|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
UGSOA President Jim Vissar Lies to Its Members! |
Current rating: 0 |
by Officer Carter Washington D.C.
Email: UGSOA (nospam) AOL.COM (verified) |
24 Apr 2004
|
|
Why does our UGSOA President have to lie? |
OPEN LETTER TO J. VISSAR UGSOA PRESIDENT:
As a totally dissatisfied member of UGSOA, I am disgusted with the lies, half truths and lack of service to my fellow officers from our UGSOA union. Because of this I am sharing my research on accusations and claims being made by our invisible President J. Vissar. We are all fed up and prepared to get out of this worthless, dishonest union, and this in part is why!
Let's just start at the beginning of this year. In January our dishonest President put out a "letter to all UGSOA members" on the website. In it, Vissar makes several statements and accusations about other unions, so me and the some of the other officers checked out his claims.
Vissar said in his letter to us "last year, the SPFPA wanted to merge with us. We refused and so they tried raiding our locals." This made no sense to us as our investigation of the SPFPA union showed that they had over 20,000 members. Now why would a big union want to merge with our union of less than 4,000 (according to LM's)?
The truth is SPFPA wanted Vissar and the UGSOA to merge with them. They say to create a larger, more effective union to speak for everyone. That makes sense to us, but even if it didn't Vissar is still a liar! Why does our President have lie to us? Is it because we, as a union, are losing so many members because of his poor leadership? We have checked, and it's true. UGSOA locals in California, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and others all want out, or to at least not have to pay dues for a service we don't get.
Vissar also said in his letter to us 'I would not spend our money to fight these rumors." Well, he sure isn't spending it to service us, so why not? I actually put in a call to see if I could get a response to my unit's feelings about UGSOA, and Vissar wouldn't even take my call, nor would he call me back. Is this what we pay for? I don't think so!
Just so you know, I was challenged to call the other union to see if anyone would talk to me. When the secretary answered the phone, I told her I was with UGSOA and wanted to speak to the President. Within minutes, a man named David Hickey answered the phone (the SPFPA President). He asked my name (which I refused to give), but he understood and asked "how can I help you today?" I'm not even in their union, and he's asking how he can help. Isn't that what our union should be asking? Apparently Vissar doesn't think so.
Officer Carter Washington D.C. |
See also:
http://www.SPFPA.org
http://www.hm.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7213
|
This work is in the public domain |
|
SPFPA fails to Represent again |
by Steve
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jan 2005
|
Port Jervis, NY (December 16, 2004) - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in New York has issued a formal complaint against the Security Police Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union for unlawfully refusing to adequately detail the union’s expenditures, and subsequently threatening to have a local worker fired for refusing to pay full union dues. The NLRB Region 2 Director scheduled a hearing to prosecute the union after union officials failed to live up to an earlier promise to end related unfair labor practices.
With the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, Richard Grogan, a local security guard, alleges that SPFPA union officials failed to provide him with an independent audit of union expenditures as required by law, and that a union official illegally threatened him with termination for failure to allow the seizure of full union dues from his paycheck.
Richard Grogan originally filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against the SPFPA union in April 2004. While the charges were initially dropped by NLRB Region 2, they have now been re-instituted due to SPFPA officials’ refusal to honor the promise they made to NLRB Region 2.
An employee of Orange Regional Medical Center, Grogan notified union officials that he wished to resign his membership and objected to paying any dues or fees for nonrepresentational activities in December 2003. Since then, union officials have denied Grogan his right not to subsidize union politics by failing to provide a legally mandated independent audit of union expenditures.
“Union officials want workers like these to simply shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rather than respect the rights of workers they claim to represent, union officials are bullying workers to pay for their political electioneering.”
The actions of the union hierarchy violated employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and their right not to be forced to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.
NLRB Region 2 has now scheduled a February 22, 2005, hearing date to prosecute the SPFPA union for its unlawful practices. |
|
What a Lie Is |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jan 2005
|
I can't speak to the dispute between USGOA and SPFPA, but just for the record, but it is a lie that the "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation" supports the rights of workers. It's a boss's organization whose sole objective is to undermine the rights of workers to have strong unions.
However, workers who want to defend their rights and who know more about the dispute between USGOA and SPFPA can take the support of "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation" as a clue to the side they do NOT want to be on. |
|
Re: UGSOA President Jim Vissar Lies to Its Members! |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jan 2005
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree with ML. Going to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for legal advice to enhance workers' rights is akin to a union seeking accounting advice from Arthur Andersen. The National Right to Work movement is headed up and nearly entirely funded by business people and attorneys whose goal it is to weaken the rights of workers at work, and reduce the obligations that employers should have to their employees. This is not to say that there are not some bad unions and some bad union leaders. However, there are plenty of good and independent attorneys to hire rather than cavorting with the National Right to Work Foundation, a pit of vipers that would just as soon eat the labor movement. Good god, some people will never learn. |
