In the June, 2014 Pittsburgh Retiree newsletter, John Richards suggests by innuendo that the Pittsburgh Local President was bought off with an appointment by the former National APWU President to the âplum Constitution Committeeâ (Richards words) for the 2012 APWU National Convention. This time around in 2014, Richards got the âplum Constitution Committeeâ appointment for the National Convention from new APWU President Mark Dimondstein. Subsequently, as the ELECTED Eastern Region Retiree Convention Delegate, Richards spoke AGAINST EVERY RETIREE Constitution Resolution at the 2014 National Convention.
In his August, 2014 newsletter, Richards had the audacity to accuse retirees of attempted âEmpire buildingâ with the resolutions. Richards also went so far as to pull a dollar amount out of seemingly thin air for the cost of one resolution. What were those resolutions? Retirees at their pre-convention Conference prioritized two Constitution resolutions to add a Retiree Technician to the Retirees Department (with its 41,000 members, one fourth of the APWU membership) and to add the Retirees Department Director to the present 13 member National Officers National Executive Board. And yes, Retirees had several wish list resolutions (as everyone does at every convention), but again, the two referred above were the priority.
Richards âEmpire building” remarks are particularly ironic as at the 2012 National Convention, he proposed a Constitutional resolution to completely divorce the Retirees Department from the APWU. Only two years ago, Richards wanted to make the Retirees Department an independent entity retaining all retiree dues moneys and merely pay rent to the APWU for office space and equipment at the APWU National Headquarters building in Washington, D.C. Did Richards have an Epiphany since 2012? Or is it now that he got the âplumâ committee appointment, he was bought off by his new crony, National President Dimondstein? Are Richards’ actions further advancing his perceived ambition to run for Retirees Department director as part of the âTeam” in the next APWU National Elections?-an ambition which was thwarted in 2013 by a lack of support from Retirees in the field. Who is John Richards working for? APWU members (including retirees) or himself?
And letâs not forget APWU Human Relations Director Sue Carneyâs duplicitous antics at the Convention. Carney sat in at the Retiree Conference as well as a state caucus and gave apparently friendly advice regarding the Retiree resolutions. It turns out she was actually a spy snooping on Retiree arguments and strategy for winning delegate support for the subject resolutions. When the Retiree Technician resolution came up on the Convention floor, Carney went into a shrill ranting tirade at the microphone with a carefully orchestrated theatrical rebuttal against a Retiree Technician position and lambasted the Retiree Department with her prior knowledge gained as an undercover agent. This is the same Sue Carney who in her Human Relations Director Convention Book Officerâs Report wrote she was âthrilled to shareâ that the APWU has hired a former Deputy Director of Federal Employees Compensation as a âconsultantâ for the Human Relations Department. In a Convention where the Administration preached austerity and Carney parroted the company line, there was no mention of this new hire or the cost. I wonât question whether Carney needed the help or not. It just seems awfully hypocritical to say I got mine and the heck with you. Or maybe the cost of the âconsultantâ was mentioned in the 2014 Convention Book. On page 85 concerning the Finance Committee Report, it is noted that the âConsultingâ fees paid by the APWU rose from just over a half million dollars in 2012 to over a million dollars in 2013. Thatâs right-over a MILLION dollars. Perhaps the money paid for Carneyâs âConsultantâ is included in that total.
Further regarding Carney and her Human Relations duties, it must be noted that in a conversation discussing the possible Retiree Technician position with new APWU Executive Vice President Debbie Szeredy, she suggested that perhaps Sue Carney could help out in the Retirees Department. It was told to Szeredy that the 2012 National Constitution removed any description that was in the 2010 Constitution of Retirement duties in the Human Relations Department Directorâs job description. In 2013 via an email inquiry regarding this unilateral change (it was never passed at a National Convention) in the National Constitution from Central Region Retiree Convention Delegate Al LaBrecque to National APWU Secretary-Treasurer Liz Powell, Powell responded via email that some changes were made by a Postal Press Association review committee. Carney’s response via email to LaBrecque was that she was never allowed to do Retiree training by a previous APWU National President. Carney also wrote âmy plate is fullâ. (But still maybe her âconsultant” can help out the Retirees Department-my words)  Szeredy apparently knew nothing of this job description change/deletion in the duties of the Human Relations Department Director. A Job description change that if Postal management pulled behind our backs in the bargaining unit, one big grievance ruckus would be raised. But give Szeredy the benefit of the doubt. She is new in her job and did seem genuinely concerned.
Personal Summary-
It is difficult not to bear a grudge against Richards and Carney in light of their hypocrisy. But before retirees break out the torches and pitchforks, letâs look at who these two were beholden to for the âplumâ appointment and âconsultantâ help. They were just the puppets of our new National President Mark Dimondstein. He pulled their strings and they spoke against APWU Retirees. Plus with his adroit manipulation from the Convention Chair, Dimondstein was able to skillfully engineer a change in the Convention rules making it virtually impossible to obtain an actual standing teller count of voters on the Convention floor concerning resolutions. He also, with what was regarded by many as a dismissive wave of his presidential hand, able to deny Leo Persails, former longtime NBA and former Central Region Coordinator, his opportunity to speak on an issue on the convention floor microphone. Dimondsteinâs actions belied his manner of Hey, Iâm your new affable rookie President. For many retirees, it was a meet the new boss, same as the old boss experience with some previous National Administrations.
I spent 32 years on the workroom floor, 20 years as a part-time Union rep and Arbitration Advocate and now five years as a retiree member. I will always be a proud member of the American Postal Workers Union. As our retireeâs website page says âYou helped build the Union. You fought for–and won–better wages, benefits, and working conditionsâ. I will continue the fight off the workroom floor to benefit ALL APWU members regardless of whether they are retired or working toward retirement. I have hoofed it a little bit against Staples, contacted the local Labor Council to boycott Staples, contacted legislators by letter, phone, email, and in person concerning postal and retirement issues, and contributed to COPA. I am just an average retired postal worker and no one has to agree with, listen to, or even read my opinions. But as a retiree with representation for 41,000 APWU members of only 5 out of 1900 convention delegates, Iâm tired of sitting in the back of the bus. The Retirees Department has no Union expense or any cost in the grievance/arbitration procedure at the Local or National levels nor any expense in national negotiations. We belong to the APWU because we support all our APWU brothers and sisters. To President Dimondstein-we donât want to drive the bus, we would just like to occasionally sit closer to the front.
Paul Browning, Member
American Postal Workers Union
John, you always were great with self rationalization for your actions, even if you had to use hyperbole. Doubling the size of the Retirees Department? You must mean going from one to two National Officers for 41,000 members. And three of the so-called Empire Building resolutions you speak of, weren’t even discussed at the Retirees Conference. Possibly they were like your Constitutional amendments to raise dues, amendments which drew a lot of debate and time on the Convention floor, but eventually failed to pass (your subterfuge plan it appears). Maybe those other three Retiree Constitutional resolutions were like your “brilliant move to insure the proposal would fail”. That is while though the subject three resolutions were in our Convention Book, they were never brought up on the Convention floor and already conceded defeat to draw attention to the important Retiree representation issues.
Speaking of cutting member representation as you were, I notice that you didn’t address the half million additional dollars spent in consultant fees from 2012 to 2013 or the “doubling” of the Human Relations Department staffing. Let’s look at all our Union expenses and not just the Representation ones. Doesn’t representing our members come first?
As for your flip-flop from your position in 2012, where no Retirees dues money would go to the National APWU, to your 2014 position that all Retiree dues goes to the National APWU, its admirable the way you justify your change of heart in one sentence. Retirees can only guess what your shrewd strategic self-serving whims or caprices will be in 2016. Will you be part of the Team as a candidate for Retirees Department Director? Or will you advocate reducing the Retirees Department? We will get the betting pool going later.
But I agree with you on one thing John. The Convention is over, although I have no “wounds to lick”, just Representation goals to work for. And right now we have much bigger fish to fry, namely the 2014 Congressional elections. In Michigan, Retiree Chapter President and Central Region Retiree Convention Delegate Al LaBrecque and myself are both working within our respective county Democratic parties for the defeat of the our present Tea Party Congressman who won the district by less than 1% of the vote in the last election. We are also working for the election of the Democratic candidate to fill the seat of the retiring Democratic Michigan Senator. I am proud to say that I have a family member on the staff of one candidate. I have also spoken more than once with both candidates on postal issues and they are well informed by our APWU Legislative Department and have received contributions from our COPA funds. Again John, the issue is representation for APWU members.
Also looming are the upcoming negotiations for the May expiration of the APWU-USPS Collective Bargaining Agreement. I hope that President Dimondstein and our negotiating team can arrive at a fair and equitable contract agreement-if not at the negotiating table, then through the Arbitration process. And I am certain that a Democratic majority in Congress can only help us.
So okay John, see you in 2016 for more debate.
Union and NAME of Local/Branch
Pittsburgh Metro Area Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
Office held, if any
Local President 1974-1994, APWU DIR 1980-1983, President Retiree Chapter
In re: APWU Convention Constitutional Committee ~ The above contributor correctly recognizes that this committee is a ‘plum’ committee. As far as the Pugar appointment to previous committees is concerned, I stand by my previous statements. But I doubt that is what is really bothering the poster. Concerning my appointment to that committee, I neither solicited nor was contacted in any way by any Union officer about the appointment. I learned that the appointment had been made via letter. I made no promises or commitments about my participation on that committee to anyone for any issues that may come before the committee.
The importance of that committee is due to the fact that it sits at a Constitutional Convention, prescribed by law. It is the only committee whose power is to recommend amendments to the APWU Constitution. Appointment to that committee is therefore indeed a ‘plum’ assignment by any measure.
But responsibility goes with the appointment. The previous poster seems to believe that as a retiree I should have promoted a retiree agenda on the committee and on the convention floor. I disagree. I believe one sheds the partisan mantle when sitting on that committee. It is the Union as a whole that is and must be the primary consideration of the committee, since if the recommendations are enacted, it is the entire Union that is affected. If the previous writer’s theory holds sway, since the committee was heavily populated with clerks, should clerk issues have been given priority over the membership at large? That certainly is not how that committee functioned, to our credit. After all, this is an Industrial Union, not one of those ‘federations’ or ‘associations’ that existed before merger. We are CIO Industrial rather than AFL independent craft groups.
Having reached consensus on the proposals at the committee, it is my strong belief that committee members are obligated to support those actions on the Convention floor. That is what I did, and I stand by that decision and those actions taken in support of the committee’s positions.
Was there an attempt for Empire Building for the Retiree Department? Absolutely! The attempt to double the size of the department officer staff, give a whopping salary increase to the Director, and put the Director on the Executive Board is Empire Building. That is my firm conclusion, and I stand by it.
What was not included in the previous post was the financial profile explanation I gave at the Retiree Department meeting prior to the Convention, which by the way was distributed to each Convention delegate before the financial issues were discussed. I stated that while eliminating offices and denying additional staffing elsewhere, it was unwise and counterproductive to seek enlargement of the Retiree Department and the other increases. In making that statement, I acknowledged that I had made similar proposals in the past, but in light of the larger picture, including decreased and decreasing complement and revenue, now was not the time to try to advance the Retiree ‘package’. The response? The meeting prioritized the proposals for later action. I did not participate in that activity. As was stated in our report, the die was cast.
Reference was made in the above post about the proposal I made at the previous Convention to redefine the Retiree Department along the lines of the PPA. I am surprised that there was no comment that I amended the dues increase proposal to include retirees at this Convention. The above poster obviously lacks the capacity for strategic thought! The first proposal was made to highlight what I believe is a flawed concept that retiree dues somehow belong to the Retiree Department, not the Union as a whole. The proposal failed, as was the intent, but the purpose had been achieved. The second proposal was to draw attention to a misguided attempt to raise dues. For what it is worth, after my amendment was made, a Regional Coordinator approached me, stating it was a brilliant move to insure that the proposal would fail, which it did.
On a personal note, anyone that knows my history in the Union must find it laughable to suggest that I am beholden to any officer. My history is one of independence. that is the way I interacted with Stu Filbey, Emmett Andrews, Moe Biller, Bill Burrus, and Cliff Guffey. A puppet? Nothing new here!
The Convention is over. Time to lick the wounds and prepare for 2016 However, if it is a desire to continue this dialogue, let the good times roll.