as explained in §453.8 from performing any of these acts without being covered by the required bonds. In addition, this provision makes it unlawful for any person with power to do so to delegate or assign the duties of receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of such funds or property to any person who is not bonded in accordance with the provisions of section 502(a). 29 USC sec 402(n) “Officer” means any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body. 29 CFR § 401.14 Officer. Officer means any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/d...02----000-.html http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....14&idno=29 Well that's all well and good IF THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HOLD THEIR POSITIONS! The evidence provided in the manner and timeliness in which is was provided was not enough for the executive board to elevate the protest. Once again, righteous indiganation is not a case. Get over yourself and come up with some valid information that is supported by the UAW Constitution. Just because it's your opinion and yes, it is ethically questionable, does not make in legal or in violation of the constitution. The constitution needs to be changed and the only way to change that is by the international which is controlled by the locals. Tony leaves after this term, not sure how much longer Howard is staying and I think Ron is staying. I totally agree with Ron's reasons for staying, he has a lot of responsibilities to the retirees that not just anyone can pick up. We'll definately get one new person at the local and assuming Bobby moves up to President and wins, I think maybe we can finally start making changes. Like I said, you can hate me all you want and make all the assumptions, but I do have the membership's best interests at heart. These protests do nothing to move forward especially who they are coming from and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Well that's all well and good IF THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HOLD THEIR POSITIONS! The evidence provided in the manner and timeliness in which is was provided was not enough for the executive board to elevate the protest. Once again, righteous indiganation is not a case. Get over yourself and come up with some valid information that is supported by the UAW Constitution. Just because it's your opinion and yes, it is ethically questionable, does not make in legal or in violation of the constitution. The constitution needs to be changed and the only way to change that is by the international which is controlled by the locals. Tony leaves after this term, not sure how much longer Howard is staying and I think Ron is staying. I totally agree with Ron's reasons for staying, he has a lot of responsibilities to the retirees that not just anyone can pick up. We'll definately get one new person at the local and assuming Bobby moves up to President and wins, I think maybe we can finally start making changes. Like I said, you can hate me all you want and make all the assumptions, but I do have the membership's best interests at heart. These protests do nothing to move forward especially who they are coming from and why. So your buddy Ron says he has responsibilties to the retirees.... and nobody else can handle this respoonsibiltiy....! Are you really that naive?? you might as well call yourself Mork!! Yo ureally have no clue as to the duties of any of Local officers in the UAW. If you are an example of what is on our eboard, we are sunk in all things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laidofflocal400member Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 So your buddy Ron says he has responsibilties to the retirees.... and nobody else can handle this respoonsibiltiy....! Are you really that naive?? you might as well call yourself Mork!! Yo ureally have no clue as to the duties of any of Local officers in the UAW. If you are an example of what is on our eboard, we are sunk in all things. I told you 400member....he's definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer! But I guess he's a good lapdog.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 So your buddy Ron says he has responsibilties to the retirees.... and nobody else can handle this respoonsibiltiy....! Are you really that naive?? you might as well call yourself Mork!! Yo ureally have no clue as to the duties of any of Local officers in the UAW. If you are an example of what is on our eboard, we are sunk in all things. I never said no one else can handle it, I said not just anyone could pick up. Like your boy Lenny, you like to add words to support your arguement. Basically it will be hard to replace Ron just like it was hard to replace Sorgi. Eventually he will leave, or lose, but with him goes a lot of experience. More than any of the other officers for that matter. So yeah, his arguement for staying makes sense. Also, it's nice to see you still can't drop the insults. I'm just glad you're not an example of what is in our membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I told you 400member....he's definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer! But I guess he's a good lapdog.... I'm the lapdog? You and less to the discussion than 400member. You just agree with him. Sounds like you're the lapdog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I never said no one else can handle it, I said not just anyone could pick up. Like your boy Lenny, you like to add words to support your arguement. Basically it will be hard to replace Ron just like it was hard to replace Sorgi. Eventually he will leave, or lose, but with him goes a lot of experience. More than any of the other officers for that matter. So yeah, his arguement for staying makes sense. Also, it's nice to see you still can't drop the insults. I'm just glad you're not an example of what is in our membership. You sound as though there are only romeo members!! There are utica school system members that can run that gajeski dog in the dirt,,..and still have time left to do more. I have known and met school system employees that multi-task with administrations, communities, parents, maintenance/grounds, and kids. these members have it all over your dog ronnie. for that matter, they could take out all the retired bums and do a better job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) You sound as though there are only romeo members!! There are utica school system members that can run that gajeski dog in the dirt,,..and still have time left to do more. I have known and met school system employees that multi-task with administrations, communities, parents, maintenance/grounds, and kids. these members have it all over your dog ronnie. for that matter, they could take out all the retired bums and do a better job. Nice try to deflect, but I never implied that. Edited October 27, 2009 by local400future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feegsit Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 So your buddy Ron says he has responsibilties to the retirees.... and nobody else can handle this respoonsibiltiy....! Are you really that naive?? you might as well call yourself Mork!! Yo ureally have no clue as to the duties of any of Local officers in the UAW. If you are an example of what is on our eboard, we are sunk in all things. NEWSFLASH--- Gajeski don't give a shit about anybody but himself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 NEWSFLASH--- Gajeski don't give a shit about anybody but himself! Honestly, he's the only committeeman who did anything for me. Every other committeeman I walked into a hearing with I walked out with a write-up. Not with him though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trufflebuns Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Honestly, he's the only committeeman who did anything for me. Every other committeeman I walked into a hearing with I walked out with a write-up. Not with him though. Ron G. is good people and anyone who sez otherwise doesn't know the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Ron G. is good people and anyone who sez otherwise doesn't know the man. I know the man, the union rep, and the bum officer and I can say from first hand knowledge... There are utica school system members that can run that gajeski dog in the dirt,,..and still have time left to do more. I have known and met school system employees that multi-task with administrations, communities, parents, maintenance/grounds, and kids. these members have it all over your dog ronnie. for that matter, they could take out all the retired bums and do a better job. Despite the loss of ETAP benefits, we have the most educated membeship in the history of the UAW...! Ask the bums if they have taken the personal step toward any continued education..the anwwer is no!! stagnant swamp rats, polluted by their own greed and avarious, back stabbing con men! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) I know the man, the union rep, and the bum officer and I can say from first hand knowledge... ........stagnant swamp rats, polluted by their own greed and avarious, back stabbing con men! Sounds like someone who keeps filing protests......... Edited October 28, 2009 by local400future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Sounds like someone who keeps filing protests......... Sounds like a member who expects his/her representatives to act on the behalf of the membership as a whole. When any rep "ASK's" for the opportunity to serve the membership, that is exactly what I expect. Anything else is a violation of their stated intent to represent me, you and others...!! Members have forgotten the service factor ingrained in holding a representative position, as you have as well. you serve your own interests instead of the membership's, as you have stated in your empirical statement about the bum gajeski. What he did for you...leaves you blinded to what all those bums are doing to our local. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laidofflocal400member Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Ron G. is good people and anyone who sez otherwise doesn't know the man. You must be one of Ron G's bar fly buddies if you think he is good people. I don't know maybe he is good people when he's buying you drinks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laidofflocal400member Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Sounds like someone who keeps filing protests......... Keep sucking up Al, maybe you'll get the next appointed position at Romeo. Listening to your post's all we hear is a loud sucking sound!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trufflebuns Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 You must be one of Ron G's bar fly buddies if you think he is good people. I don't know maybe he is good people when he's buying you drinks.... Hmmmmmmm, ah Nope. Don't drink, don't go to bars and don't know Ron G. on a personal level. Just professional and he is mighty good at the profession and has never forgotten where he came from. In fact, he'd even fight for your sorry, whiner ass if you ever get your lips off of management dick long enough to need a true union brother to help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Sounds like a member who expects his/her representatives to act on the behalf of the membership as a whole. When any rep "ASK's" for the opportunity to serve the membership, that is exactly what I expect. Anything else is a violation of their stated intent to represent me, you and others...!! Members have forgotten the service factor ingrained in holding a representative position, as you have as well. you serve your own interests instead of the membership's, as you have stated in your empirical statement about the bum gajeski. What he did for you...leaves you blinded to what all those bums are doing to our local. Act on the behalf of the membership? As I remember, Tony got overwhelming support from the membership in the last election. I think it's safe to say the membership wants him as president. Do not presume to think that your opinion represents a majority of the membership. The petition was heard and denied due to timeliness and lack of facts. Deal with it. What interests am I serving? I work midnights, so I don't get paid to go to E-board meetings along with the fact I have to get up two hours early to make it. Joint Council meetings I have to get up four hours early. So how the hell is that self serving? Plus I get to read comments from idiots like you, yeah, that's self serving. Hell, just the fact that I openly come on here is more than any other elected official is willing to do. If you think you can do better then run. It's not like you'll be putting your neck out, no one knows who you are coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
local400future Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Keep sucking up Al, maybe you'll get the next appointed position at Romeo. Listening to your post's all we hear is a loud sucking sound!!! I haven't and will not go to Black Lake and I have been offered an appointed position and turned it down. I'm not doing this for me, never have, never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laidofflocal400member Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hmmmmmmm, ah Nope. Don't drink, don't go to bars and don't know Ron G. on a personal level. Just professional and he is mighty good at the profession and has never forgotten where he came from. In fact, he'd even fight for your sorry, whiner ass if you ever get your lips off of management dick long enough to need a true union brother to help you out. So who are you? His wife or his son, because I think they are the only two other than numbnuts local400future who thinks he thinks of anyone but him self.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laidofflocal400member Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Act on the behalf of the membership? As I remember, Tony got overwhelming support from the membership in the last election. I think it's safe to say the membership wants him as president. Do not presume to think that your opinion represents a majority of the membership. The petition was heard and denied due to timeliness and lack of facts. Deal with it. What interests am I serving? I work midnights, so I don't get paid to go to E-board meetings along with the fact I have to get up two hours early to make it. Joint Council meetings I have to get up four hours early. So how the hell is that self serving? Plus I get to read comments from idiots like you, yeah, that's self serving. Hell, just the fact that I openly come on here is more than any other elected official is willing to do. If you think you can do better then run. It's not like you'll be putting your neck out, no one knows who you are coward. What do you mean you have to get up early to go to the meetings? You've only gone to 1 meeting since you were elected. You have missed 2 ex board meetings and 1 joint council meeting so far....so don't make it sound like you are true supermember cause you're not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.