Charges Against J. Fashion

[PSperanza]

At the October union meeting of local 353 IBEW charges were announced as filed against Joe Fashion Business Manager of local 353. We were told that there were 21 pages and these charges were not read out as is the proper procedure.

[Inalienable]

It was my understanding that members and LU 353 keep the issues and details of charges that have been filed at I.O. a matter of confidence.  It seems we are going public with RobertG's charges.  

Now that RobertG and the ABJ crowd have revealed the charges file before I.O., we see there has been tremendous effort to dissect the democratic workings of our local 353 election.  This is just an observation, perhaps RobertG should not have spent the 12 years outside of the local, and instead, continued to play a little hard ball during union elections just to stay in shape.  He also did two tours of duty with Bros Fashion, so he should have learned a little something from the master.  I think RobertG did learn something from Bros. Fashion, and RobertG employed a similiar amount of devious and deft strategy under the guise of innocence, but I think RobertG was running a pretty good campaign to soil Bros. Fashion's reputation.  

RobertG took a ride on the Fashion campaign team in 1999 and 2002 and thoroughly seemed to enjoy the democratic traditions of LU 353, while running with Bros. Fashion.  No complaints then as long as it worked to his advantage.  In 2005, we had the same political play book, with the same political dynamics at work.   However, now RobertG is on the other side, and he sulks when he loses by 125 votes.  

RobertG, the points you raise seem valid.  Whether true or not, or materially relevant, is something I.O. is tasked with disentangling.  After that, maybe the courts.  From my perspective, you inject a choir boy mentality into the democratic mix.  Yet, you and your ABJ crowd were using every dirty trick under the sun to spoil and ruin the reputation of Bros. Fashion.   Nice tap dancing.

Politics and democracy is a messy business.  It's also back ally dirty.  You knew that and with three generations of experience to draw on, you should have been the most keenly aware observer and participant.  You are not GeorgeS

As an observer of politics, I think you could have done something strategically beneficial by campaigning harder.  You should have worked more with the ABJ folks who were on your side.  Here's what I mean.  You did very little and did not do a mail out prior to June 16th.  Were you keeping your powder dry?  That was your strategic call, not mine.  On the evening of June 16th, after the ballots were counted you walked out and went home.  You did not engage in the chit-chat that most candidates and campaign teams did.  I recognize it was your anniverary.  But, come-on, this was not classic rubbing shoulders with the boys and showing what you were made of.  Come to think of it, you never went with the boys for a drink.  This is where the bonding takes places.  Perhaps you go out with LenZ for a coffee, and maybe this is a generational thing.  But when it comes to forging those links and bonds, you failed miserably.

Finally, you ran with a ABJ Team and expected they would provide the necessary synergy to get you elected.  Once again, you should have worked harder.  Maybe you did, but you still came up short.  Regarding all the whining you are doing, I really feel sorry for you.  You are obviously very very upset at losing.  Who wouldn't be.  I've lost two elections for public office and it hurts.  

Let's see how I.O. rules.  It sounds like RobertG has put an impressive amount of time in framing his allegations of election skullduggery.  The underlying premise to RobertG's analysis is that 1550 voters that voted for Bros. Fashion were asshole lackey's and only those wise members voted for RobertG are true democrat's.  

Perhaps we will end up at civil court.  I can't wait to see if Bros. L. Richmond from that other labour law firm handles the legal defense for RobertG.  

It  also seems that RobertG's view of the world is that every LU 353 rep and member of this local, because of their station or job in the IBEW, must excuse themselves from the democratic workings in the IBEW.  While that is RobertG's view of the world, it is a niave and unworkable perspective.  And the very reason why he probably lost the election.  

[PSperanza]

It was my understanding that members and LU 353 keep the issues and details of charges that have been filed at I.O. a matter of confidence.  It seems we are going public with RobertG's charges.  

It was my understanding that all charges were to be read out at our local union meeting, and it was also my understanding that charges were to be dealt with as expediently as possible.

Tell us then, oh Inalienable one, where does it say that charges against a member are to be a secret and not shared with all the members?

You are still thinking in your conveinient little box.

[PSperanza]

By his sole access as the local union BM/FS to the local union membership/telephone list he abused his position by directly communicating with our members regarding union politics and candidates for union office. Following our June 16th election the voting lists were confiscated from the Election Judge, Larry Priestman.  It is my belief the lists were then analyzed by individuals working on Joe Fashions behalf and members that did not vote were notified by both their employers (by pay cheque stuffers and telephone calls) and Fashion’s telephone campaign, to vote for Fashion.

Outf#@&ingrageous! …Does it surprise anyone that an incumbent with the open support of the contractors association, was able to overcome a deficit of 600 votes to win a runoff against a challenger when he blatantly breaks the rules and takes the a list that shows him who voted and who didn’t and then proceeds to apply pressure where necessary with the aid of the contractors and their influence over their employees to make sure certain members show up to vote for Joe.

This issue alone has huge ramifications on the outcome of any election and if proven should be grounds for an immediate rerun of our elections. We live in a society where laws and rules govern our actions and assure peace and stability, no one is above the law. Brother Fashion by his actions is testing the bounds of how far he can go towards disregarding the rules that make our organization respectable and something to be proud of.

Transgressions such as this most blatant corruption to the integrity of our election rules must not go unpunished.    

Brother Fashions actions are clearly one sided for further exposure for Joe Fashion but clearly also an abuse of local union monies, time, resources and equipment.  As a veteran officer he knows better and to make such an obvious error in judgement in the middle of an election campaign simply isn’t possible. Brother Fashion knowingly misused the local union mailing/phone list to gain additional exposure to the membership.

Brothers and sisters, there should be no further delay in addressing these allegations, let us be fair and call them allegations. But in light of these types of accusations it is an outrage that they have not been addressed and resolved to this point. A great deal of effort was put into our local union elections by many parties and it is an insult to all of us who have faith in the integrity of our brotherhood and the individuals we elect to be denied a swift resolution to these serious issues.

[RobertG]

Brian (Barry S or BS for short)

Wrong as usual BS and you are not going to deviate attention away from the topic which is of course is "Charges against Joe Fashion".

I presented the motion to change the bylaws to prevent any member from working with any contractor to get elected to a position in the local union.  You of course reacted to Joe's nudge to try and not allow the motion but my challenge to the chair must have been an eye opener to you and Joe.  Except for his band of bag lickers it was unanimous rejection of the position of the chairs position, yours.

The motion being accepted I knew what the next move would be. So I sent a letter to I.O. in anticipation of Joe's appeal to turn down the motion before any discussion and suprise, surprise he sent it the following Monday.  Chances are the delay was caused by him having to look all the words in my motion in the dictionary.  

The I.O, were swift in their rejection of the motion as being "too vague" if you can believe it.  For those that received a copy of the motion would you think it too vague?  Hardly but that's another topic.

The point of my preamble is it took 2 months for me to receive acknowledgement the International Office received my charges and Joe's issue takes 2 days.  Mmmmmm!  Time will telll but members should serious make note.

Inalienable (Sick one) your comments are as usual way off base.  Crediting Joe as a "master" is a joke.  It is only since Joe got rid of the free thinkers that we have ended up with preapprenticeship, 9 hour days, vacation pay on the pay cheque, Market Recovery intrenched in our Collective Agreement so now the members couldn't get it back on their pay cheques even if they wanted, increased name hiring ratios and on and on.  Master?  Mix master I would say.

Our local is being run by used car salesmen, backstabbers and nobodies at the present time and more and more members are recognizing it.  Hell, I can't find anyone that will admit to voting for you and when they see you in action at the meetings it confirms their worst nightmare.  

Our only hope now is the International Office act on the criminal activities of JF and his well paid team and remove him from office.  Given the odds against winning the membership were impressive in recognizing the facts and acting accordingly.  

Should the I.O. decide to recall the election, sorry Admin but why should I be penalized by just starting again on a level playing field?  Joe was the one that broke every rule and should be peanilized for abusing local union monies and resources.  I played by the rules the first time.

Robert G

[localdude]

Perry i totally agree with your post but i have a word for it " disf#@&ingsgusting"

Joe and his band are out of control and act as if they are above the law,i agree they are not and its apparent they made a joke of our system.

Thanks for the info it is greatly appreciated.

[stonecoldsteve]

Why don't we march in front of the ibew offices? Send them a message, it's our duty if you think about it.

[Brian]

RobertG and the ABJ crowd are crowing their hearts out.  Stop crying so loud.  Be men.

Perry Perfect is now more brazen since he lost his plumb job as an IBEW organizer.  Perry's version of planting the seeds of brotherhood, is not how people in the towers of power see it.  Too bad, he was a good organizer, but someone you can't trust.  

As soon as he loses his job in the IBEW, the more nasty and testy his posts.  There is democracy and it works just fine.  However, you are not real democrates, just autocrates that seek power.  

Perry, pick up a call at the TDSB or join the brothers on the tools.  

[fedrightup]

I trust him more than you buddy. He has the guts to do what most of the wimps with the plum jobs ever would. That's worhty of my trust and respect.

Can't say the same for the bagless bunch who bow down or bend over to keep their plum jobs. He was a good organizer? Then why is he working outside local 353? Cause Joe couldn't trust him to bend over? I get the picture.

And heres to you Perry :guin:

[icyman]

I trust the IVP Phil F. almost as much as I trust Joe.

The corruption in The IBEW is probably deeper than any one of us can imagine.

Why do you think Joe breaks all the rules and always gets away with it?

He laughs at us when charges are laid at the IO.

We should gather up all the evidence (especially the evidence of missappropriation of funds) and hand it over to the RCMP for them to investigate. I'm sure Joe has very little clout there.

We should also make every labour related organization aware of who Joe F. is and what he stands for and last but not least we should contact our MPP's and lobby them to look into union corruption.

We will never achieve anything on the IO level because they are part of the problem.

[RobertG]

Brothers and Sisters

Charges in any organization when they are not in keeping with the status quo are suppose to fade into a memory.  That is why it has been over 3 months since the original charges were laid.  The International Office is hopeing members interest will fade and the eventual trial will be a non issue.  

I'm not going to comment about the I.O. at this time except to hope one last time for justice in the I.B.E.W.  The charges clearly address the violations of the Fashion regime and their abuse of local union money and resources and should not fade into a memory.

Inalienable, Luddite, Puzzle Factory, Brian, (Barry) can put any sort of spin on their actions they like but a crime is a crime and they all know they are wrong and must pay the piper.  

This my friends is not about power on my part but about justice.  Corny I know to most but I can tell by the postings there are still many that believe in honesty and integrity and these are corny sentiments to most also but don't change.

Joe's biggest present threat isn't the I.B.E.W. and my charges but the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) investigation.  I'd like to hear Brian's position on where we stand on this one.  This isn't straying from the topic because there is still the possibility of charges against him for investing $30,000,000 pension dollars into Retrocom without proper due diligence.  

Robert G

[undertheradar]

What is going on with that, is there no limit to how long it can drag out before we find out if there are charges or are they hopeing we will forget?

[Polar]

Well based on the past....  We will forget...

Sad but true...

[milkmann]

With reference to any charges that should be directed towards Jojo and company, lets get on with it.  The evidence that is needed is surely around and we all know that the IO has neither the desire or the jurisdiction to deal with things at the pension level.  The only way we the members of 353 that make up the "pension plan", will get any sort of satisfaction in the legal sense is to have the people charged with "fiduciary responsibilty" for this and all other plans, be held accountable for their actions.  

This doesn't sound like political posturing or a personal vendetta does it?

I believe it is merely those who are owed truthful answers and openness, hopefully receiving those very things, at long last.  If we had received those things from the very beginning then we might not have to go to such great lengths right now.

As has been seen by the political scandals (Liberal Federal & Provincial) & business scams (Enron, KPMG, MDF, Conrad Black etc etc etc.)   we the great unwashed have much to be concerned with when someone from our executive or any of their minions tell us to "trust us we know what we are doing".  

I am quite certain they know what they are doing but how can they live with themselves while they are doing this to the membership?

[Brian]

Mr. RobertG you really know how to frame a constitutional irregularity.  What I find utterly lacking in your spirited defence, which you used once before on another matter.  Is how you used the constitutional argument to justify WHY the local owed you the per diem money.  As you stated at one of our meetings "I could be charged by I.O. for not adhering to the Constitution and Bylaws".  What a self serving effort at constitutional politics.  

It seems that the first time you used the Constitutional boogeyman was to obtain this financial perk, albeit, arguably one you could technically obtain.  Politically foolish, but technically possible.  

But what is most glaring is the absence of constitutional charges filed by RobertG from 1999-2005 regarding malfesance, corrupt pension practices, mismanagement of our funds, and on and on.

Since the members sent RobertG to all those International Foundation (IF) trips to exotic locations, which RobertG padded his C.V with, it seems strange WHY he didn't charge Bros. Joe Fashion for six long years, and now only raises these matters after his bitter election defeat.

RobertG, after three generations of involvement in IBEW politics, timing is everything.  You were ipso facto   aware as a Pension Trustee of your fudiciary duties, but you never said a peep about Bros. Fashion being corrupt or raised the issue of his breach of responsibility with the members or our Trustees.  WHY.  Only when in the clutchs of the boys in the spin room did you have the balls to utter these things.  Now that RobertG has lost the 2005 union election, he has screwed up the courage to allege that Bros. Fashion is a crook, stole money, breached ihs fudiciary responsibility, illegally invested $30 million of our pension money, and on and on.  

As a former president RobertG had a fudiciary responsibility to act with due diligence.  Why did he not act in six long years.  To suddenly turn up the shrill level after his defeat is a sign of despiration.  It also reveals what the true RobertG has been about all along.  

RobertGs political peers who sat with him saw through yhim.  He was transparent to them because beyond the well groomed exterior, there was little substance or trade union rattle to his rhetoric.  A nice guy, but certainly not a top drawer or brillant trade union thinker.  More telling, RobertG couldn't figure out how to work with them.  The same thing in negotations, JAC and the Trustees.  In the forums where RobertG was supposed to lead, he followed, and worse yet, acquiesced to all the rot and corruption that he says permeates the organization with Bros. Fashion as the helm.

In that respect, the opinions of those that worked with RobertG and their political assessment of him this past election spoke volumes (excluding Ed Nott who was part of the problem at the JAC).  Afterall, Tech Eddy and RobertG were against the JAC courses at our Hall, and ultimately resorted to cheap accounting arguments why this was not feasible ie., 400 extra toilet flushes per Saturday on the IBEW dime.  There some some consternation that the apprentices will use toilet paper, oh, the extra electricity to light the classrooms and cleaning.  As you can see, RobertG was a stickler for fiscal prudence, but to the point that he scuttled apprenticeship courses being taught in the Hall.  Something Dave Hussey openly campaigned for.  And lame brain Tech Eddy stoked the fires with his mantra, "the contractors are screwing the union and our Education Fund" even though the JAC pays for the classroom space.  Dave Cap Canaveral Kennedy being the recent crusader.  "I want Joe to answer to the charges of misuse of the election fund" but when Fashion shows up, Dave is absent to hear how the money is allocated and spent.  More cheap palour tricks from the TDSB brain trust.

That's why Tech Eddy was removed from the JAC and as Chairman of the Education Committee.  

RobertG was also serioiusly accussed of being unable to make decisions.   Surely if RobertG had all this dirt on Bros. Fashion he would have acted sooner.  He would have sponsored the FSCO charges along with Bros. Hussey.  But no, instead, he was the lead Trustee to sign the letter in defence of the Trustees and Joe Fashion.  Now out of office, RobertG speaks out of the other side of his mouth.  

There are many sides to RobertG.  The whisperer, who tells people what they want to hear.  There is Trustee RobertG who goes along and says NOTHING as a Trustee that is worth anything.  There is RobertG chairman of the Eboard who was undistinguished and did not charge Bros. Fashion in 6 years with Constitutional breaches et al.  And finally, there is Election Candidate RobertG who has a phoney bag full of charges and allegations.  

These are all very different characters.  And we frankly have grown tired at watching RobertG try to redine his political character and credibility.  Try as he might, his acquiesance for 6 long years of the Fashion antics tells us two things.  Either his allegations are crap.  Or he is a politically motivated man who is bitter after losing a hard fought union election and truly wishes the outcome was different.  

Well, doesn't every loser have that same feeling?

Advanced search