Re: Witch Hunt -- Wire-Nut's IBEW Chat Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:30:38 05/30/03 Fri
Author: Wire-Nut
Author Host/IP: kmcdial-77.c-gate.net / 209.205.149.77
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt
In reply to: Visitor 's message, "Witch Hunt" on 23:57:57 05/17/03 Sat

Well, you didn't say where you heard about this, but I would like to commend you for your source. The way you told it is pretty much what happened. I know because I was there. I was one of the ones who wasn't charged. I was a non-working foreman over a cable pulling crew and handled part of the field engineer's job as well. The first set of charges filed were incorrect. The charges were for violating sections of Article 15, not Article 25. I went to the trial board and was sitting there when Wayne told one of the men that the whole thing was going to be dropped. "Put it to bed," was the way he said it.

The original charges were filed on three people. I never met one of them. He had left before I hired in. I'm not sure whether that hand was working his tools or not. I'm also not sure what the outcome was for him. Like I said, he left before I got there, and I don't recall seeing a third person at the trial board.

As far as I know, the second set of charges were only filed on one person. The second worker who had been charged the first time, said he never received the letter informing him of the new set of charges. (Once again, I don't know anything about the third worker.) I know that the member who Wayne got to file the charges the second time was an organized member who has only been in the union a few years. (No offense is intended by pointing this out. I too came into the union through organization about 5 1/2 years ago.) My point is this; why was this guy chosen to re-file the charges rather than some long standing union member, or official? I can't help but wonder if it was because officials other than Wayne knew, or were suspicious, that something wasn't quite right with the whole deal and they didn't want to be involved. Granted, that is all speculation on my part, but it fits the facts, and it is enough to make a person stop and wonder.

There was also a fifth IBEW member on that job site who was most definitely on his tools. I know this for a fact because he was in my crew. He was there about a week and a half or two weeks. He's the one who took it upon himself to tell the Hall we were all working there. He must have forgotten to mention that we were all supervisors and that he was the one working his tools. The Hall told him to drag up and they would put him on a Salt Job. He did quit, but the Salt Job they sent him to didn't pan out. Then, believe it or not, he calls up one of the guys who got charged and started whimpering about quitting his job, not getting the Salt Job, and losing his unemployment benefits because he quit a job.

As it stands right now, one Wireman has told the Hall to take his ticket and shove it up their.... well, let's just say it would be a slightly uncomfortable fit. And, yes, that Wireman's ticket is about twenty years old. Incidentally, I talked to that man a few days ago and he says that he has received a letter from the hall informing him that he has been fined $5,000. I haven't seen the letter personally, but he told me the fine was for violating sections of Article 25, working for a non-union company. Apparently, they didn't put that ticket where he told them to.

Now it seems a little odd to me that two people were charged with the same thing, (Don't forget that for some reason, I wasn't charged with anything at all) the charges are dropped against one, and the other is hit with a five grand fine. There's definitely something strange going on. I'm not sure yet whether this is some kind of abuse of power, a case of charges being filed by the hall without first having all of the facts, just a complete SNAFU and mis-understanding or whether it is something else entirely. When I find out, and I will find out eventually, or if I learn anything more regarding all of this, I'll post the findings into this thread. The Hall may not like that too much, but this site isn't run by the Hall. This site is for the use of IBEW members for whatever reasons they need it for.

Wire-Nut

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]