UTU Indictment

[edblysard]

Yeah Tim,
Thats the rub.
Do you want Marlon Brando and Al Pachino on you side, or against your?
It still bothers me that the black hand has such a influence with the unions.
It rubs against the basic right and wrong deliminas I was taught to deal with as a young man.
But had these guys done anything to really protect the members hired after 1985, and the jobs of the engineers who will go back to ground work, I might, just might, be able to overlook their transgressions, or at least tolerate them as a know part of doing business.

For the most part, the protected men,(pre 85) will be gone in the next ten years, and that leaves all of us un protected guys with a worthless contract, and basicly holding the bag for these guys.
Look at this, 55% of the UTU members are pre 85, or protected men.
Over 10% of them are expected to retire or die within the next ten years.
In that position, wouldnt you vote to get as much money for yourself and your "brothers" as you could?
The 85 contract boiled down to the carriers saying, "look, we will let you keep all your perks, travel pay, air pay, heck, we will even pay you extra for working with new guys hired after this contract, but you have to gives us a brakemans job to do away with".
Add to that the fact that anyone hired after 85 started out at 75% pay, with their pay increasing 5% per year till they reached 100%.
Anyone hired before 85 started at 100%.
Every time I work with a protected man, he get $5.00 just for working with me, its called shorthand pay.
Why would these guys allow such a un equal contract to pass?
Because it benifited them, they didnt lose anything, in fact, they got more money out of the deal, at the expense of anyone hired after 85.
When its all said and done, they get to retire with the money, we get to keep on working to pay off the cost of all of that.
The UTU negotatied a 60/30 clause into the last contract, meaning any one with 30 years service can retire at 60 with the full package.
Do the math, anyone hired before 1973, who is 60, can take retirement right now.
I will have to work till I am 68 to get the full deal.
Think they pulled a hustle there?
Never ever think the UTU is there to represent the whole membership, it is run for and by the pre 1985 members for their sole benifit.
Anyone hired after that is pretty much on his or her own.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Yeah Tim,
Thats the rub.
Do you want Marlon Brando and Al Pachino on you side, or against your?
It still bothers me that the black hand has such a influence with the unions.
It rubs against the basic right and wrong deliminas I was taught to deal with as a young man.
But had these guys done anything to really protect the members hired after 1985, and the jobs of the engineers who will go back to ground work, I might, just might, be able to overlook their transgressions, or at least tolerate them as a know part of doing business.

For the most part, the protected men,(pre 85) will be gone in the next ten years, and that leaves all of us un protected guys with a worthless contract, and basicly holding the bag for these guys.
Look at this, 55% of the UTU members are pre 85, or protected men.
Over 10% of them are expected to retire or die within the next ten years.
In that position, wouldnt you vote to get as much money for yourself and your "brothers" as you could?
The 85 contract boiled down to the carriers saying, "look, we will let you keep all your perks, travel pay, air pay, heck, we will even pay you extra for working with new guys hired after this contract, but you have to gives us a brakemans job to do away with".
Add to that the fact that anyone hired after 85 started out at 75% pay, with their pay increasing 5% per year till they reached 100%.
Anyone hired before 85 started at 100%.
Every time I work with a protected man, he get $5.00 just for working with me, its called shorthand pay.
Why would these guys allow such a un equal contract to pass?
Because it benifited them, they didnt lose anything, in fact, they got more money out of the deal, at the expense of anyone hired after 85.
When its all said and done, they get to retire with the money, we get to keep on working to pay off the cost of all of that.
The UTU negotatied a 60/30 clause into the last contract, meaning any one with 30 years service can retire at 60 with the full package.
Do the math, anyone hired before 1973, who is 60, can take retirement right now.
I will have to work till I am 68 to get the full deal.
Think they pulled a hustle there?
Never ever think the UTU is there to represent the whole membership, it is run for and by the pre 1985 members for their sole benifit.
Anyone hired after that is pretty much on his or her own.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

There is an old railroad term to discribe this stuff: FEATHERBEDDER! These guys are feathering their own nests at the expense of the people they pretend to represent. [Note the similarity to what politicians do.] They all [BLE; UTU; Teamsters, etc. etc....] are in it for what they can get out of it; I mean what the "leadership" can get out of it, both at the national and local levels. The glorious "Union Era" reached its peak after WW II when most of the earth was in ashes;; we were the only nation that could supply just about anything anywhere. Demand for products was high; profits were high; Gov't interventions and interference were minimal. It was easier for the companies to give the unions what they wanted; there was plenty to go around. Blue collar jobs have been heading east, as in Far EAst. China is now the industial powerhouse that Japan was a decade ago, that we were two decades ago. Look at the current " economic uptick"; demand for stuff has modestly increased, but unemployment is even going up. The few industrial jobs left here are up against it, with mere survival an iffy proposition, let alone profits. Is it any wonder so many firms are going off-shore. So an employee [I hate the term "worker"; it's so Bolshevik.] is happy to have a job...phooey to the unions, if there's a choice. And then the company moves its manufacturing to China, where the "workers" [over there, they ARE workers!] don't get a fraction of what was made here, and other than paying local Party officials off, there is little Gov't interference. The point of all this is, that the union officials here are well aware of all this. As a result, they are playing the string out as long as they can, feathering their own nests; robbing other unions of members, and pretending to look out for their constituents' interests. They just hope it doesn't come down on their watch. If they can retire to a fat pension before the collapse, they'll be honored for their "service". The last three sentences can apply to the political class; just substitute "public service" for service. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

There is an old railroad term to discribe this stuff: FEATHERBEDDER! These guys are feathering their own nests at the expense of the people they pretend to represent. [Note the similarity to what politicians do.] They all [BLE; UTU; Teamsters, etc. etc....] are in it for what they can get out of it; I mean what the "leadership" can get out of it, both at the national and local levels. The glorious "Union Era" reached its peak after WW II when most of the earth was in ashes;; we were the only nation that could supply just about anything anywhere. Demand for products was high; profits were high; Gov't interventions and interference were minimal. It was easier for the companies to give the unions what they wanted; there was plenty to go around. Blue collar jobs have been heading east, as in Far EAst. China is now the industial powerhouse that Japan was a decade ago, that we were two decades ago. Look at the current " economic uptick"; demand for stuff has modestly increased, but unemployment is even going up. The few industrial jobs left here are up against it, with mere survival an iffy proposition, let alone profits. Is it any wonder so many firms are going off-shore. So an employee [I hate the term "worker"; it's so Bolshevik.] is happy to have a job...phooey to the unions, if there's a choice. And then the company moves its manufacturing to China, where the "workers" [over there, they ARE workers!] don't get a fraction of what was made here, and other than paying local Party officials off, there is little Gov't interference. The point of all this is, that the union officials here are well aware of all this. As a result, they are playing the string out as long as they can, feathering their own nests; robbing other unions of members, and pretending to look out for their constituents' interests. They just hope it doesn't come down on their watch. If they can retire to a fat pension before the collapse, they'll be honored for their "service". The last three sentences can apply to the political class; just substitute "public service" for service. Amazing.

[edblysard]

See it left a bad taste in someone else's mouth too!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

See it left a bad taste in someone else's mouth too!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68

I am sure that Sam is in a minimum security prison. Out in 18 months? I doubt it, a few years ago the Feds came under attack for unfair sentences based on race, as a result BOP does not lower sentences for good behavior appreciably. He is a link that will allow you to catch up on Enron.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/energy/enron/

I can't argue about Watergate because nearly everyone received a Presidential Pardon from Ford.

I think Ken Lay and company are definitely worried that their time will come.

Ex-Treasurer of Enron Ben F. Glisan Jr Pleads Guilty, Gets 5 Years.

Andrew Fastow, changed his plea to guilty on a single count of conspiracy in an appearance before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt. The judge then sentenced him to five years in prison.

I bookmarked this one and will read it on a lunch hour.

Thanx

Mookie

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68

I am sure that Sam is in a minimum security prison. Out in 18 months? I doubt it, a few years ago the Feds came under attack for unfair sentences based on race, as a result BOP does not lower sentences for good behavior appreciably. He is a link that will allow you to catch up on Enron.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/energy/enron/

I can't argue about Watergate because nearly everyone received a Presidential Pardon from Ford.

I think Ken Lay and company are definitely worried that their time will come.

Ex-Treasurer of Enron Ben F. Glisan Jr Pleads Guilty, Gets 5 Years.

Andrew Fastow, changed his plea to guilty on a single count of conspiracy in an appearance before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt. The judge then sentenced him to five years in prison.

I bookmarked this one and will read it on a lunch hour.

Thanx

Mookie

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie


Watergate - who really ever went to prison - anyone besides a few henchmen?
Jen

They all went to prison except Dean and Nixon. The only pardon handed out by Ford was to Nixon. The three top guys under Nixon got hammered - Mitchell, Haldemann and Ehrlichman. Dean ratted them out to save himself. What a bunch of wierdos they were....

No?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie


Watergate - who really ever went to prison - anyone besides a few henchmen?
Jen

They all went to prison except Dean and Nixon. The only pardon handed out by Ford was to Nixon. The three top guys under Nixon got hammered - Mitchell, Haldemann and Ehrlichman. Dean ratted them out to save himself. What a bunch of wierdos they were....

No?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68

Limitedclear, there is nothing wrong with having a Designated Legal Counsel program, properly run it is just a way to recommend legal counsel to the membership. There is a problem with soliciting and accepting money from the lawyers.

This legal problem isn't something that just popped up for the UTU. It entered the court system when large number of UTU DLC were indicted in 1998. It spilled over to the UTU when the UTU Texas Legislative Chairman Neil Francis Babineaux was indicted on 6/5/02. Babineaux was also the campaign manager for Little and Boyd. Babineaux has changed his plea to guilty and has been sentenced.

If the BLE hasn't been mentioned in the last five years, I would suspect they don't have a problem.

You may be right, or it may simply mean the feds haven't headed that way yet. Anytime you see anyone steering clients or even potential clients towards a select group of lawyers it is immediately suspect (for example chiropractors steering people to certain lawyers in LA a few years ago who were subsequently indicted and convicted for workers compensation fraud.). It is unethical for an attorney to solicit business face to face or have others do so on his behalf (that's why the whole business of lawyers flying to accident scenes and handing out business cards or having theior "investigators" do so is unethical and can result in disbarment or criminal sanctions). The process of having someone solicit or direct business to an attorney for pay is generally known as "capping" and is illegal. The UTU prosecution for mail fraud and racketeering is a way to apply these charges to the non-attorneys responsible.

My point is with the BLE and/or other unions such as BMWE or BRS who have members covered under FELA that have DLC programs could all be subject to investigation. I would be quite surprised if some similar problems weren't found elsewhere. I know that there have been indictments in matters involving the Ironworkers union in Buffalo where certain attorneys were indicted, convicted and disbarred for providing gifts to union officials in return for a DLC type referral system.

While I don't have specifics regarding other unions I believe that having the DLC program is an invitation to abuse and it should be abolished. (and I say this as someone who has benefitted from the DLC program). Everyone should be aqble to make their choice of attorney on their own.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68

Limitedclear, there is nothing wrong with having a Designated Legal Counsel program, properly run it is just a way to recommend legal counsel to the membership. There is a problem with soliciting and accepting money from the lawyers.

This legal problem isn't something that just popped up for the UTU. It entered the court system when large number of UTU DLC were indicted in 1998. It spilled over to the UTU when the UTU Texas Legislative Chairman Neil Francis Babineaux was indicted on 6/5/02. Babineaux was also the campaign manager for Little and Boyd. Babineaux has changed his plea to guilty and has been sentenced.

If the BLE hasn't been mentioned in the last five years, I would suspect they don't have a problem.

You may be right, or it may simply mean the feds haven't headed that way yet. Anytime you see anyone steering clients or even potential clients towards a select group of lawyers it is immediately suspect (for example chiropractors steering people to certain lawyers in LA a few years ago who were subsequently indicted and convicted for workers compensation fraud.). It is unethical for an attorney to solicit business face to face or have others do so on his behalf (that's why the whole business of lawyers flying to accident scenes and handing out business cards or having theior "investigators" do so is unethical and can result in disbarment or criminal sanctions). The process of having someone solicit or direct business to an attorney for pay is generally known as "capping" and is illegal. The UTU prosecution for mail fraud and racketeering is a way to apply these charges to the non-attorneys responsible.

My point is with the BLE and/or other unions such as BMWE or BRS who have members covered under FELA that have DLC programs could all be subject to investigation. I would be quite surprised if some similar problems weren't found elsewhere. I know that there have been indictments in matters involving the Ironworkers union in Buffalo where certain attorneys were indicted, convicted and disbarred for providing gifts to union officials in return for a DLC type referral system.

While I don't have specifics regarding other unions I believe that having the DLC program is an invitation to abuse and it should be abolished. (and I say this as someone who has benefitted from the DLC program). Everyone should be aqble to make their choice of attorney on their own.

LC

[Anonymous]

The Boyd and company are not in trouble for having a DLC list. They are in trouble for extorting money out of the lawyers for the privilege to be on the list. I just read today that the Feds have been investigating this UTU thing since 1995. If the BLE had a similar thing going on someone would have been pulled in by now.

[Anonymous]

The Boyd and company are not in trouble for having a DLC list. They are in trouble for extorting money out of the lawyers for the privilege to be on the list. I just read today that the Feds have been investigating this UTU thing since 1995. If the BLE had a similar thing going on someone would have been pulled in by now.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68

The Boyd and company are not in trouble for having a DLC list. They are in trouble for extorting money out of the lawyers for the privilege to be on the list. I just read today that the Feds have been investigating this UTU thing since 1995. If the BLE had a similar thing going on someone would have been pulled in by now.

The point is you can't get into trouble for misusing a DLC list if you don't have one to begin with. I think the DLC lists just are one way of asking for trouble. I wouldn't necessarily be too sure that the feds are not investigating other unions just because only one such investigation has resulted in formal charges. Even if the feds are not investigating I think they should be.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfrench68

The Boyd and company are not in trouble for having a DLC list. They are in trouble for extorting money out of the lawyers for the privilege to be on the list. I just read today that the Feds have been investigating this UTU thing since 1995. If the BLE had a similar thing going on someone would have been pulled in by now.

The point is you can't get into trouble for misusing a DLC list if you don't have one to begin with. I think the DLC lists just are one way of asking for trouble. I wouldn't necessarily be too sure that the feds are not investigating other unions just because only one such investigation has resulted in formal charges. Even if the feds are not investigating I think they should be.

LC