satellitedriver
Senior Member
They say Ginko-Biloba supplements help with brain function and memory loss.
97 Flashback
- Thread starter 705red
- Start date
ExupserNaples
Well-Known Member
My brain function is fine with no memory loss. To what are you referring to satellite. I was on the line for those two weeks were you?
satellitedriver
Senior Member
Yep, I was.
Monday,I went back to work.
If you can not grasp my reference, then maybe you should try some ginko and research what was lost in 97'.
PAX
tieguy
Banned
Don't remember I'm still thinking about these pensions carey said were keepers ten years ago. Its a shame he got indicted on his little money scheme. I would have like to see him hang around until 2003 so he could go down with his ship. More then likely he would have pushed someones wife out of the way as he jumped on a lifeboat.
How would you know? You were never allowed to see, or vote on this offer. The union decided for you that it was not good and told you to strike. Hello???
tieguy
Banned
thats ok as long as the union does not tell them its a good offer.
One of the popular fairy tales woven in the video was that the strike got us to change our offer. In fact there was no offer until it was clear that Carey was going to walk no matter what. We had people out at least two weeks before the strike warning the customers.
The teamsters did not even submit their economic requests until the last week of july days before the contract was due to expire.
So at some point its clear Careys got one thing on his mind , one thing only and the company puts together their last, best , final with the hope of getting federal mediation. In order to get federal mediation you have to have a last , best final offer on the table.
Little did we and ron carey know that the mediation would come in the form of threats from the then labor secretary.
The end result was some of the sloppiest written contract language ever requiring years of litigation.
J
JonFrum
Guest
Actually, it wasn't Ron Carey's "little money scheme."
And, not surprisingly, he was never indited for it. Something about a total lack of evidence.
But if you have any evidence that he was involved, please, please post it. The US Attorney, and especially the long-suffering Hoffa people would love to see it. It would also get the IRB off the hook, because as it stands now, they destroyed an innocent man's career and reputation, and derailed the reform movement in the Teamsters Union. Personally, I'd like to see everyone involved in that witch-hunt prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
J
JonFrum
Guest
No sane person would have expected Federal Mediation. Federal Mediation is a common feature of the Railway Labor Act, not the National Labor Relations Act, under which we fell. The Labor Secretary basically told you to grow up, and handle your problems like a man. I sense she hurt your feelings.
tieguy
Banned
The evidence was there. If you like Ron Carey then you convince yourself that his subordinates lied when they said Carey knew. I don't believe they make that up just to save their skins. Carey won his freedom in a courtroom. If a total lack of evidence then he would not be banned for life from the teamsters a decision upheld by the court of appeals.
Typical response. You mistrust the company but somehow try to convince yourself your leader is an angel.
tieguy
Banned
The labor manager threated both the union and the company with increased government oversight and auditing.
Speaking of growing up do you think you might ever starting respecting this site by getting a membership?
tieguy
Banned
you guys fry management for less but run to his defense when the guy was crooked as they get. If you're going to talk about integrity then you have to apply it to your guys too.
J
JonFrum
Guest
There was no evidence, that's why he was never even charged. But what the government did do was indite him on a trumpted-up charge of lying because he consistently maintained his innocence.
Tie, imagine that the government wrongly accused you of a crime. They put you under oath and repeatedly ask you about your crime. You repeatedly deny it and insist that you are innocent. They then bypass the original "crime" and indite you on multiple perjury charges for lying about a "crime" that they haven't even charged you with, or proven was committed by you. Doesn't that seem unconstitutional? Shouldn't the government be required to prove you guilty of the crime first, before they can consider your repeated denial of involvement as additional crimes?
Carey was found Not Guilty. Usually a "Not Guilty" verdict means the guy is probably guilty, but the prosecution was ineffective, or didn't prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, once in a while, a Not Guilty verdict means the guy was really Innocent!!!
The evidence wasn't there. The witnesses against Carey were a disaster. The case crumbled like a house of cards. And the jury concluded he was innocent.
Carey was earlier banned for life from the Teamsters because the three-member IRB thought he must be guilty. They didn't need proof. Apparently, they just felt it in their bones. They believed witnesses who were later discredited at Carey's perjury trial. I don't fault them for making a mistake. But I do say they should be prosecuted for not correcting their wopper of a mistake once the truth came out at trial.
It's also kinda scary: this unAmerican "banned for life" thing. Scary both because it's literally For Life, (something the courts usually can't even muster when dealing with repeat murders); and because it also applies to all of us Teamsters! Tie, you can legally speak to Ron Carey, but Teamsters have committed a crime if they do! On the other hand, I can call or visit all the murders, rapists, and child molesters in prison I want. What's wrong with this picture?
Tie, imagine that the government wrongly accused you of a crime. They put you under oath and repeatedly ask you about your crime. You repeatedly deny it and insist that you are innocent. They then bypass the original "crime" and indite you on multiple perjury charges for lying about a "crime" that they haven't even charged you with, or proven was committed by you. Doesn't that seem unconstitutional? Shouldn't the government be required to prove you guilty of the crime first, before they can consider your repeated denial of involvement as additional crimes?
Carey was found Not Guilty. Usually a "Not Guilty" verdict means the guy is probably guilty, but the prosecution was ineffective, or didn't prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, once in a while, a Not Guilty verdict means the guy was really Innocent!!!
The evidence wasn't there. The witnesses against Carey were a disaster. The case crumbled like a house of cards. And the jury concluded he was innocent.
Carey was earlier banned for life from the Teamsters because the three-member IRB thought he must be guilty. They didn't need proof. Apparently, they just felt it in their bones. They believed witnesses who were later discredited at Carey's perjury trial. I don't fault them for making a mistake. But I do say they should be prosecuted for not correcting their wopper of a mistake once the truth came out at trial.
It's also kinda scary: this unAmerican "banned for life" thing. Scary both because it's literally For Life, (something the courts usually can't even muster when dealing with repeat murders); and because it also applies to all of us Teamsters! Tie, you can legally speak to Ron Carey, but Teamsters have committed a crime if they do! On the other hand, I can call or visit all the murders, rapists, and child molesters in prison I want. What's wrong with this picture?
J
JonFrum
Guest
For The Record - Part 1
An eyewitness account of Ron Carey's trial . . .
[Edited version. Emphasis added. This six-year-old article is no longer online, so I can't provide a link. Sorry.]
The Trials of Ron Carey, Teamster Politics and Its Meaning
by Marilyn Vogt-Downey
On Friday, October 12, 2001 a jury of 4 men and 8 women in Manhattan found Ron Carey, the first democratically elected President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), not guilty on all seven counts of perjury—lying to or concealing information from investigating authorities. The seven counts were contained in a federal indictment handed down on January 25, 2001, by the U.S. District Court Southern District. The seven counts together cited several dozen instances ("stipulations") when the U.S. government claimed Ron Carey allegedly lied or concealed information. They charged he consistently denied any knowledge of or participation in schemes to illegally use IBT treasury funds to finance his 1996 successful campaign for reelection to the union's top post.
Each count was based on statements Ron Carey had made when testifying about these matters at various times over a five-month period. Over this period from July 16, 1997, through January 22, 1998, he testified before two different Election Officers (EO), three times before the Internal Review Board (IRB) Chief Investigator or the IRB, and twice before a federal grand jury. Both the EO and the IRB were imposed on the IBT by the 1989 Consent Decree giving the U.S. government extensive powers inside the IBT.
Seven Charges But Not Seven Different Crimes
In other words, the Prosecution was not charging Ron Carey with seven different crimes. The government was prosecuting him seven times for the same thing: consistently asserting that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. Each charge carried a punishment of 5 years in prison. If convicted of all charges, the 64-year-old Carey could have faced a 35-year prison term. The Prosecution was trying to force him to plea-bargain: plead guilty to some of the counts in return for a reduced sentence. But he refused to give up the fight to prove his innocence and clear his name.
No Charge of Embezzlement
It must be emphasized that the U.S. government was not charging Ron Carey with embezzlement of union funds or conspiring to embezzle union funds although his guilt of such charges was assumed in the indictment. Therefore, the government did not have to try to prove Ron was guilty of such charges. This is very significant because it was in connection with such charges and on the basis of such charges that the Consent Decree officials had already succeeded in seriously victimizing Ron Carey and carrying out far-reaching measures since 1997 by:
Annulling Ron Carey's 1996 election victory for union reformers over James Hoffa Jr. and the destructive Old Guard and their ilk,
Denying Ron Carey the right to be a candidate in the rerun of the election in 1998 and denying IBT members the right to vote for him,
Expelling Ron Carey from the IBT for life, and
Denying him the right to even associate with IBT members.
When due process was finally allowed to Ron Carey, the jury found Ron Carey not guilty on October 12 because, despite all the measures the U.S. government had taken against him, the Prosecution's case was a sham.
Campaign Embezzlement Schemes Uncovered
In connection with Carey's [1996] reelection, the defeated Hoffa slate and the corrupt and bought-off officials who clung to him, along with the remnants of the Old Guard, began filing objections with the EO [Election Officer], Barbara Zach Quindel. As a consequence of these, she postponed certifying Carey's election victory. Evidence of abuse of union funds by the Carey Campaign soon began to emerge. In the end, the attention came to be focused on what was termed "swap schemes" and other contributions from non-IBT members and employers that violated the EO's Election Rules. What follows is a summary of what took place based on information in the Indictment against Ron Carey, the ruling of EO Kenneth Conboy in November 1997, and testimony at trial of Ron Carey.
The three people who were actually responsible for the embezzlement schemes were not members of the IBT but hired staff working on the Carey Campaign. One was Jere Nash, who had been hired by Ron Carey to be the Campaign Manager. Another was Martin Davis who worked for The November Group, Inc., a direct-mail outfit hired by the Campaign to prepare and distribute campaign materials. The third was Michael Ansara of a telemarketing outfit called The Share Group, Inc. The three—Nash, Davis, and Ansara—cooked up schemes to use the Campaign to raise funds for themselves. In late 1995, Ron Carey hired The November Group, which had done some work for the reform slate campaign in 1991, to work on the 1996 Campaign to reelect Ron Carey. In February 1996, Ron Carey hired Jere Nash to be the full-time director of this Campaign. And in April 1996, The November Group hired Michael Ansara and The Share Group to help it. Nash was a public relations consultant who had worked for the Carey administration before and evidently had a reputation for aggressive campaigning when he worked for various Democratic Party candidates.
Victims of a Web of Deceit
What Ron Carey did not know and what no one else on the Campaign staff or the Carey administration knew at the time was that while Nash was allegedly supposed to be working full-time for the Carey Campaign for a salary of $2,500 per month, he was also working for The November Group for a salary of $8,000 per month from April through June (allegedly part-time) and for $18,000 per month to work for them full-time from August through November, the final months of the Campaign. Furthermore, Nash not only worked for The November Group; but he was in charge of the Carey Campaign account at The November Group. In addition, it was revealed at the trial that Nash's contract with The November Group provided lavish perks like first-class air travel for Nash and his family between Mississippi, where they lived, and Washington D.C., where campaign headquarters were located. And in December 1996, Nash got a $50,000 bonus!
In the spring, summer, and fall of 1996, Martin Davis, Michael Ansara, and Jere Nash came up with several illegal ways to raise Campaign funds, which would be funneled to The November Group, i.e., to themselves. One was soliciting funds from other union leaders. This is illegal and against the EO's election rules and would have been vetoed by the Carey Campaign's legal counsel and by Ron Carey had they been informed of such a plan. Under federal and EO rules, union leaders are considered "employers," who are not allowed to contribute to union election campaigns. The other was "swap schemes": to contribute union funds legally to non-profit or political action organizations and arrange that, in return, wealthy individuals who support these organizations or even the organizations themselves would contribute a certain lesser amount to the Campaign.
None of these guys were supposed to have their hands in the IBT General Treasury. Nash, as Campaign Director, had authority to engage in Campaign fundraising and help decide how Campaign funds should best be spent, but Martin Davis and Michael Ansara were not authorized to and had no business doing official Campaign fundraising. As a result of such "swap schemes," the Indictment against Carey states, a total of $885,000 of IBT General Treasury funds were allegedly spent in roughly the last two weeks of October and the first days of November 1996 in return for $360,000 that came into an account called Teamsters for a Corruption-Free Union (TCFU). The TCFU was set up legally to receive non-IBT Campaign contributions; but it also received funds solicited illegally by Nash, Davis, and Ansara through these schemes for The November Group.
- -Continued below- -
An eyewitness account of Ron Carey's trial . . .
[Edited version. Emphasis added. This six-year-old article is no longer online, so I can't provide a link. Sorry.]
The Trials of Ron Carey, Teamster Politics and Its Meaning
by Marilyn Vogt-Downey
On Friday, October 12, 2001 a jury of 4 men and 8 women in Manhattan found Ron Carey, the first democratically elected President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), not guilty on all seven counts of perjury—lying to or concealing information from investigating authorities. The seven counts were contained in a federal indictment handed down on January 25, 2001, by the U.S. District Court Southern District. The seven counts together cited several dozen instances ("stipulations") when the U.S. government claimed Ron Carey allegedly lied or concealed information. They charged he consistently denied any knowledge of or participation in schemes to illegally use IBT treasury funds to finance his 1996 successful campaign for reelection to the union's top post.
Each count was based on statements Ron Carey had made when testifying about these matters at various times over a five-month period. Over this period from July 16, 1997, through January 22, 1998, he testified before two different Election Officers (EO), three times before the Internal Review Board (IRB) Chief Investigator or the IRB, and twice before a federal grand jury. Both the EO and the IRB were imposed on the IBT by the 1989 Consent Decree giving the U.S. government extensive powers inside the IBT.
Seven Charges But Not Seven Different Crimes
In other words, the Prosecution was not charging Ron Carey with seven different crimes. The government was prosecuting him seven times for the same thing: consistently asserting that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. Each charge carried a punishment of 5 years in prison. If convicted of all charges, the 64-year-old Carey could have faced a 35-year prison term. The Prosecution was trying to force him to plea-bargain: plead guilty to some of the counts in return for a reduced sentence. But he refused to give up the fight to prove his innocence and clear his name.
No Charge of Embezzlement
It must be emphasized that the U.S. government was not charging Ron Carey with embezzlement of union funds or conspiring to embezzle union funds although his guilt of such charges was assumed in the indictment. Therefore, the government did not have to try to prove Ron was guilty of such charges. This is very significant because it was in connection with such charges and on the basis of such charges that the Consent Decree officials had already succeeded in seriously victimizing Ron Carey and carrying out far-reaching measures since 1997 by:
Annulling Ron Carey's 1996 election victory for union reformers over James Hoffa Jr. and the destructive Old Guard and their ilk,
Denying Ron Carey the right to be a candidate in the rerun of the election in 1998 and denying IBT members the right to vote for him,
Expelling Ron Carey from the IBT for life, and
Denying him the right to even associate with IBT members.
When due process was finally allowed to Ron Carey, the jury found Ron Carey not guilty on October 12 because, despite all the measures the U.S. government had taken against him, the Prosecution's case was a sham.
Campaign Embezzlement Schemes Uncovered
In connection with Carey's [1996] reelection, the defeated Hoffa slate and the corrupt and bought-off officials who clung to him, along with the remnants of the Old Guard, began filing objections with the EO [Election Officer], Barbara Zach Quindel. As a consequence of these, she postponed certifying Carey's election victory. Evidence of abuse of union funds by the Carey Campaign soon began to emerge. In the end, the attention came to be focused on what was termed "swap schemes" and other contributions from non-IBT members and employers that violated the EO's Election Rules. What follows is a summary of what took place based on information in the Indictment against Ron Carey, the ruling of EO Kenneth Conboy in November 1997, and testimony at trial of Ron Carey.
The three people who were actually responsible for the embezzlement schemes were not members of the IBT but hired staff working on the Carey Campaign. One was Jere Nash, who had been hired by Ron Carey to be the Campaign Manager. Another was Martin Davis who worked for The November Group, Inc., a direct-mail outfit hired by the Campaign to prepare and distribute campaign materials. The third was Michael Ansara of a telemarketing outfit called The Share Group, Inc. The three—Nash, Davis, and Ansara—cooked up schemes to use the Campaign to raise funds for themselves. In late 1995, Ron Carey hired The November Group, which had done some work for the reform slate campaign in 1991, to work on the 1996 Campaign to reelect Ron Carey. In February 1996, Ron Carey hired Jere Nash to be the full-time director of this Campaign. And in April 1996, The November Group hired Michael Ansara and The Share Group to help it. Nash was a public relations consultant who had worked for the Carey administration before and evidently had a reputation for aggressive campaigning when he worked for various Democratic Party candidates.
Victims of a Web of Deceit
What Ron Carey did not know and what no one else on the Campaign staff or the Carey administration knew at the time was that while Nash was allegedly supposed to be working full-time for the Carey Campaign for a salary of $2,500 per month, he was also working for The November Group for a salary of $8,000 per month from April through June (allegedly part-time) and for $18,000 per month to work for them full-time from August through November, the final months of the Campaign. Furthermore, Nash not only worked for The November Group; but he was in charge of the Carey Campaign account at The November Group. In addition, it was revealed at the trial that Nash's contract with The November Group provided lavish perks like first-class air travel for Nash and his family between Mississippi, where they lived, and Washington D.C., where campaign headquarters were located. And in December 1996, Nash got a $50,000 bonus!
In the spring, summer, and fall of 1996, Martin Davis, Michael Ansara, and Jere Nash came up with several illegal ways to raise Campaign funds, which would be funneled to The November Group, i.e., to themselves. One was soliciting funds from other union leaders. This is illegal and against the EO's election rules and would have been vetoed by the Carey Campaign's legal counsel and by Ron Carey had they been informed of such a plan. Under federal and EO rules, union leaders are considered "employers," who are not allowed to contribute to union election campaigns. The other was "swap schemes": to contribute union funds legally to non-profit or political action organizations and arrange that, in return, wealthy individuals who support these organizations or even the organizations themselves would contribute a certain lesser amount to the Campaign.
None of these guys were supposed to have their hands in the IBT General Treasury. Nash, as Campaign Director, had authority to engage in Campaign fundraising and help decide how Campaign funds should best be spent, but Martin Davis and Michael Ansara were not authorized to and had no business doing official Campaign fundraising. As a result of such "swap schemes," the Indictment against Carey states, a total of $885,000 of IBT General Treasury funds were allegedly spent in roughly the last two weeks of October and the first days of November 1996 in return for $360,000 that came into an account called Teamsters for a Corruption-Free Union (TCFU). The TCFU was set up legally to receive non-IBT Campaign contributions; but it also received funds solicited illegally by Nash, Davis, and Ansara through these schemes for The November Group.
- -Continued below- -
J
JonFrum
Guest
FOR THE RECORD - Part 2
- -Continued- -
This raises the question of why so much money was allegedly needed by the Campaign. In the summer of 1996, Ansara (who technically did not even work for the Campaign), Davis (who was not hired by the Campaign to raise funds but to prepare campaign materials and get them out), and Nash (wearing the hats of BOTH Campaign Director and Account Executive for the Carey Campaign Account at The November Group, which was employed by the Campaign) agreed that Nash should propose that the Campaign do a direct mailing to the 1.4 million IBT members. They agreed to raise $700,000 for this purpose with Nash to contribute $300,000 from the Campaign.
What the Carey Trial Showed
The key witnesses to back the State's claims that Ron Carey lied were the same ones used by Conboy against Carey in his November 1997 ruling, i.e., Jere Nash, William Hamilton, and Monie Simpkins. But the prosecutors definitely encountered some big problems when they tried to make their case seem credible to a jury.
Prosecution Problem No. 1: Jere Nash
Jere Nash, who has pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges since 1997, did not come to testify from prison. If he is to be believed, he has his own consulting firm doing public relations in Mississippi, just as he always did. He is not in prison because he pledged to cooperate fully with the Prosecution and provide "substantial" assistance in the prosecution of Ron Carey. If U.S. Prosecutors deem his assistance has been "substantial", they will write what's called "a 5K1 letter" to the judge who presided in his case, recommending leniency in punishment for the charges he pleaded guilty to. This was revealed to the jury by the Prosecution in the course of its examination of him on the witness stand, because jurors legally are supposed to be told of such plea-bargain arrangements. The Defense attorney, however, helped clarify just what kind of a person Jere Nash is during cross-examination by revealing that Nash had lied not once to the Prosecution but on many occasions.
As stated above, Nash pleaded guilty to the four felony counts in September 1997. He was allowed to remain free if he agreed to testify truthfully and commit no further crimes and cooperate fully with the Prosecution in return for a 5K1 letter. However, by 1998, the investigators had uncovered further embezzlement and lies by Nash. In 1999, he admitted he had lied, and he then pleaded guilty to more counts of embezzlement, mail fraud, and false statements. Nevertheless, the Prosecution again allowed him to remain free if he pleaded guilty, spoke truthfully, cooperated fully with the Prosecution, and committed no more crimes; and a 5K1 letter was again promised. Otherwise, he faced a 20-year sentence and a $1,250,000 fine. Any unbiased observer could realize he had a clear incentive to lie for the Prosecution and would have to consider Jere Nash an unreliable witness on the basis of this alone. But there's more.
Despite his criminal past and sleazy qualities, the prosecutors allowed Nash back out on the street and brought him to the witness stand because they needed to use him to try to get Carey. They needed him to substantiate a phony charge that Ron Carey was aware of the illegal schemes and had lied when he denied this. Nash had concocted several versions of how Carey could have learned about the schemes, but by the time of the trial, the Prosecution had evidently disposed of all but the following: that Ron knew of the schemes because they were included in a fundraising chart that Nash claimed he discussed with Ron on several occasions and faxed to him when he was on the road; and because Nash spoke to Carey about the schemes during a very brief telephone conversation "on October 16 or 17," 1996.
Unfortunately for the Prosecution, these two variants were no good either. The problem with the chart testimony is that throughout the investigation in 1997-98, Nash claimed he could not produce this chart because he had erased it from his computer. Nor was the Prosecution able to produce any of the alleged fax copies despite the fact that the Campaign had turned over all materials relating to its finances. In the spring of 1999, however, just when Nash's luck at avoiding prison was running out, when he had little choice but to confess a second time to having lied to prosecutors regarding additional instances of embezzlement of IBT and Campaign funds, Nash suddenly "found" this chart on a floppy disc he claims he failed somehow to turn over to investigators with all the other Campaign materials when the investigation began in 1997. One smelled a rat.
There were big problems with his testimony about the telephone conversation too, because the phone records show that it never took place. He testified at the trial and to the EO in 1997 that he had taken his cell phone outside the Campaign office into the hall on "October 16 or 17" so that he could secure Ron's approval of an illegal contribution without being overheard. It was a short call, he said, of 15-20 seconds, in which he told Ron that if he approved a Citizen Action request, "it would help Martin Davis with the Campaign fundraising." Nash says Ron had responded "Hell, nobody ever told it to me that way," and that Ron had subsequently allegedly approved an even larger contribution to Citizen Action.
The Defense, in cross-examination and in its summary, however, was able to prove on the basis of Nash's own cell phone records—nicely enlarged during summation so the jury could clearly see them—that no such call took place. The only call that could possibly have fit that time frame and description was not made from the Campaign headquarters but from a restaurant. The Defense proved this with Nash's credit card receipt from the restaurant showing the time and date, also nicely enlarged for the jury to see. Nash made the whole story up; the call never took place, the Prosecution knew it, and now the jury did too.
His testimony on many other issues throughout the investigation kept changing, was inconsistent, and contradicted itself as documents produced by the Defense during the trial established. For example, at the trial he testified that he had told Monie Simpkins about the scheme when he met with her. However, in other testimony, he had told investigators he had not met with her but only spoke with her on the phone. Moreover, it seemed that the Defense had uncovered two more instances where Nash cheated and lied that the Prosecution may not have known about: he double-billed for reimbursement of his personal expenses both the Campaign and The November Group and he appears to have cheated the IRS by not properly paying taxes on his December 1996 $50,000 bonus.
All this prevarication was on top of having secretly worked full-time for The November Group for $18,000 per month while the Campaign workers thought he was working full-time for the Campaign and was getting paid $2,500 per month to do so. Lastly, during redirect, when the Prosecutors questioned Nash again after the Defense cross-examined him, his own testimony substantiated Ron Carey's insistence that he did not know about the swap schemes:
"Prosecution: Did you ever tell Ron Carey that individuals would be making deposits into the TCFU in exchange for the contributions to political organizations?
Jere Nash: No.
Prosecutor: Was Ron Carey involved in any way in the swap transaction?
Jere Nash: No Ma'am."
Despite days of coaching, the Prosecution ended up getting no "substantial assistance" against Ron Carey from Jere Nash. Doesn't look good for that 5KI letter.
- -Continued below- -
- -Continued- -
This raises the question of why so much money was allegedly needed by the Campaign. In the summer of 1996, Ansara (who technically did not even work for the Campaign), Davis (who was not hired by the Campaign to raise funds but to prepare campaign materials and get them out), and Nash (wearing the hats of BOTH Campaign Director and Account Executive for the Carey Campaign Account at The November Group, which was employed by the Campaign) agreed that Nash should propose that the Campaign do a direct mailing to the 1.4 million IBT members. They agreed to raise $700,000 for this purpose with Nash to contribute $300,000 from the Campaign.
What the Carey Trial Showed
The key witnesses to back the State's claims that Ron Carey lied were the same ones used by Conboy against Carey in his November 1997 ruling, i.e., Jere Nash, William Hamilton, and Monie Simpkins. But the prosecutors definitely encountered some big problems when they tried to make their case seem credible to a jury.
Prosecution Problem No. 1: Jere Nash
Jere Nash, who has pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges since 1997, did not come to testify from prison. If he is to be believed, he has his own consulting firm doing public relations in Mississippi, just as he always did. He is not in prison because he pledged to cooperate fully with the Prosecution and provide "substantial" assistance in the prosecution of Ron Carey. If U.S. Prosecutors deem his assistance has been "substantial", they will write what's called "a 5K1 letter" to the judge who presided in his case, recommending leniency in punishment for the charges he pleaded guilty to. This was revealed to the jury by the Prosecution in the course of its examination of him on the witness stand, because jurors legally are supposed to be told of such plea-bargain arrangements. The Defense attorney, however, helped clarify just what kind of a person Jere Nash is during cross-examination by revealing that Nash had lied not once to the Prosecution but on many occasions.
As stated above, Nash pleaded guilty to the four felony counts in September 1997. He was allowed to remain free if he agreed to testify truthfully and commit no further crimes and cooperate fully with the Prosecution in return for a 5K1 letter. However, by 1998, the investigators had uncovered further embezzlement and lies by Nash. In 1999, he admitted he had lied, and he then pleaded guilty to more counts of embezzlement, mail fraud, and false statements. Nevertheless, the Prosecution again allowed him to remain free if he pleaded guilty, spoke truthfully, cooperated fully with the Prosecution, and committed no more crimes; and a 5K1 letter was again promised. Otherwise, he faced a 20-year sentence and a $1,250,000 fine. Any unbiased observer could realize he had a clear incentive to lie for the Prosecution and would have to consider Jere Nash an unreliable witness on the basis of this alone. But there's more.
Despite his criminal past and sleazy qualities, the prosecutors allowed Nash back out on the street and brought him to the witness stand because they needed to use him to try to get Carey. They needed him to substantiate a phony charge that Ron Carey was aware of the illegal schemes and had lied when he denied this. Nash had concocted several versions of how Carey could have learned about the schemes, but by the time of the trial, the Prosecution had evidently disposed of all but the following: that Ron knew of the schemes because they were included in a fundraising chart that Nash claimed he discussed with Ron on several occasions and faxed to him when he was on the road; and because Nash spoke to Carey about the schemes during a very brief telephone conversation "on October 16 or 17," 1996.
Unfortunately for the Prosecution, these two variants were no good either. The problem with the chart testimony is that throughout the investigation in 1997-98, Nash claimed he could not produce this chart because he had erased it from his computer. Nor was the Prosecution able to produce any of the alleged fax copies despite the fact that the Campaign had turned over all materials relating to its finances. In the spring of 1999, however, just when Nash's luck at avoiding prison was running out, when he had little choice but to confess a second time to having lied to prosecutors regarding additional instances of embezzlement of IBT and Campaign funds, Nash suddenly "found" this chart on a floppy disc he claims he failed somehow to turn over to investigators with all the other Campaign materials when the investigation began in 1997. One smelled a rat.
There were big problems with his testimony about the telephone conversation too, because the phone records show that it never took place. He testified at the trial and to the EO in 1997 that he had taken his cell phone outside the Campaign office into the hall on "October 16 or 17" so that he could secure Ron's approval of an illegal contribution without being overheard. It was a short call, he said, of 15-20 seconds, in which he told Ron that if he approved a Citizen Action request, "it would help Martin Davis with the Campaign fundraising." Nash says Ron had responded "Hell, nobody ever told it to me that way," and that Ron had subsequently allegedly approved an even larger contribution to Citizen Action.
The Defense, in cross-examination and in its summary, however, was able to prove on the basis of Nash's own cell phone records—nicely enlarged during summation so the jury could clearly see them—that no such call took place. The only call that could possibly have fit that time frame and description was not made from the Campaign headquarters but from a restaurant. The Defense proved this with Nash's credit card receipt from the restaurant showing the time and date, also nicely enlarged for the jury to see. Nash made the whole story up; the call never took place, the Prosecution knew it, and now the jury did too.
His testimony on many other issues throughout the investigation kept changing, was inconsistent, and contradicted itself as documents produced by the Defense during the trial established. For example, at the trial he testified that he had told Monie Simpkins about the scheme when he met with her. However, in other testimony, he had told investigators he had not met with her but only spoke with her on the phone. Moreover, it seemed that the Defense had uncovered two more instances where Nash cheated and lied that the Prosecution may not have known about: he double-billed for reimbursement of his personal expenses both the Campaign and The November Group and he appears to have cheated the IRS by not properly paying taxes on his December 1996 $50,000 bonus.
All this prevarication was on top of having secretly worked full-time for The November Group for $18,000 per month while the Campaign workers thought he was working full-time for the Campaign and was getting paid $2,500 per month to do so. Lastly, during redirect, when the Prosecutors questioned Nash again after the Defense cross-examined him, his own testimony substantiated Ron Carey's insistence that he did not know about the swap schemes:
"Prosecution: Did you ever tell Ron Carey that individuals would be making deposits into the TCFU in exchange for the contributions to political organizations?
Jere Nash: No.
Prosecutor: Was Ron Carey involved in any way in the swap transaction?
Jere Nash: No Ma'am."
Despite days of coaching, the Prosecution ended up getting no "substantial assistance" against Ron Carey from Jere Nash. Doesn't look good for that 5KI letter.
- -Continued below- -
tieguy
Banned
Whats wrong with this picture? There are no embezellment schemes, no dishonest teamster presidents all have been vicitims of evil plots by the government. Guess it really don't matter. Carey bought his not guilty verdict and all is well. Roflmao
J
JonFrum
Guest
FOR THE RECORD - Part 3
- -Continued- -
Prosecution Problem No. 2: William Hamilton
William W. Hamilton, Jr., the Director of the IBT Governmental Affairs Department under the Carey administration, was in charge of disbursing funds for any political causes and could authorize expenditures from the IBT General Treasury or from its political action account (DRIVE). He wrote the formal requests for checks to be approved to the office of Ron Carey.
In early October 1996, according to his and Nash's testimony, Nash arranged the meeting with Hamilton mentioned above, to tell Hamilton about Nash's spending plan that involved the swap schemes and non-IBT contributions. Hamilton says Nash indicated no amounts and named no organizations but said the plan would aid Campaign fundraising and that Carey was on board. Hamilton said he agreed to cooperate as long as the contributions were consistent with IBT goals. In March 2000 Hamilton was sentenced to an 18-month prison term after his November 1999 conviction of fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with his role in the embezzlement of $885,000 from the IBT treasury and the swap schemes. Even though he had been called by the Prosecution, he turned out to be a hostile witness.
He testified that he had never spoken with Ron Carey about his conversation with Nash, about the swap schemes, or about any of the specific contributions. Yet, assertions that Hamilton had discussed the swap schemes with Carey had served to justify the decisions of EO Conboy and the IRB against Carey.
Assertions attributed to him that Carey knew about the swap and other illegal contribution schemes were based on references to two conversations he allegedly had with Carey. One was a very brief ("30-40 second") conversation on his office phone when Carey was patched through to him from the field. It was allegedly in connection with a contribution to Citizen Action that was awaiting Carey's approval. The other was a one-sentence comment Carey allegedly made to Hamilton when Hamilton went up to greet Carey who was on the dais at an IBT banquet in Indianapolis on November 3, 1996. On examination, neither demonstrated that Carey was in on the scheme.
When testifying to his remarks to Carey during the brief office phone exchange, Hamilton claims he merely said something like "there is a request for a large contribution that needs action." He said that Ron replied; "'I'll take a look at it' or 'I'll deal with it later.'" Hamilton stated at the trial that he could not recall if he mentioned that the check in question was to Citizen Action. He did not believe he ever discussed thet it."
She [Monie Simpkins] had also testified that she had tried to speak with Ron about the contributions but he had brushed her off and gone on to other subjects. And she had told several others as cited above that Ron knew nothing about it. Defense argued convincingly that the deposition read into the transcript and quoted above, which Simpkins had signed and which was used as evidence against Ron Carey at the Conboy hearing and by the Prosecution was not what really happened but what the Prosecution had told her to say for them. The jurors, in requesting information, highlighted the fact that in addition, Nash had never instructed Simpkins to mention Nash's name. As Simpkins had told Theresa: the government "had twisted" the details to suit their needs. Her testimony against Ron Carey was not at all believable.
"If the Time Line Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!"
An additional problem with the Prosecution's case was its time line. This, like the other key contradictions and fault-lines in the Prosecutions' case, was demonstrated to the jury by Defense Attorney Reid Weingarten in his brilliant summary remarks to the jury. Simpkins had testified that she met with Jere Nash and learned of the schemes after a staff meeting that took place October 21. But Nash claimed his mythical call to prod Carey to sign the Citizen Action check took place before that on "October 16 or 17;" and two of the four memoranda requesting contributions were marked approved before then, on October 17. "The Prosecution's time line doesn't fit," Defense Attorney Weingarten showed the jury. Pulling a line from Johnny Cochran at the O.J. Simpson trial, Weingarten admonished the jurors: "If the time line doesn't fit, you must acquit."
According to jurors who spoke after the trial, eleven of the twelve jurors were for acquittal from the outset; one wanted to review Simpkins's testimony.
A jury of his peers—workers, students, union members—has ruled that Ron Carey did not know about or participate in the abuse of IBT funds. He did not cover up or fail to disclose information to the Prosecution; he did not violate his fiduciary duties as President of the union. The jury rejected and invalidated evidence used by EO Kenneth Conboy in November 1997 disqualifying Ron Carey as a candidate in the 1996 IBT elections. Conboy relied solely on the false testimony of Nash, Hamilton, and Simpkins that they had spoken to Ron about the Citizen Action contribution. Despite the fact that Monie Simpkins had already told at least two other versions of the events and that Nash had already been lying to the Prosecution, Conboy wrote in his ruling: "And I do not believe they testified falsely...Mr. Nash is a very credible witness...nor do I believe that Ms. Simpkins would fabricate conversations with Ron Carey...I do not believe Mr. Hamilton had a motive to fabricate a conversation with Mr. Carey about Citizen Action." But all three of these witnesses contradicted themselves, repudiated whatever they had—for whatever reason—said previously and, before the jury, stated they never mentioned Citizen Action contributions or any others to Ron Carey. Ron Carey was not lying when he testified. He alone had consistently told the truth. And in the end, the Prosecution witnesses substantiated him.
Now the decisions of Conboy and the IRB have been exposed as unfounded. Ron Carey's IBT membership and all his benefits and rights as a member of the IBT should be restored, and he should proudly resume his active participation in the reform movement in the IBT and the U.S. labor movement. As Defense attorney Reid Weingarten explained, the Prosecution testimony was "fabricated from whole cloth."
The EO's Double Standards
The Carey Campaign raised $1.6 million for the 1996 IBT election campaign. The Hoffa slate raised more than double that: more than $3.6 million, according to the IRB official Michael Cherkasky. In the summer of 1996, the Carey Campaign charged the Hoffa Campaign had broken the EO's Election Rules on fundraising by raising more than $1.8 million from bosses and mobsters. EO Quindel refused to even investigate the charges, maintaining that since Hoffa lost the elections, his violations were "immaterial." Nevertheless, she invalidated the Carey election victory on the basis of allegedly illegal contributions totaling 1/70 of that amount! Subsequently, her replacement Kenneth Conboy, probably to give the impression of "evenhandedness," in the very ruling that disqualified Carey as a candidate in the reelection, agreed to investigate Hoffa Campaign finances.
In April 1998, Cherkasky found the Hoffa campaign had violated the EO Election Rules in a host of ways: filing fraudulent financial reports, failing to report contributions, and using IBT facilities for all sorts of Hoffa Campaign purposes. But Hoffa was not held responsible and no serious punishment was imposed. The EO limited the fines to around $44,000. The Hoffa campaign was also fined a little over $16,000 for accepting services of totaling nearly $177,000 from an employer. However, the EO accepted the Hoffa campaign's blatantly implausible claim that it had raised over $2 million in small donations of under $l00, the sources of which need not be officially reported! Thus, in this way too, the Consent Decree officials prepared the way for the Hoffa slate to take power.
I would propose that these workers committees [of rank-and-file Teamsters] also need to investigate the Consent Decree officials—EOs and the IRB members and their entire staffs—who squandered at a least a million in IBT funds to victimize Ron Carey. Then they need to investigate Judge Edelstein and all the investigators and prosecutors—including Andrew Dember, Deborah Landis, and the Prosecution team who headed up the New York trial against Carey—who squandered public funds to try to frame Carey up on false charges. In addition to abuse of public and union treasuries, these people bribed and coerced witnesses and sabotaged the rights of the IBT members to run their own affairs by unjustly overturning Ron Carey's 1996 election victory, denying him his union rights.
This does not even take into account the considerable personal costs such a frame-up campaign inflicts on the victim, which all the individuals involved in persecuting him should be held responsible for too. Putting these ideas into operation would go along way toward real justice in the Ron Carey case. Those reformers who abandoned Ron Carey were proven wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves for their opportunist behavior.
[End of article. And that was the short version!]
- -Continued- -
Prosecution Problem No. 2: William Hamilton
William W. Hamilton, Jr., the Director of the IBT Governmental Affairs Department under the Carey administration, was in charge of disbursing funds for any political causes and could authorize expenditures from the IBT General Treasury or from its political action account (DRIVE). He wrote the formal requests for checks to be approved to the office of Ron Carey.
In early October 1996, according to his and Nash's testimony, Nash arranged the meeting with Hamilton mentioned above, to tell Hamilton about Nash's spending plan that involved the swap schemes and non-IBT contributions. Hamilton says Nash indicated no amounts and named no organizations but said the plan would aid Campaign fundraising and that Carey was on board. Hamilton said he agreed to cooperate as long as the contributions were consistent with IBT goals. In March 2000 Hamilton was sentenced to an 18-month prison term after his November 1999 conviction of fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with his role in the embezzlement of $885,000 from the IBT treasury and the swap schemes. Even though he had been called by the Prosecution, he turned out to be a hostile witness.
He testified that he had never spoken with Ron Carey about his conversation with Nash, about the swap schemes, or about any of the specific contributions. Yet, assertions that Hamilton had discussed the swap schemes with Carey had served to justify the decisions of EO Conboy and the IRB against Carey.
Assertions attributed to him that Carey knew about the swap and other illegal contribution schemes were based on references to two conversations he allegedly had with Carey. One was a very brief ("30-40 second") conversation on his office phone when Carey was patched through to him from the field. It was allegedly in connection with a contribution to Citizen Action that was awaiting Carey's approval. The other was a one-sentence comment Carey allegedly made to Hamilton when Hamilton went up to greet Carey who was on the dais at an IBT banquet in Indianapolis on November 3, 1996. On examination, neither demonstrated that Carey was in on the scheme.
When testifying to his remarks to Carey during the brief office phone exchange, Hamilton claims he merely said something like "there is a request for a large contribution that needs action." He said that Ron replied; "'I'll take a look at it' or 'I'll deal with it later.'" Hamilton stated at the trial that he could not recall if he mentioned that the check in question was to Citizen Action. He did not believe he ever discussed thet it."
She [Monie Simpkins] had also testified that she had tried to speak with Ron about the contributions but he had brushed her off and gone on to other subjects. And she had told several others as cited above that Ron knew nothing about it. Defense argued convincingly that the deposition read into the transcript and quoted above, which Simpkins had signed and which was used as evidence against Ron Carey at the Conboy hearing and by the Prosecution was not what really happened but what the Prosecution had told her to say for them. The jurors, in requesting information, highlighted the fact that in addition, Nash had never instructed Simpkins to mention Nash's name. As Simpkins had told Theresa: the government "had twisted" the details to suit their needs. Her testimony against Ron Carey was not at all believable.
"If the Time Line Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!"
An additional problem with the Prosecution's case was its time line. This, like the other key contradictions and fault-lines in the Prosecutions' case, was demonstrated to the jury by Defense Attorney Reid Weingarten in his brilliant summary remarks to the jury. Simpkins had testified that she met with Jere Nash and learned of the schemes after a staff meeting that took place October 21. But Nash claimed his mythical call to prod Carey to sign the Citizen Action check took place before that on "October 16 or 17;" and two of the four memoranda requesting contributions were marked approved before then, on October 17. "The Prosecution's time line doesn't fit," Defense Attorney Weingarten showed the jury. Pulling a line from Johnny Cochran at the O.J. Simpson trial, Weingarten admonished the jurors: "If the time line doesn't fit, you must acquit."
According to jurors who spoke after the trial, eleven of the twelve jurors were for acquittal from the outset; one wanted to review Simpkins's testimony.
A jury of his peers—workers, students, union members—has ruled that Ron Carey did not know about or participate in the abuse of IBT funds. He did not cover up or fail to disclose information to the Prosecution; he did not violate his fiduciary duties as President of the union. The jury rejected and invalidated evidence used by EO Kenneth Conboy in November 1997 disqualifying Ron Carey as a candidate in the 1996 IBT elections. Conboy relied solely on the false testimony of Nash, Hamilton, and Simpkins that they had spoken to Ron about the Citizen Action contribution. Despite the fact that Monie Simpkins had already told at least two other versions of the events and that Nash had already been lying to the Prosecution, Conboy wrote in his ruling: "And I do not believe they testified falsely...Mr. Nash is a very credible witness...nor do I believe that Ms. Simpkins would fabricate conversations with Ron Carey...I do not believe Mr. Hamilton had a motive to fabricate a conversation with Mr. Carey about Citizen Action." But all three of these witnesses contradicted themselves, repudiated whatever they had—for whatever reason—said previously and, before the jury, stated they never mentioned Citizen Action contributions or any others to Ron Carey. Ron Carey was not lying when he testified. He alone had consistently told the truth. And in the end, the Prosecution witnesses substantiated him.
Now the decisions of Conboy and the IRB have been exposed as unfounded. Ron Carey's IBT membership and all his benefits and rights as a member of the IBT should be restored, and he should proudly resume his active participation in the reform movement in the IBT and the U.S. labor movement. As Defense attorney Reid Weingarten explained, the Prosecution testimony was "fabricated from whole cloth."
The EO's Double Standards
The Carey Campaign raised $1.6 million for the 1996 IBT election campaign. The Hoffa slate raised more than double that: more than $3.6 million, according to the IRB official Michael Cherkasky. In the summer of 1996, the Carey Campaign charged the Hoffa Campaign had broken the EO's Election Rules on fundraising by raising more than $1.8 million from bosses and mobsters. EO Quindel refused to even investigate the charges, maintaining that since Hoffa lost the elections, his violations were "immaterial." Nevertheless, she invalidated the Carey election victory on the basis of allegedly illegal contributions totaling 1/70 of that amount! Subsequently, her replacement Kenneth Conboy, probably to give the impression of "evenhandedness," in the very ruling that disqualified Carey as a candidate in the reelection, agreed to investigate Hoffa Campaign finances.
In April 1998, Cherkasky found the Hoffa campaign had violated the EO Election Rules in a host of ways: filing fraudulent financial reports, failing to report contributions, and using IBT facilities for all sorts of Hoffa Campaign purposes. But Hoffa was not held responsible and no serious punishment was imposed. The EO limited the fines to around $44,000. The Hoffa campaign was also fined a little over $16,000 for accepting services of totaling nearly $177,000 from an employer. However, the EO accepted the Hoffa campaign's blatantly implausible claim that it had raised over $2 million in small donations of under $l00, the sources of which need not be officially reported! Thus, in this way too, the Consent Decree officials prepared the way for the Hoffa slate to take power.
I would propose that these workers committees [of rank-and-file Teamsters] also need to investigate the Consent Decree officials—EOs and the IRB members and their entire staffs—who squandered at a least a million in IBT funds to victimize Ron Carey. Then they need to investigate Judge Edelstein and all the investigators and prosecutors—including Andrew Dember, Deborah Landis, and the Prosecution team who headed up the New York trial against Carey—who squandered public funds to try to frame Carey up on false charges. In addition to abuse of public and union treasuries, these people bribed and coerced witnesses and sabotaged the rights of the IBT members to run their own affairs by unjustly overturning Ron Carey's 1996 election victory, denying him his union rights.
This does not even take into account the considerable personal costs such a frame-up campaign inflicts on the victim, which all the individuals involved in persecuting him should be held responsible for too. Putting these ideas into operation would go along way toward real justice in the Ron Carey case. Those reformers who abandoned Ron Carey were proven wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves for their opportunist behavior.
[End of article. And that was the short version!]
govols019
You smell that?
Still the same old Tie. All opinion and no facts.
If you don't get help at Charter, please get help somewhere.
Tieguy wrote,
"I think your answer is actually a good one and I don't necessarily disagree with all of it. Collective bargaining did serve a valuable purpose at one time and did bring up the overall working mans financial means from the slave labor type era. Unions have in some ways also put theirselves out of business. They fought for the many laws that you have on the books that protect labor from whatever. With that said times are now different. Many agencies and many laws that provide the protections that unions provided in the past. Overall scale is up. But its up as long as the company paying the bills is competitive. Too many people here that think UPS pockets are bottomless. They are not. When you consider a contract offer you also have to consider the flexibilities ups feels they need to compete. Fdx has no union restrictions. If they want their part time people working a split shift of two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon they can do so tommorrow with no union intervention. So with all respect I think you folks have to make sure your union is not so restrictive that it strangles the golden goose. "
What you are a saying is very true; however, you are leaving out some components to the story. Unions have and will continue to help balance out the problems with laize faire or pure capitalism. Yes, laws have been created over the years to protect workers. Actually, the laws were created more to save money to society than to protect workers. How so? Economics is the distribution of resources. If Bob breaks his arm at work and there are no laws to protect him, the government or someone will have to pay to take care of Bob. To assume that unions are not viable now is not to see the power of the capitalistic system. You are a supervisor? You are not management? There is a difference. Management pulls levers based on objectives that tie into the vision and mission statement. Supervisors execute the plan or the movement of the levers. Actually, there are so many complicated connections within an organization and to its external environment that it boggles the mind. Don't assume that the only cost is labor costs or variable costs. If labor cost stay the same, then management will have to come up with other ways to be more efficient. Look at the new technology that UPS has introduced over the years. If there was no pressure to reduce costs or generate more revenue, do you think that UPS would have invested in new technologies and more efficient ways of doing business? The Supply Chain Solutions is a great example. The union will never strangle UPS's ability to compete. This would be counterproductive. Without the union there would be more problems than there are now, and these problems would cost the company money. There has to be a balance between labor and production. Unions help make this balance or find the economies of scale.
"I think your answer is actually a good one and I don't necessarily disagree with all of it. Collective bargaining did serve a valuable purpose at one time and did bring up the overall working mans financial means from the slave labor type era. Unions have in some ways also put theirselves out of business. They fought for the many laws that you have on the books that protect labor from whatever. With that said times are now different. Many agencies and many laws that provide the protections that unions provided in the past. Overall scale is up. But its up as long as the company paying the bills is competitive. Too many people here that think UPS pockets are bottomless. They are not. When you consider a contract offer you also have to consider the flexibilities ups feels they need to compete. Fdx has no union restrictions. If they want their part time people working a split shift of two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon they can do so tommorrow with no union intervention. So with all respect I think you folks have to make sure your union is not so restrictive that it strangles the golden goose. "
What you are a saying is very true; however, you are leaving out some components to the story. Unions have and will continue to help balance out the problems with laize faire or pure capitalism. Yes, laws have been created over the years to protect workers. Actually, the laws were created more to save money to society than to protect workers. How so? Economics is the distribution of resources. If Bob breaks his arm at work and there are no laws to protect him, the government or someone will have to pay to take care of Bob. To assume that unions are not viable now is not to see the power of the capitalistic system. You are a supervisor? You are not management? There is a difference. Management pulls levers based on objectives that tie into the vision and mission statement. Supervisors execute the plan or the movement of the levers. Actually, there are so many complicated connections within an organization and to its external environment that it boggles the mind. Don't assume that the only cost is labor costs or variable costs. If labor cost stay the same, then management will have to come up with other ways to be more efficient. Look at the new technology that UPS has introduced over the years. If there was no pressure to reduce costs or generate more revenue, do you think that UPS would have invested in new technologies and more efficient ways of doing business? The Supply Chain Solutions is a great example. The union will never strangle UPS's ability to compete. This would be counterproductive. Without the union there would be more problems than there are now, and these problems would cost the company money. There has to be a balance between labor and production. Unions help make this balance or find the economies of scale.
Similar threads
