IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?

[Conversationalist]

So if you talk to communication workers under skipwith agreement--thr skipwith agreement was shoved onto ibew 353 communication workers behind their backs. It was the most chaotic thing  ever in a union. Certainly would make good trade unionist shake their head.

It was  less benefits and wages.  Classifications were a joke. Members threatening lawsuits because of the mess and that's the only way it would be resolved for them.

The next level of classification was not automatic the company had to raise you even though you served the required hours--so  unlike in the electrical union apprenticeship where you become the second term after the required hours this was not the case in the communications sector.  A com  worker has a copy of the first communications agreement. Also just like some members received letters about the special called meeting about  their pension plan in 2012 or 2013  after the meeting was held and not in time for the deadline communication workers received an undated letter on or after the deadline as well. Clerical error for something so important? Coincidental in both cases. You be the judge. Is there a pattern? Again you be the judge. I am just reporting the stories.

So are important issues covered up? REFUSED ANSWERS TO THEM? do thrfacts give the answer.

[Conversationalist]

So u do not need to go to law school to ask the right questions.

Gary M was made an A member of ibew 353 while alot of ibew 353 communication workers were B members. Why?

Where is the answer to this question asked for years?

[Eric Klyne]

Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

Yes, Tom Reid did choose his words carefully
Mr. Reid worded this so that members would think that the IBEW has never lost before courts, labour boards, and tribunals.
But that is not true and is not what he is saying.
Let's look at how else this makes sense
but supports Brother Perry Speranza's grievances with disgracefully corrupt IBEW officers.

This is what Daniels stated but worded a little differently.

I am sure you are also aware that
the laws of our great nation have recognized the IBEW Constitution for over 100 years.
When IBEW officers self-govern themselves in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution
and are tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals,
time and time again the IBEW's rights are protected.

Now, the opposite is also true.

I am sure you are also aware that
the laws of our great nation have recognized the IBEW Constitution for  over 100 years.
When IBEW officers self-govern themselves in violation of the IBEW Constitution,
and are tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals,
time and time again they are found guilty of violating the laws of our great nation.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

Now Gary, we know you would call a spade a manuo-pedal excavationary implement.

But try calling a spade a spade with this simple yes or no question.

In regards to IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3, The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U.

Is the Recording Secretary allowed to tape record the meetings?
Yes or no?

[Conversationalist]

Good question

[GoodTradeUnionist]

Eric, your fascination with the IBEW borders on obsession.  You need help with that preoccupation.

Regarding the impulse to tape record conversations and meetings, sensible members realize that what you and Speranza advocate and practice is offensive in a practical sense.

Simply, Recording Secretaries are vested with the authority to control the manner in which meetings are recorded.  By virtue of their office, and having been elected to the position, Recording Secretaries find their authority in the IBEW Constitution which empowers to record the business and discussions transacted at any official union meeting.

The supremacy of IBEW law seems to bother you, because you choose to believe that this constitutes a yoke around your neck and your personal liberties.   

However, when given the opportunity to become an IBEW member, each of us swears an oath to uphold the principles upon which the IBEW was founded and not bring harm to it in any manner.  It's right up there with the Lord's prayer and forms the foundation of our relationship with the IBEW. 

Instead, Eric Klyne and Kathy L. do everything in their power to embarrass, frustrate, bring shame, and say anything to elicit ill feelings and harm against the IBEW. 

When confronted with IBEW decency and fairness, they default to recitation of crime lords running amok, brazen corruption at all levels of the organization, and a wanton disregard for sanctity of the rule of law. 

The world you both inhabit is a chillingly Orwellian place, for sure.

But it bears no resemblance to the IBEW that I know, or the union peopled by good trade unionists who try to make the workplace better for our members, and improve the lot of working Canadians everywhere.

Even if you're not IBEW members, come to a 353 meeting, show yourself, bring flyers, and others trinkets and join in the merriment of brotherhood.  Perhaps then we can identify the loopy characters that bring shame and dishonor to our great union. 

Otherwise, you are nobodies, with no connection or skin in the game when it comes to the governance and administration of the IBEW either Internationally, Nationally, or Locally. 

[Eric Klyne]

Simply, Recording Secretaries are vested with the authority to control the manner in which meetings are recorded.  By virtue of their office, and having been elected to the position, Recording Secretaries find their authority in the IBEW Constitution which empowers to record the business and discussions transacted at any official union meeting.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

Leave it to you to avoid a simple yes or no question.

Simply, Recording Secretaries are vested with the authority to control the manner in which meetings are recorded.

That contradicts the IBEW Constitution.
Controlling the manner in which meetings are recorded could mean that the manner could be malicious.
Like when the Trial Board tape Recordings were tampered by IBEW 353 officers by deleting a portion and offering it as the correct minutes.
IBEW Constitution says this:
The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U.

Try writing one sentence when answering the question Gary Majesky.

Is the Recording Secretary allowed to tape record the meetings?
Yes or no?

[PSperanza]

I am a member Gary Majesky Local 353 Executive board member and I attend all the meetings in local 353 and since the forced merger of locals 1739, 894 and 353 by the I.O. and the imposition of the unit system I have attended all three unit meetings in the same month on various occasions. Those first few months when "the" Recording Secretary was using a double standard to pick and choose what non action he wanted to record in the minutes demonstrated to me the need enforce the IBEW Constitution that requires correct minutes to be recorded. My interpretation of "correct" mean accurate.

Wouldn't you agree Gary?

In the "unit system" it is required that a member attempting to make a motion follow that motion from unit meeting to unit meeting to support it. In my opinion minutes recorded of some "actions" did not correctly record what took place. I attempted to correct the omissions at meetings where the minutes were read out but was improperly denied by the officers in charge. I am not the only member that was present at those meetings and in fact some local 353 officers were present and it is their duty according to the IBEW Constitution to file charges when it is violated.

I tried to resolve the issues and eventually filed charges to document the violations. Not only were they not resolved but they were not even properly addressed by the I.O. until I protested at least 1 year later when i mentioned it in a conversation with International Representative Tom Reid. International Representative Bruce McNamara made an appointment with me and I made myself available to meet with him to discuss three outstanding charges against local 353 officers related what in my opinion were violations to the IBEW Constitution. When I question him about not being contacted until such a late time, he said to me... I'm sorry about that".

More recently I attended all three meetings in May 2015 and June 2015, there were lots of business reps and officers in attendance at those meetings to support the payment of a legal that named officers as plaintiffs in Notice of Libel against a member. I believe it was the first time I have seen Gary Majesky at all three unit meetings in the same month where I attended.

Tom Reid said to me that a chairman has the power to deny a motion to lay a bill on the table, but that seems to me to violate the parliamentary rules that our constitution identifies as the method by which meetings are to be properly conducted.

So I am confused.

We need a clarification.

We also need to know about "policies" that are in place and to be enforced at our local union meetings and they should to be read out and to be distributed to members in writing. We should not allow a chairman to single out any one member in discriminatory and harassing manner related issues that are not clearly defined when they are attempting to speak on an important issues. That in my opinion is actually disturbing the peace and harmony of local union meeting. We debated and had differences of opinion at the east unit meeting on Wednesday June 10, 2015 the night before the south Unit Meeting and it was all done respectfully with no disruptions. In my opinion Robert White chose to employ unfair tactics to interrupt and deny questions to the bills and eliminate a member from a local union meeting for a disruption that appeared to be planned.

This is another test for the Brothers at the International office, will they continue to protect and condone improper actions and punish those members that do not accept being unfairly treated by officers that violate the proper rules of order or act to encourage participation and proper procedure and fairness at union meetings.

A very simple question but a very important one in this information age.       

[GoodTradeUnionist]

It's fascinating that you have the time and take notice what rep's and Officers attend unit meetings.

Frankly that smells like people taking an interest in the job they were elected by the members to perform.

Where's the cloud in that silver lining?

At the last 353 south unit meeting you fell for the classic "it's rabbit season, no duck season, it's duck season, shoot him now."

Here's my take on how you got your ass kicked at the last 353 south union meeting.

Prior to the discussion on the legal's, you took the bait whether you were secretly tape recording members and the meeting.  When called out you couldn't contain yourself, launched into your rant, and when the chair polled the members, you lost the will of the floor.

Sure you hissed and supputtered, but essentially you allowed yourself to be caste in the mould Richard Nixon or Edgar J. Hoover, whose image is associated with sleaze and unethical conduct, particularly their unsavory habit of clandestine operations and shady surveillance operations.

Prior to the legal bill, the members first voted on your credibility because of your implulse to secretly record meetings and conversations.

Then when the legal bill came up, virtually the entire floor had a foretaste of your antics, witnessed your routine, then voted in support of the legal expenditure.

You blame President White for stage managing your ouster, when in fact, you lead with your glass chin.

When you have zero credibility on the floor of the union meeting, don't blame the Chairman, Officers, or members, but look in the mirror.

Perry, you need to stop tilting at wind mills, and find ways to cooperate and deal with the important issues facing the members.

[Eric Klyne]

Will the IBEW 1st District IVP Representative Tom Reid step in and provide justice?

So let me get this straight,

The IBEW I.O. has declared,
through its' IBEW 1st District IVP,
publicly on February 2013,

that "
…Union members decide how their dues are spent democratically at regular union meetings by a vote for or against the motion."

and also that

"the IBEW Constitution did not allow the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members."


BUT…
...currently,
the IBEW 353 officers
have denied members the opportunity to make an informed decision on how their dues are spent by violating Parliamentary Procedure..
AND…
the IBEW 353 officers
violated the IBEW Constitution by allowing the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. That being a group of IBEW 353 members that hold positions of L.U. office.

So…again,
Parliamentary procedure was violated
to prevent members from getting information on a motion
to pay for a Libel case that was put forward several IBEW 353 members/officers.

Given that the IBEW I.O. states that the IBEW Constitution is against funding lawsuits brought forth by members
and that democratically voting on how members' dues are spent is based on being informed on the details of the motion…

Why hasn't the IBEW 1st District IVP Representative Tom Reid stepped in and provided justice?
Surely Tom Reid is aware of these clearly disturbing violations. No? 

Does this violation to the supremacy of IBEW law not bother you Gary Majesky? (aka GoodTradeUnionist)

Gary Majesky? (aka GoodTradeUnionist), you swore an oath to uphold the principles upon which the IBEW was founded and not bring harm to it in any manner.
Will you not stand up against this travesty happening within the IBEW?
Or are you one of the plaintiffs filing the Libel suit? 

[GoodTradeUnionist]

You ascribe identities upon me which I find flattering, but you are mistaken.

However, I am an IBEW member, and you are not, so please foregive my lack of manners.

It seems to me you squawk about issues and meetings which you have no direct knowledge.

Since you have no direct knowledge of proceedings within Local 353, we can't give much weight to your insights.

I find being present at meetings informs my views of events that transpire, certainly more tan an Internet chatterbox.

Therefore, let me set you and Perry straight.

Members were aware of the nature of the legal fee, specifically a legal action by 353 officers against a member who has libeled the executive branch of the local union.

Furthermore, members were advised that there would be no discussion on the specifics of the action, save and except that it involved a member who has libeled the executive officers in the public realm.

There was however discussion on settlement, the need for resolution, and for reasonableness to prevail.

I understand, according to the BM/FS that the prohibition or gag order relates specifically to any discussion about the evidence or details of the action as the mater is before the courts.

Time will tell who's right or wrong.

One thing is certain, this will address once and for all the pugalistic IBEW hate mongering that is your and Perry's forte.

Am I proud of the Local 353 Officers?  The answer is Yes, but I personally believe Perry Speranza, whom I like, should grow up and act more mature.

He's a former IBEW employee and organizer who is punch drunk after losing so many elections that he can't behave responsibly.

That's the tragedy, and the law suit is the only way to stop his irresponsible nonsense.

Let's hope Perry realizes the error of his ways, figures out right from wrong, and snatches the settlement olive branch that Stockwood's Deputies hopefuly embedded in the legal officialdom.

Blessed are the peace makers.

[Eric Klyne]

The IBEW I.O. states that the IBEW Constitution is against funding lawsuits brought forth by members.

currently,
the IBEW 353 officers
violated the IBEW Constitution by allowing the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. That being a group of IBEW 353 members that hold positions of L.U. office for the Libel suit.


Does this violation to the supremacy of IBEW law not bother you Gary Majesky? (aka GoodTradeUnionist)

[GoodTradeUnionist]

No worries, no bother, all in a days work.

Each case on its own merits.

Unfortunately Brothe Flemming cannot consider this matter,
However, IVP Daniels can cogitate if so inclined.

I'd suggest you contact him, or his administrative attaché.

A sure way to catch their attention would be to decend on Myerside, break-out the loud speaker and flyers and start chanting...

Maybe a rendition of "Give Peace A Chance" or some other folk union protest song.
Or We Shall Overcome.

On the IBEW motorcycle ride last week, IBEW President Emertus, Ed Hill, was overheard saying, "when are you guys going to kick Speranza out."

Harsh but not surprising words from a wise IBEW elder and statesman.

Within that context, the 353 Executive Officers are taking care of business,
As they did when your ass was run...
Or did you forget.

I'm not sure sure you're the best guy to give advice to Speranza.

As always, I appreciate your insights, but maybe you should figure out how and why you were removed from IBEW membership.

There must be some official letter you received?

Care to share that so we can assess your credibility when offering legal bromides regarding IBEW law?

When in doubt, I prefer the will of the membership particularly in matters involving the direction given to the Executive Officers, and specifically with respect to this matter.

Whether the ballot box, or union meeting, in the case 3 unit meetings, the 353 membership supported the elected Officers and their decision how to protect the integrity of the local union.

Pretty powerful and compelling stuff, and true union democracy.

The kind I'm proud to be part of.

[Eric Klyne]

IBEW 353 officers violate Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution
- Will the IBEW 1st District IVP Bill Daniels stop this injustice?

No worries, no bother, all in a days work.

Each case on its own merits.

Unfortunately Brothe Flemming cannot consider this matter,
However, IVP Daniels can cogitate if so inclined.

I'd suggest you contact him, or his administrative attaché.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

You're an IBEW 353 member.
You swore an oath to uphold the principles upon which the IBEW was founded.
It's your duty to contact IVP Bill Daniels about the violations of the IBEW Constitution.
The IBEW 353 officers violated the IBEW Constitution.
When did violating the IBEW Constitution become the foundation of the IBEW Judicial system?

The past IBEW 1st District IVP Phil Flemming was referring to Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution.

IBEW Constitution

Article XVIII   - Dues . Assessments .  Funds

Sec. 6.
The funds and property cannot be divided among the members individually,
except in the form of such benefits as maybe provided by the L.U. after approval of the I.P.

Currently,
IBEW 353 members have divided funds amongst themselves by encouraging members to pass a motion that pays for their "personal" lawsuit against another member.
These IBEW 353 members are IBEW 353 officers
that have encouraged 353 members
to unknowingly violate the IBEW Constitution.

YOU, Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,
suggest that violating the IBEW Constitution is OK under certain circumstances.

The merits of a case cannot be determined,
if the charging party is not allowed a fair and just opportunity to make their case.
But in this case, things are quite clear.
That being:
Individual IBEW 353 members/officers violated Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution
The reason is that these members feel they have been libelled by another member.
Is that reason enough to violate the IBEW Constitution?
Apparently you think so Gary.

YOU, Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist, and the IBEW 353 officers
are making the IBEW look really bad.

[GoodTradeUnionist]

There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

The Officers on behalf of IBEW LU 353 are the paintiff's, and the defendant is accused of various libelous conduct in the public realm. 

The crux of this dispute seems to relate to a persistent course of vexatious and unwanted commentary in the public realm that besmirches the reputation of the lock union Officers, and by extension the local union.

When you knock on the door of government seeking regulatory or legislative changes, as well as funding, the reputation of the Officers who represent the local union are substantially prejudiced by the libelous commentary, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the local union.

The libelous commentary is not fair speech, and serves to harm the local unions organizing efforts, and provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, and in particular LU 353.

You wouldn't understand that because you were removed from IBEW membership for conduct that was inimical with your obligations as a union member, which was an extraordinary feat.

I'll be watching how this unfolds, but would rather see an apology and a measure of contrition for commentary that maligned the local union Officers who are functioning not as mere members, but as stewards of the local union.

People can shit on me any day they want and do, however, if I am an Officer, than I'm functioning in a different capacity, which distinguishable for the purposes of Article XVIII, Section 6..

[Eric Klyne]

There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

WRONG!
Where did you get this understanding?
Just Google "union files libel"… and you will find  "union organizational entities" that have brought libel actions forward.
You are referring to the LMRDA provisions that does NOT allow unions to charge members for libel/slander.

Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

WRONG!
This is not about protecting the integrity of the local union.
Otherwise, the libel suit would not name individuals as plaintiffs.

The Officers on behalf of IBEW LU 353 are the paintiff's, and the defendant is accused of various libelous conduct in the public realm. 

WRONG!
The officers are plaintiffs BUT not on behalf of IBEW LU 353
because any accusations of being corrupt is specifically aimed at individual officers NOT the local union.

The crux of this dispute seems to relate to a persistent course of vexatious and unwanted commentary in the public realm that besmirches the reputation of the lock union Officers, and by extension the local union.

WRONG!
Local union officers are responsible for their own actions and reputations. The local unions' reputation is NOT responsible for their actions by extension.

When you knock on the door of government seeking regulatory or legislative changes, as well as funding, the reputation of the Officers who represent the local union are substantially prejudiced by the libelous commentary, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the local union.

The officers can also be substantially prejudiced by truthful commentary. This would only diminish the integrity of the local union if the current practice of misinforming the members continues.

The libelous commentary is not fair speech, and serves to harm the local unions organizing efforts, and provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, and in particular LU 353.

The truth is fair speech.
If IBEW 353 officers violate the rules. It is fair speech to label them accordingly.
Such labels may diminish the integrity of the individual officers but NOT the local union.
What truth provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, in particular LU 353?
This is a overused excuse that has never provided any evidence. Got any examples?

I'll be watching how this unfolds, but would rather see an apology and a measure of contrition for commentary that maligned the local union Officers who are functioning not as mere members, but as stewards of the local union.

Where are the written apologies from the IBEW 353 officers that continually discriminate against and charge Speranza?
Remember, ALL past charges and penalties were overturned.
That alone diminishes the integrity of the individual officers but NOT the local union.

People can shit on me any day they want and do, however, if I am an Officer, than I'm functioning in a different capacity, which distinguishable for the purposes of Article XVIII, Section 6..

Nothing in Article XVIII, Section 6 puts L.U. officers above the law.