Who is the fool here?

To warn you in advance, this will be a very long post.

On August 14^th, 2011 I attended a Union meeting and left that meeting asking myself questions like:

Who is the fool here?
What or who can we believe now days?
Does our Union Constitution mean anything?

For the past few years I have shown a very strong passion towards my Union and my Employer. With this passion I have questioned the authority of both the Union to which I belong and the Employer that employees me. In doing so there has been very strong resistance from both. In communications with fellow members it appears that the membership feels frustrated and helpless. Members express fear of retaliation from both our Union and our Employer. This fear has also extended out towards fellow members fearing other members. Each one of us has our own views, passions and ideas about how our lives should be. Is living in fear the way of life you want to be a custom to?

For more than 4 years Sister Ellen Fox and I have had very strong personal issues between us that have affected our work conditions, our standings with in our Union, our social life and our communications with fellow members. We are a prime example of how poor management within our Union and Employer can harm our membership as a whole.

On August 15^th, 2011 Sister Ellen Fox posted:

“Besides all of the reasons Hunt mentioned in yesterdays meeting for not allowing the Preferring of Charges to go forward, here is the REALITY of the situation. What this means is that when the International Constitution says ADDRESS - it MEANS ADDRESS - NOT BADGE NUMBERS. ONE cannot simply change the wording of the constitution to suit THEIR purpose.

Did Margulies and Day publish all those private Union documents on their Rantings blog (since the blackballing scheme didn't work) the last couple of days because they didn't understand the difference between an ADDRESS AND A BADGE NUMBER and decided while they were at it they might as well change the wording of the International Constitution to include the Freedom of Information Act - OR... DID THEY JUST HANG THEMSELVES?”

I would like to take a moment to question the accuracy of Sister Ellen Fox’s post. I would like to start with “What this means is that when the International Constitution says ADDRESS - it MEANS ADDRESS - NOT BADGE NUMBERS.” Now she clearly states what she feels an address does not mean yet she lacks any supporting information of this or information that does clearly identify what an address constitutes. I have search for clear definitions that constitute an address and have located 10 clear definitions of address. Five of these definitions clearly does not constitute an employee ID number as an address, I feel four of the definitions do clearly constitute an employee ID number as an address and one definition is questionable if it constitutes an employee ID number as an address. Here is the list of definitions I have located:

1. A speech or written statement, usually formal, directed to a particular group of persons: the President's address on the state of the economy.
This doesn’t appear to apply so from this definition and employee number is not an address.

2. A direction as to the intended recipient, written on or attached to a piece of mail.
This definition makes things a little more interesting. An employee number is used by TriMet, Reed Group and ATU to identify a member that is currently or has been working for TriMet. The employee number is either written on and/or attached to pieces of mail that is sent internally. I would say that the employee number fits the descriptive noun ADDRESS when used in this content.

3. The place or the name of the place where a person, organization, or the like is located or may be reached: What is your address when you're in Des Moines?
Here is another definition that makes things interesting. Can you address a letter to TriMet with an employees’ number and that letter make it to the person? ATU does it all the time with internal mail.

4. Manner of speaking to persons; personal bearing in conversation.
This one is an iffy one. You are able to talk with other TriMet employee’s and by using only the employee number it would have personal bearing on one employee.

5. Skillful and expeditious management; ready skill; dispatch: to handle a matter with address.
The use of employee numbers allows quick reference to an individual employee allowing skillful and expeditious management of employees.

6. Computers; a label, as an integer, symbol, or other set of characters, designating a location, register, etc., where information is stored in computer memory.
Information about a TriMet employee is stored on computers and/or files and can be located by use of the employee ID number.

7. Government; a request to the executive by the legislature to remove a judge for unfitness.
8. Usually, addresses. attentions paid by a suitor or lover; courtship.
9. (Usually initial capital letter ) the reply to the King's speech in the English Parliament.
10. Obsolete . preparation.
O.K. these last four do not appear to apply to employee numbers.

I feel if the employee ID number did not match any of the ten definitions I have provided above then her post about the meaning of ADDRESS would be correct. Because the employee ID number can resemble four maybe five of the definitions I would state that Sister Ellen Fox’s statement is false and misleading.

Next to address her statement “ONE cannot simply change the wording of the constitution to suit THEIR purpose.” I have never attempted to change the wording of our Constitution; I have questioned the interpretation of our Constitution. Sister Ellen Fox, President Jonathan Hunt and our Executive Board Officer’s clearly have not researched the definition of address and tested the implications of excluding employee ID number as an address. Failure to provide the membership with supporting definitions can be constituted as nonfeasance in office and changing the wording of the Constitution to suit THEIR purposes.

So what are THEIR purposes?

The true purposes are only known to them and I can only voice my speculations. I feel Sister Ellen Fox’s purpose is to avoid preferring of charges from moving forward and having to truly answer for her actions. President Jonathan Hunt’s purpose can be an attempt to discredit me as a Presidential candidate and to demonstrate that he controls the officer’s and members as he pleases. The purpose for the Executive Board Officers can be of either fear of retaliation from President Jonathan Hunt or to show loyalty to President Jonathan Hunt over truly defining the translation of our Constitution. My purpose is to stand up for myself and the members that supported my Constitutional rights.

Next to address Sister Ellen Fox’s statement “Did Margulies and Day publish all those private Union documents on their Rantings blog (since the blackballing scheme didn't work)”. I want to talk about Sister Fox freely using the word “BlackBalling”. By calling the preferring of charges that section 22 of our Constitution equally permits any member by a name that insinuates illegal action or wrong doing is misleading our members and distracting them from the actual steps that a preferring of charges is required to go through. Is she admitting her guilt and fear of the outcome if such charges were to move forward?

Sister Fox’s statement of “Besides all of the reasons Hunt mentioned in yesterdays meeting for not allowing the Preferring of Charges to go forward” and “they might as well change the wording of the International Constitution to include the Freedom of Information Act”

Here is what President Jonathan Hunt stated at that meeting “The Executive Board believes that these charges should not be considered further for the following reasons. The Union will be violating the Constitution. The ATU Constitution states that no member should be fined, suspended, expelled or otherwise disciplined for exercising any right to which the member is entitled to under the provision of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. 2.) That the Union will be violating the law. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act guarantees member’s the right to meet and assemble freely and other members to express his or her views both inside and outside Union meetings. 3.) TriMet and the public can already access employee names and identification numbers under Oregon open record laws (something was said here but I did not understand the statement he made) that was made public by both Ellen Fox and Chris Day. The constitution says nothing about ID employee numbers. This is not the use of proper Union resources. Mr. Day has now filed 4 times against Ellen Fox. He has withdrawn two of them. This is a personal matter between two individuals. (Something was said here but I did not understand the statement he made)  It is not uncommon to state the dislike of each other. It would be cost prohibited and cause great disruption for this Union to involve it’s self in private conflict.

So these are the reasons President Hunt presented to the membership. Sister Fox says that Brother Margulies and I are changing the International Constitution to include the Freedom of Information Act when President Hunts statement of “The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act guarantees member’s the right to meet and assemble freely and other members to express his or her views both inside and outside Union meetings.” So if President Hunt stated this how is our Constitution being changed? Isn’t Reporting and Disclosure Act similar to our Freedom of Information Act?

President Jonathan Hunt has clearly presented his interpretation of our Constitution and how it applies to members assembling freely to express their own views both inside and outside union meetings. Our blogs are meetings outside union meetings and are protected by his words. To honor equality for all members ATU officers are not to interfere with members meeting outside of union meetings. We will speak freely as Sister Ellen Fox has been permitted to do so.

There you have it. I told you that this would be a long posting. If you made it this far in the posting then you at least have some interest in trying to understand what is going on. There is still a ton to address and never enough time in the day. The question still stands before us as to who is the fool here? Each one of us will have a different answer to that question. You will believe who you want to and feel however you feel. I can only hope that if you place judgment on anyone, you take the time to get as much information as possible and research that information for accuracy before you place judgment. Do not just believe what you are told. Please research my information and make your own judgment.