Dear Sister Gleason,
I see it is necessary for me to clarify some of the ideas that I have for the
future of the Local since you have clearly missed the point on most of them. In
your critique of my platform it is obvious that your knowledge of running a
local union, or your understanding of how benefit funds operate leaves a lot to
be desired. Before answering your response I should also point out that you ran
for the office of president "unopposed" and never put out to the general
membership your ideas for the future of Local 798 as I did. I will address or
clarify some of your concerns point by point, and along the way I have some
questions for you.
Sister Gleason in your response you said that I proposed merging Local
798 with other Locals. You then went on and on explaining why as you said "this
would be the death of all Locals". You couldn't be more wrong. First of all I
never used the word merge that was your word, not mine. Secondly, I was
not talking about merging Local 798 the Union. What I stated was
that other Health Funds attached to other IATSE Locals might be interested in
streamlining their operations by combining the administration of those Funds. If
it made sense to merge our Fund with another Fund so that the membership can be
better served, what would be wrong with that? That is perfectly legal under
ERISA. You claim to have vast experience in labor matters, but it would seem
that you are unaware that the Union, Local 798, is a separate entity from the
Health Fund with a separate tax I.D. number and separate filings. Although you
constantly rant about the Local being in a financial "crisis" it is not.
According to the 2004 LM - 2 the Local has nearly 2 million dollars in assets.
Your characterization of my proposal to merge Local 798 with any
other Local is totally off base. Let me be clear to you. I never said we
should merge Local 798 with any other Local and I am against doing so.
Membership Involvement
As you and your cohorts have continually pointed out, I like most members did
not attend meetings in the past. Members don't attend meetings for a variety of
reasons. More than half our membership is out of state and that is why I
proposed meetings in those jurisdictions. Many members might be unavailable
because they have second jobs, or child care issues. Some members feel that the
leadership of their union ignores any input or concerns that they might have.
Even worse, they fear retribution for speaking out. It is clear Sister Kelly
that you and the "Concerned Members Caucus” proscribe to that practice. Let me
explain. When I decided to run for Secretary / Treasurer I did so because I
truly felt that I would be an asset to the membership of the Local. I intended
to run a clean campaign and put forth some ideas for the future. Within two days
the insults began. I was called a "hurricane trying to get in your pocket” “a
spoiler”, a “joker in the deck”, and “ignorant”. And those remarks were made
mostly by some of our newly “elected” unopposed executive board. In addition,
friends and family who have volunteered their time to make phone calls to Local
798 members on my behalf were called “sleazy telemarketers”. Tell me Sister
Gleason, is this the kind of abuse our members should look forward to if they
disagree with the direction you steer this Local? Do you think there is going to
be membership involvement if the members' perception of the executive board is
that everything must be done their way and only their way? It is not for me
alone to get members involved, but as their Secretary / Treasurer I will make
sure that each and every member be heard if they so wish, without being
belittled or insulted.
Recently I requested copies of the minutes of the general membership meetings
for the last four years to review. Interestingly enough according to the sign
in sheets for those meetings President Gleason, I did not see that you,
Vice-President Bryn, Trustee DeNicola, or Secretary / Treasurer Candidate
Cuervo, attended any meetings in 2002, 2003, and most of 2004. To her credit
Sergeant At Arms Gladstone attended most if not all of those meetings. My point
is that meeting attendance alone does not qualify you for a leadership role in a
union, because if it did all those I mentioned would be unqualified. How I chose
to spend my time in interacting with the membership in anticipation of running
for office was my prerogative. Because I did not want to be part of your
“Concerned Members' Caucus” does not make me unqualified or a bad person. The
members will vote for who they want representing them, as it should be.
Contracts and Benefits
I am astounded that you could reject my proposal that the general membership
have a voice in compiling contract proposals. Even more astounding is you say
that most members are not interested in attending contract negotiations for fear
of retribution. How do you know this? Are you and the rest of the executive
board afraid to sit across the table from management? I know I'm not. Are you
saying that you are too weak or unable to protect members who want to be
involved in the negotiating process? You said that “if a contract is negotiated
right you will not exactly be the best friend of production”. Maybe you are
looking to make friends with production, I am not. I will be there to do a job
for the membership and I believe there are many good people willing to serve on
the negotiating committee.
Health Insurance
Wow! Where do I start with your response to my views on health insurance? In #2
of your response you claim that
John Hall approached the IA earlier this year about Local 798 members
participating in the IA health plans, but that the IA refused to accept us. What
reason was John Hall given as to why we could not participate? Did you ask? Did
he give you any reason? I think the members deserve an answer.
#3 of your response states that the "welfare fund is in such bad shape because
the last Trustees did not negotiate a better plan. What do you mean by this? Are
you claiming that they had an ability to negotiate a plan with better benefits?
Wouldn't that cost more money? Are you saying that the Trustees should reduce
benefits? Who were the Trustees negotiating with? You then go on to say that the
Trustees siphoned off the reserve fund for the last ten years. If this is true,
the former Trustees must have been doing something right to build a reserve that
could cover shortfalls for ten years. My review of the Health Funds 2003 Form
5500 (the required filing for such a fund under ERISA) shows that the Fund was
reduced by $408,793.00 in 2003 and $1,028,262.00 in 2004. However at the end of
2004 we still maintained a somewhat healthy reserve of $7,133,589.00. Obviously
the trend of losing money must be seriously addressed and reversed. As I stated
in my platform, higher contributions by the Employers is a must. Plan designs
and eligibility need to be evaluated. The actuaries from the Segal Company, our
Fund Consultants, can provide this information.
Last, but not least, #4 of your response states “in the next contract
negotiation the BA will have to try to increase our P&W instead of a pay
raise”. Sister Gleason as the President of this Local and a member of
the Executive Board why are you setting the stage for us to get wage freezes for
the next three years of our contract? Do you not understand that the
contributions to the P&W Funds are based on a percentage of gross earnings??? If
our pay goes up, so does the contribution. We need and deserve both wage
increases and a higher percentage of our gross earnings contributed to the P&W
Funds. With contracts expiring at different times we need to keep our eye on the
ball and have a full understanding as to what amounts must be negotiated to fund
our benefits.
Real Estate
As far as the real estate issue is concerned, my position is that whatever is
decided by the Real Estate Committee or the Executive Board, that decision
with full disclosure should only be acted upon after a vote by the entire
membership. By that I mean not a vote at a general membership meeting where the
possibility of a small group of members makes the final decision. The vote
should be by mail, just like the election of officers.
Furthermore the idea of a salon was just that, an idea. Isn't that what this
union wants, a little vision? #1 realistically, how would all 1200+ members
possibly work there? However I know people that come from out of state for 1 day
a month to do 15 clients and go home with 1500.00 for the day. Not bad wouldn't
you say? Maybe the membership outside the Tri - State wouldn't mind renting and
being a part of their own investment. Or we could just rent it out to an outside
tenant and not gain anything from the space at all but an extra check every
month. Keep in mind tenants will more than likely not take care of it the way we
will. Instead it can be used for the members that have a license or be incentive
for others to obtain their license #2&3 it doesn't cost a lot of money to start
a salon. At an average startup cost of $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 for every 1000
square feet of space, a salon can easily generate $250,000 per year, (gross).
The liability insurance is only a couple of hundred dollars per year. #5 many
people left the salon as well and switched to production work. How can you speak
for the entire membership? Did you call everyone since my mention of it, only
days ago? #6 what does Richard Callaghan have to do with renting out the first
floor to our membership towards bettering themselves, there creativity, our
Local and acting as landlords. I know it would be a great place for members to
supplement their income on a steady basis, especially if there is no work for
them in production. And I can't think of a better place for an educational
program with scheduled workshops than in our own home.
In conclusion, it is obvious that we do not see eye to eye on every issue.
However, I know that it will be in the best interests of the membership if there
is a dissenting voice on the Executive Board from time to time. Consider it a
checks and balances for the good of the membership. The last thing we need on
the Executive Board is a bunch of yes men or yes women. That's what you say
happened in the past and led to problems.
PS: I would like to address your statement that “All members have felt slighted
in Local 798 for many years. We were all without proper representation”. I think
I should point out to you and the voting membership that Candidate Joe Cuervo
was part of those Executive Boards for according to him at least twelve (12)
years. He either agreed with how the Local was being run, or he sat idly by
while as you say the Local delved into a crisis situation. Did his silence speak
his consent? And by the way, why is it that you are responding to my platform
and not Candidate Cuervo? Are you running for a second office? Or do you speak
for him?
© 2005 798members.com updated: 02/25/2006