APWU CONVENTION REPORT 2014
An unprecedented provocative attempt by retiree operatives to “Empire Build” the Retiree Department was soundly defeated by the delegates at the recent APWU Chicago Convention! This came on the heels of several days of intense debate about critical structural elements of the Union. The retiree initiative was spearheaded by a small but misguided vocal clique comprised in part by several elected retiree delegates to the Convention, ‘regular’ delegates who are retired, and the Retiree Director.
BACKGROUND
The Convention Constitution Committee, who had the responsibility to review and make recommendations about proposals to amend the Constitution, met in Washington DC prior to the Convention. This writer was honored to serve on the Committee. At the outset, we examined in meticulous detail the complement and financial trends in the Union. Details are not published here since our ‘enemies’ who read our publications don’t need to be privy to the data. However, it is -no-secret that there has-been-seriolls downsizing in the Union as the Postal Service shrinks the work force. The Committee developed a primary concept that all proposals would be tested against the cost that would be incurred if they were adopted, and would be rejected if there was a cost associated with them. A secondary consideration was that proposals would also be rejected if they resulted in an infringement on the powers of the president.
SETTING THE STAGE
Before the retiree issues were considered, serious debate about a number of staffing proposals took place. Offices that were vacant and were removed from the Constitution were: Assistant Legislative/Political Director; Assistant Clerk Craft Director A; Maintenance National Representative At Large; Wichita Area National Business Agent A Clerk Division; and the Cincinnati Area National Business Agent A Clerk Division.
In addition, the Convention supported the Constitution Committee rejection of limiting the authority of the president and adding staffing for the Support Services Division. The Support Services Business Agent would have had a salary of @ $144,100.00. Moreover, a salary increase for the Support Services Director of about $20,000.00 per year was also rejected. It was obvious that most delegates understood what was going on with the Union by strongly supporting the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. Except for two vacant offices that the Convention voted to fill, the Convention moved along in a serious cost saving manner. The debates for the two offices that were not eliminated were more emotional than factual. The delegates were swayed by heated rhetoric delivered in personal emotional tirades that plucked their heart strings. Nevertheless, all in all, to this point of the proceedings things had been moving along in a slow but deliberate pace in a responsible cost savings attitude.
THE RETIREE ISSUES
On a personal note, as an elected delegate to the Convention, I participated in the Retiree meeting that preceded the Convention. At that meeting I reported on the financial and complement structure of the Union, and the basis for the Committee’s rejection of the retiree proposals. The delegates at that meeting chose to ignore the Committee’s recommendation, and moved instead to prioritize their proposals for later presentation at the Convention. Thus the die was cast.
These were the retiree issues that came before the Convention: Add an appointed technician to the Retiree Department (at an estimated cost of at least $144,000,00 per year); increase the Retiree Director salary @ $20,000.00 per year; change the five elected delegates to become Regional Representatives with compensation; put the Retiree Director (and the Legislative/Political Director and the Health Plan Director) on the Executive Board; and designate the Retiree Department as the Retiree Division. During the debate that followed, it was revealed that since the Department was created, more than $200,000.00 had been paid for lost time for ad hoc assistance.
THE DEBATE
When these issues came before the delegates, the small clique that supported them manned the microphones in support of them. As a member of the Constitution Committee, I took the floor in support of the Committee’s rejection of them. When it became obvious that the proposals were being defeated, a couple were withdrawn by the makers. The result … a retiree raid on the treasury and “Empire Building” was averted in line with the fiscally responsible actions that had taken place earlier in the Convention.
A few members of the clique later approached me in a most hostile manner, describing me as a “prostitute” for opposing retiree initiatives in my role as a Committee member. In my opinion, the cause of retiree involvement has been set back by their naked thirst for resources and power. I have cautioned retirees in the past to avoid how retirees might be seen as a power hungry bloc within the Union. Behavior by the clique at this Convention was an example of that ambition, in my opinion. Unionism is about being for the all, not the few.
The clique acts as if our modest dues of $3.00 per month, with $1.80 rebated to Chapters where they exist, is a private fund within the Union to be used only for retiree issues. It is a misguided distortion of the reality. The dues go into the general fund, as all dues do, to be used for all Union operations. The fact is the Retiree Department is the worst organized entity in the Union, with a mere 40,000 members. That is a pittance of those that have retired since the Department was formed, bolstered by recent early outs. It is a shame that the clique chooses to act as an elite bloc that ignores the realities that the rest of the Union faces in a highly responsible manner. I choose to take the high road to support the Union as a whole, not any political bloc within. It is the right way, IT IS THE UNION WAY!
Click Here for a copy of Pittsburgh Retiree Record – August 8, 2014 Edition
I had vowed not to comment. Brothers Townsend and Donelson, and Sister Bobo are absolutely correct. I’m weighing in as maker of 3 retiree related structuring resolutions, including the paramount proposal to appoint a Retirement Technician in the Retirees’ Dept. to respond to the complex retirement inquiries of retiree members, their spouses, survivors, and yes; active members, Locals and Local Retiree Chapters. It’s curious to read comments regarding the intent of this resolution. The intent is exactly what you see and can read in each ‘whereas’ preceeding the “Resolve”. The Only intent was, and is to provide improved service to the membership, retired AND active; to investigate, research, establish contacts with OPM, HRSS, Social Security & Medicare, and agencies to resolve complex retirement issues that can have serious financial consequences. In our delierations, we asked Retirees’ Dept. Director, Judy Beard, which of the 5 resolutions was most important to advance structuring the department. A Retirement Technician to better serve the membership. Thus, that became our paramount resolution.
I’m somewhat amused at the speculation of the “intent”, mine and that of those retirees in leadership who advocated adoption of this proposal. I can only surmise that the checkered history of APWU internal politics raises questions as to what ulterior motives are behind a proposal such as this one. I can only state unequivocally that there are no ulterior motives. Because there’s old pro’s out there that operate that way and see an ulterior motive behind every bush, they are unable to comprehend that there’s still some of us who don’t operate that way. To question my intent is to question my integrity. We can engage in debate on the merits of the proposed amendment without hitting below the belt to get our point across.
I admit to being somewhat jaded having witnessing internal rivalries. That was abundantly clear by the tone of Human relations Director, Sue Carney, when she took the floor mic in opposition to Res. #14. The Officers’ Reports & Resolutions book, page 24, Human Relations Department, Carney reports; “….We have addressed thousands of inquiries regarding claims and grievances….” “I am thrilled to share that we have hired Mr. Ed Duncan, former Deputy Directer of the Division of Federal Employees Compensation, as a consultant to assist in these areas.” So, the question is; Why object to the Retirees’ Dept. asking for what the Human Relations Dept. already has?
And I vowed not to comment…… Peace.
Frank Townsend article and Beth Bobo comments are right on.
Retirees are not a threat to the union.
John Richard’s a Retiree Chapter President and unopposed Eastern Region National Delegate did nothing to represent the retirees. In fact his comments actually hurt the retirees issues. He totally opposed to the issues retirees voted on and wanted.
Always remember John was opposed to elected Retiree Director and wanted to break away from the APWU, AFL-CIO.
John Richard’s report does not actually reflect retirees views or opinions. They are his opinions and he has a right to them even if they are wrong and misguided.
As I read Brother Richardsâ August 8, 2014 issue of âThe Retiree Recordâ I was struck by the thought that the author must have been joking with his tirade about the retirees at the Chicago convention. Perhaps pulling our legs is a more apt description.
The idea of âEmpire Buildâ (his words) the Retiree Department at the expense of the rest of the APWU membership is poorly conceived and twisted in a Machiavellian way to totally distort the truth.
Fact-According to Brother Richards, the cost of adding an appointed technician to the Retiree Department would cost $144,000.00. Thatâs more than the $101,325 the Retiree Department Director receives. Do you honestly think an appointed technician would receive more pay than the Director? I donât think so.
Fact-It wasnât that many years ago that Brother Richards took up the battle for pay and expenses for the five elected Retiree Delegates to attend the National Convention. Even though he did not ultimately win that battle, it was something he fought vigorously for. To deride the effort to change the name of the five Retiree Delegates to Regional Representatives along with asking for pay and expenses for the National Convention reeks with the bitterness of hypocrisy and defeat.
Fact-The five Retiree Delegates are elected by the retirees in their region to represent them at National Convention. Part of that responsibility is to take up the causes that represent the wishes of those who elected them. Brother Richards gave away his responsibility to those who elected him and became a ârubber stampâ for the decisions of the Constitution Committee. Did he even attempt to make the argument before the Constitution Committee of retiree wishes? In his own words, Brother Richards says âI took the floor in support of the Committeeâs rejection of them.â I might add that the rest of the Constitution Committee was silent on the floor on retiree issues.
The idea of ânaked thirst for resources and powerâ (his words) by the retirees to become full and complete members of the APWU does not accurately describe what happened. In fact, this concept shows Brother Richardsâ contempt for retirees and members alike as it violates items 1 and 2 of the APWU Membersâ Bill of Rightsâ(1. Every member has the right to be respected as a human being-2. Every member has the right to be respected as a brother or sister of this Union.) This concept is disgusting and shows total lack of responsibility and reasonableness. All retirees want is the due respect shown all other members of this great Union. Remember, the only way to change the APWU Constitution is by the amendment process.
Whether or not Brother Richards believes in the purpose of the Retiree Division is questionable. It was in Los Angeles two years ago that Brother Richards presented a Constitutional amendment calling for the Retirees Division to be separated from the APWU and made a free-standing organization (such as the PPA, APWU Health Plan, & APWU Benefits Plan). Of course, this amendment went down in flames evidently to be forgotten by the maker of the amendment.
In short, one has to wonder why an individual would do something this year and then make a 180 degree turn and be against the very idea he presented previously. Consistency is not something Brother Richards believes in. Perhaps in his effort to be seen as supporting President Dimondstein in all things concerning the APWU, Brother Richards is building what he hopes will get him ___________, well, you can fill that part in.
Whatever his reasons, itâs questionable whether Brother Richards is representing all the Retirees in Pittsburgh or those in the region he represents. One does not say one thing to those he represents and then do something completely different at Convention.
Since I can’t get anyone to comment on this site, I will share the comments about the latest APWU Pittsburgh Retiree Chapter’s Retiree Record made on Facebook:
