OK so right now this is a very rough draft and I will do the corrections and other stuff latter. It is important that I again reply to some very strong words from another blogger. This is another long winded session and it is some good reading so I hope you enjoy what I have on this so far and I will improve it more after some sleep.
Statement made: “Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by "taking the high road." Something for you to think about. As I see the facts as they unfold, you created a situation where you and Rantings are openly and publicly soliciting Union members to take sides against another Union member only because neither one of you is capable of resolving your own issues. Documentation AGAINST you has been piling up.”
My comment: I am a very open and public person. Transparency is the only way for the truth to be seen. It is easy for a bully to hide if there are very few witnesses. When things are public the truth has a way of shining through. The “situation” I have created is that I have finally stood up and said enough is enough. I will not stand by and allow you to bully me anymore. Every attack you send towards me I will address very publicly and proudly. Union members are not being asked to take sides against another Union member. I am showing Union members the information I have, how it makes me feel, areas of our constitution and ways they can help. Our members want to make sure that all Union members have equal rights and privileges. All I am doing is presenting information and demonstrating that each member is able to stand tall and proud without worrying about being bullied.
Statement made: “If you're trying to do something you believe will be a positive move in the right direction then why are you publishing information ahead of time? You are trying to influence peoples opinions before both sides of the facts come out. You need to do whatever it is that you do as ethically and professionally as possible. Chris, you gotta keep it clean because if you don't it make your motives stink to high heaven. Taking the high road in this instance means no dirty politics.”
My comment: A positive move for our membership is actually seeing transparency. I am publishing information as it happens not ahead of time. My postings are follow ups upon statements made about me. So as I see it, my postings have been replies. Not once have I initiated any negative statement towards any other Union member (that I am aware of). If my postings are replies then that means it has been initiated by someone else. That means one side has already been told and I am adding my side. One side plus another side equals two sides doesn’t it? I feel I am being very clean, professional and ethical about my actions. I do have to admit that I am human and mistakes can be made. The one mistake that I have made and that I was not aware of at the time was collecting signatures within your sight. Until HR pointed out how it made you feel, I was not aware and it was not my intent to make you feel intimidated.
Statement made: “The circus atmosphere you and Rantings created during last months "Preferring of Charges" turned around and bit you on the ass. You validated everything I've been saying which is that you report Operators. Your actions through this and last months attempt at blackballing me validates my point. You can't be an effective Union Officer as long as you continue to put unreasonable expectations on the members and then report them to management because you can't agree to disagree.”
My comment: “blackballing”, you love to call it that don’t you. You can call it excommunication, exclusion, kicked out, banished, exiled or any other name you want to and the simple truth of the matter is that those are not correct descriptive words for this process. It is called “Preferring of Charges” it is a process that allows the membership to assure all members are equally represented and stays within the means of our Constitution, Bylaws and Contract. If a member is not following these then the membership can be presented with the information and vote to allow or not allow a Trial Committee to oversee the event. The Trial Committee then gets all the information from the member filing and the member being charged. Once they have received all the information, they can then place judgment. The penalties are according to the charges and vary in range. The highest range is removal from the membership.
You claim that I put unreasonable expectations on the members then report them to management. I have reported no one to management or HR other than you. The only actions I have taken are the two preferring of charges I have presented to our union office. I do want to point out this letter (click here). You on the other hand reported not only Al M. and I to HR but handed HR a list of fourteen (14) members. You made a statement in one of your posts saying “After being called up to HR, I'm willing to bet most of those people were embarrassed at having to go through that process.”
Statement made: “Do you understand what Unions are about? You're actions are killing any chances you may have had of being elected for office.”
My comment: If my actions are killing any chances I may have had of being elected for office, so be it! This is not about me getting into any position; it is about standing up for union brothers and sisters and myself. It is about not being afraid of members, officers, managers or employers and being able to stand together to make sure each other are safe and proud.
I understand that a union assures all members equal rights and privileges. That a union will train and educate its membership to be the strongest and best employee an employer can get. The union sets the standard for others to follow.
Statement made: “As far as mailing the charges to my home, it would have been more appropriate to give them to the Union and let them mail it to me. The envelope was deceitful. What gave you the idea that it would be OK for you to have access to my address? My home is sacrosanct and I expect it be respected as such.”
My comment: To start with, I had this conversation with President Jon Hunt. He advised me that it is my responsibility to serve the union and the member being charged. It was done in the manner you talked about with the preferring of charges towards Khris Alexander and with the first preferring of charges I did with you. This time I was instructed that it was my responsibility. This required me to investigate and learn of your address so I could do the safest means for the both of us to get you a copy of the charges. The information I was sending is union business and it was appropriate for me to label it with ATU757 as the return address. I have never been nor will I ever go anywhere around your area. I have not and will not give your address to others. The only purpose of obtaining your address was for serving purposes only.
Statement made: “I need to have a copy of the signatures on the petition as I have a right to see who my accusers are. You have my e-mail address - scan it and send it asap.”
My comment: Let me be very clear about this! I am the ONLY accuser in this matter. Our Constitution requires that a minimum of five (5) members in good standing sign to allow it to be presented to the membership. Supporting charges only means that they are in support of the filer’s actions. Do not treat them as accusers; treat me as the accuser because I am the accuser.
If you are in need of the signature list again I suggest you contact President Jon Hunt and see if he will release it too you. You have no right to demand a list of names from me.
Statement made: “The paperwork you sent made several unsubstantiated, ambiguous statements. "Many members are afraid to step forward in fear of her retaliation."
Name one person I've retaliated against. How about the charge of retaliation you cooked up regarding Gene Marsh? That came from you.”
My comment: I clearly stated that I was called by Gene Marsh and that he was contacted by you. The only information I had at that time is what he told me. He was upset and deleted the message before he called me. I was not able to see the message until I saw your post the following day. This did indicate to me that you were contacting members from the list. From how negative Gene was feeling about the contact I felt it was retaliation. After seeing your post I saw the communication was not as negative as indicated and I very publicly retracted my statement I made the night before. So I did not “cook up” anything.
Statement made: “You will be required to prove the entire second paragraph by submitting a list of names along with written statements that support EACH and EVERY claim you made. The whole works, date, time of event, a description of what happened along with a notarized signatures. You'll need at least 60% of the membership to win your case. THE NEXT STEP WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE YOU TAKE BECAUSE IF YOU AREN'T ABLE TO PROVE YOUR CHARGES AGAINST ME - THE SAME EXACT CHARGES YOU'VE POSTED ABOUT ME PUBLICLY THROUGH BLOGS, FORUMS, FACEBOOK , ETC. INCLUDING ALL DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR POSTING INSIDE THE UNION AREA ON ANY ATU PROPERTY, THEN I CAN GO AFTER YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.”
My comment: You are the last person I would take any orders from so let me worry about what I am required to do and you worry about what you need to do. The presentation of the preferring of charges is not a case. It is the providing of basic information to show that there is cause for a Trial Committee to oversee an event. If 60% or better of the membership at all charter meetings votes that there is just cause for a Trial Committee, a committee is picked and a trial date would be set. A Trial Committee of three (3) members will be the only ones that hear all the details of the case.
At any time it is your right to file civilly against me in a court of law. As you stated, you will require me to prove my charges and I will require you to do the same. I am not worried about any of my actions or statements and I freely welcome any and all challenges.
Statement made: “Operators have made me aware of your methods for signature gathering. I am told that you or others went around to various tables in the bullpen asking for signatures for a 'petition'. The person the info came from was surprised to learn about the 18 pages. He didn't see them. He said he signed the petition only because he was told it was for the union and because 'everyone else did.' That, Mr. Day is the ONLY REASON why you're pissed about my having a copy of the signatures. You knew they were obtained fraudulently. You've been blaming me and Jonathan Hunt - everyone but yourself.”
My comment: So many operators (as in more than one) have told you of my methods for signature gathering? You are told that someone other than me went around to tables asking for signatures? A male person tells you he didn’t see the charges and signed it because he was told it was for the union and he did it because everyone else did?
These are very strong accusations here. The statement “because everyone else did” is still tickling me. There were a total of fourteen (14) signatures. Al, John and I are three of the signatures so that leaves eleven (11). Seven (7) are workers I know well so that leaves four (4). Three (3) sat and talked with me a period of time about it so that leaves just one (1) member in the list that might be the one that signed it because everyone else did. If that is the reason this person signed it, that is not right and that member should have not signed. The fact is, fourteen (14) is far from everyone that was in the room.
These are very strong accusations though and must be addressed properly. Hopefully many of the members who signed will see this posting and contact me about these accusations. I will ask all the members to view these accusations and allow them to voice their own responses. If all fourteen (14) members give me a written statement stating if these accusations are true or false I will post their responses. I will not post their names though. I will save all response to show any Trial Committee or Judge.
Statement made: “You read on one of my postings where I stated the letter Hunt sent regarding your FIRST Preferring of Charges wasn't researched or written by him. MY BAD! I wrote that assuming it to be true but it wasn't. I wouldn't be privy to information like that. You and I are both guilty of assuming. I regret posting that part because I never fact checked it. You, on the other hand being who you are - knowing it wasn't true, decided to exploit it to your advantage, anyway. I have always found your motives more than 'unsettling.”
My comment: How are you to know if it is true or not true if you are not privy to information like that? How do you know I am guilty of assuming this? This final statement “You, on the other hand being who you are - knowing it wasn't true, decided to exploit it to your advantage, anyway.” Tell me how you can clearly state me being who I am and I knew it wasn’t true? Here is a very simple fact that I will share with you. In my one and a half hour meeting with President Jon Hunt about the letter he sent, I attacked all the false statements in it. He told me directly that he had Susan Stoner write the document and that she was off work the day we had met. He did not know the answers to my questions because he did not write the document and he needed to ask her to explain. He then verbally told me the letter is not correct and that if I wanted to continue my actions I had every right to do so. He asked if I would consider allowing him one more try to get a meeting between the two of us to try and resolve our issues before moving forward. I agreed and here we are.
So don’t sit there making accusations that I knowingly tried to exploit this for some type of advantage because that is straight out FALSE. Your statement there is uncalled for!
No comments:
Post a Comment