$1000 dollars and a watch

[commguy353]

The answer to that is simply because they can. The retirees are not the enemy here. They are following the rules laid out before them. If the Hall allows them to work and collect a pension then why wouldn't they take advantage of such a loophole? As for why they might choose to do so I think that since they didn't vote a pension in until 1979 might have to do with it.

I see in an off hand kind of way you do agree..............The fact that the pension fund didn't even exist before 1979 has a lot to do with why some retirees MUST work. So I was correct the answer is a little more complex then "cus"......

The problem I see is down the road a few years when todays younger members that are sitting on the list while retirees are working will have the same problem......to little pension money to survive. Only 30 years from now it won't be because the pension just got voted in, it will be because retirees were working when they were on the list and not building their pension amounts.

The point would be......Something needs to be fixed and if it can't be then just scrap the whole deal and take our money and move on. Prolonging the agony is was got us here to begin with.

Back on topic.....As far as $1000.00 and a watch for a non-working retiree?

WHY NOT............

[westender]

No second thoughts here .My point about amending the motion was very simple-this is supposed to be a democracy, if you don’t like a motion speak against it or amend it.
 
Please remember Irish this is Sid’s motion which I support.
Look at what we give away and tell me we can’t afford to increase the gift?
You are dealing with 2 different topics here, the vested interest issue is something that should be looked at, or are you referring to a conversation we had at work. Guys like to discuss points at work and  have rational discussions to see all sides of an issue, and as one member put it quite well this gift should have nothing to do pension eligibility.
Commguy I tried a motion last month to direct the trustees to stop double dipping it was excepted and than after several speakers was ruled out of order.

[CommBoy]

Here's to sid's.  I used to like the blotters, but the purple micro-dots were a blast.

[CommBoy]

Opps I forgot one other version for Kathy the comm whatever.  

Sids - sudden infant death syndrome.  And what did the IBEW do to protect the unborn child who is always the loser in these sorts of disputes.  Hearing the I.O. charges read out at last month's meeting by the chief chauvanist swindler aka George Smitty, was a real eye opener.

It seems that crying Commguy actually got $5000 plus benefits, plus pension contributions for her time on maternity leave, plus, plus.  Yup, there's nothing like suing your union to make a point.  

But the sister Commguy raises a good point in his/her many letters to IBEW higher up's.  Maybe working outside the trade and Local 353 is an option.  

And remember, don't fall behind on your dues cuz membership has it priviledges...

[irish2]

harv you said its only $50 for a member with 20 years so its a$100 for 10 years and $200 for 5 years service so more for less and you want to cut members with less then 10 years out of our pension plan so is it give them a little extra and they wount notice they dont have a pension now thats the kind of math our tax man uses and dont forget you heard from members of a very large union that they dont give there retirees shit so $600 +there trips etc is a lot more then most and when they retire they do not go back to work and put non pension drawing members out of work  

[irish2]

i would like to say on this forum to harvey anstey i am sorry for some comments that i made to you which i know not to be true for which i am truely sorry  i hope we can move past this and on to things which we know need to be worked on for the good of the membership  

[icyman]

that's pretty big of you irish.

cheers

[commguy353]

i would like to say on this forum to harvey anstey i am sorry for some comments that i made to you which i know not to be true for which i am truely sorry  i hope we can move past this and on to things which we know need to be worked on for the good of the membership  

[size=22]I SALUTE YOU !!!!![/size]

[irish2]

i think the motion for the $1000 and watch should be moved to  the january meeting    and i still think we should leave what they get as is    

[PSperanza]

I will support this motion to lay on the table the motion made by Sid.

Let's not allow any diversions or distractions from allowing us to deal thoughly with the motion to change the bylaws that deal with our election rules.

Sid has waited this long I'm sure he won't mind one more month.

[TheCritic]

Brothers and Sisters

There have been true stories circulating in our union for years and let me share one that deals with our pension.

There were several attempts over the years to implement a pension.  Tom Hart, Bill Johnson, Gord McKay among others spent countless hours as committee members gathering information to implement what they perceived as a benefit to their fellow members.  

The Business Manager of the Day, Bill Hardy was not a big supporter and some of the then business reps of the day spoke against the scheme as too cumbersome and not something we should get into.  There was also a young gentleman that is still around today that made the comment at the Special Called meeting "I'm a big boy so just give me that money in my hand and I will take care of myself!"   The same member is now advocating for the retirees and one would have to conclude did not take care of himself as well as he thought he would.

A fact is the gifts to retirees is not presently and never has been budgetted for in L.U. 353.  The retirement gift is in our bylaws but in the coming years the number of retiring members will impact on our general fund (the fund the $600 is taken out of).   As for the retirees events that are paid for by the local union, they come out of the Sports, Entertainment and Retirees Fund which working members contribute to every month.

Just as a side line, some may recall a few years back Joe and the E. Bd (except Gullins) "loaned" Retrocom more than $1M.  My recollection is about $100,000 of that million came out of the Sports, Entertainment and Retirees Fund and It has never been replaced because the $1M has been lost.

Just a couple of more things to add to the list Barry.

[irish2]

i hope we deal with it at the next meeting and put a end to every few months of lets give the retired more money they deserve it sure they deserve our respect but respect goes both ways we pay for all there trips partys  etc so when have they said no we will pay for that ourselves no its just ask at the next meeting and use the same old cry we are the retired members we deserve your respect and your money and for some of them your jobs too  i dont mind giveing something but i think $600 and all the rest we pay for is more than enough i wonder if any of the retired members will speak against it and say we get more then our fair share i dont think any will but i hope i am wrong  

[TheCritic]

Irish2

The retired members will not be receiving the increase so most likely they won't make any comments.  It is the individuals coming up for retirement that will be interested and inparticular a white haired brother that has gone to the retirees luncheons for years and taken his tupperware for any extra's.  

Personally $600 is enough and I have yet to see it included in the annual budget of L.U. 353. The money should be coming out of the general fund but sometimes it comes out of the Sports, Entertainment and Retirees Fund and that isn't right.  The retirees receive a disproportionate amount of that fund.  Fair is fair and it would be careless at this point to make a financial decision of this sort.  

There should be a bylaw that prevents any such changes 12 months before the elections.
 

[irish2]

i hope your right on this critic and we should ban tubberware at the hall if there is that much left over then they should cut back on the order and ask for less money the next time and he has a lot of tubberware to fill and i have seen him fill it all  

[Conversationalist]

Opps I forgot one other version for Kathy the comm whatever.  

Sids - sudden infant death syndrome.  And what did the IBEW do to protect the unborn child who is always the loser in these sorts of disputes.  Hearing the I.O. charges read out at last month's meeting by the chief chauvanist swindler aka George Smitty, was a real eye opener.

It seems that crying Commguy actually got $5000 plus benefits, plus pension contributions for her time on maternity leave, plus, plus.  Yup, there's nothing like suing your union to make a point.  

But the sister Commguy raises a good point in his/her many letters to IBEW higher up's.  Maybe working outside the trade and Local 353 is an option.  

And remember, don't fall behind on your dues cuz membership has it priviledges... ;

So is this what was said at a union meeting Perry ?   Was this in the minutes of the meeting recorded by the then recording secretary ?


Because from what I understand no pregnant female in 353 got $5000.  So is that true that they lied outright to the membership  and that the IO engages in this lie as well ?

Because yes readers  if they lie about this what else do they lie about?  But I guess the lawyer they gave  a pregnant female lied to the member and  turned against her in order to
protect the rep  which is very serious because the client / lawyer relationship  is now shattered and who does the member go to complain - are they restricted by the union collective agreement and if so does the OLRB have a special grievance - duty of fair representation. To cover lawyers given by the union ?