How did you make out with the internal procedures? Did you get anywhere? Some members see these internal procedures as nothing but a kangaroo court and don't want to waste their time on them.
Internal attacks in the UFCW
I am a employee of Garden Province Meats Inc. a division of Maple Leaf Foods. Within our unit in the past three years we have seen decertification attempts, a creation of a new Union the AMU ( and it's defeat in an attempt to replace the UFCW as bargaining agent), and a drastic decline in the overall solidarity within the Unit. I firmly believe in our Constitution and the protections afforded individuals within that document. The safeguards in place to insure the integrity of our leadership/Union, the conduct of members, and the internal procedure for change all play hand in hand to create a Labour Organization for all working persons in Canada and the US. Being a member of a Union brings obligations as well as benefits. Attacks against our Union must be confronted head on and in such a manner as to comply with the fundamental principles of our Union. For this reason I have become active in defending our union against both internal and external attacks. This defence has taken the form of official charges of misconduct pursuant to our Constitution against the leadership of the Atlantic Meatpackers Union (AMU), a hastily created replacement for the CAW as an alternative to the UFCW as bargaining agent at my plant. The history as to haw these events transpired is both long and full of both deceit and personal agendas on the behalf of the AMU executive members who hold both UFCW and AMU membership in my plant. But it is sufficient to say that as members of a Union we must challenge any and all attacks against the integrity of our leadership and Union as soon as it surfaces or be forced to travel the same road as I have. R.E.A.P. and alike groups have one thing in common and that is, one sided reporting of events to support their position. Become active, aware, and challenge so-called facts because attacks on your Union are an attack on your ability to confront the real enemy of Labour and that is management.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher 
fishman@pei.sympatico.ca
Hi Fisher,
quote:
Attacks against our Union must be confronted head on and in such a manner as to comply with the fundamental principles of our Union. For this reason I have become active in defending our union against both internal and external attacks
So might I ask your opinion on the machine attacks on members free speech via lawsuits? Do those lawsuits fall within the fundamental principles of our union?
Fisher is absolutely right. The stuff against the UFCW is pretty one sided. However, that doesn't mean that it's not true.
All the media stuff about the UFCW is pretty darned factual.
Fisher probably doesn't know much about the voluntary wrecks, the hotel deals, the secret contracts etc. However, Richard Cashin was right on the money when he told the world why the UFCW was not the union for maritime fishers.
Hey Fisher, what do you know about RHK Capital, Father Ron Kelly, fish plants and the UFCW?
Fisher, rather than being negative about all the supposed enemies of your great union, why don't you tell us all the positive things about the UFCW.
And I suppose the "Constitution" you speak of is the same one that the Supreme Court had to order publication of so that UFCW members could freely get a copy. Is it the same one?
This web site presents information that is ignored by the mainstream media and the mainstream labour movement. As far as I know, the UFCW and any other mainstream unions are free to come here and state their case, rebutt any information that is posted here and present their side of any story. They choose not to do so.
Fisher, if you don't believe that some or all of the information posted here is factual, tell us why and share what information you have to the contrary.
If you want a web site that is nice to all unions no matter what they do or don't do - go to the CLC web site. They won't let you down.
Welcome Fisher
I appreciate your openness and look forward to hearing your viewpoints.
I do not belong to United Food and Commercial Workers Union, but there sure is a lot of stuff in the media about the goings on of your union. I belong to the largest union in Canada and there is not near the uproar that your union seems to get into. Why, in your opinion do you think that is?
aboutunions 
I appreciate your comments in regards to my posting. My belief in the UFCW's Constitution comes from having a understanding of how Union's work. The same obligations that influence the conduct of the rank-and-file also influence the conduct of our leadership. If one has a grievance against ones local, National, or International there is a framework in place to have those grievances addressed. This framework also includes the courts where it has been established that a Constitution is as follows:
"In view of the economic importance of trade union membership to individual members, the nature of the rights pertaining to membership have been a frequent source of litigation. It is in that context that the jurisprudence defining the legal character of union constitutions has evolved. The leading Canadian authority is Orchard v. Tunney, [1957] S.C.R. 436, a case involving a tort claim by a union member for unlawful expulsion. Rand J. dismissed the contention that the claim could properly be analyzed in terms of status, and preferred an analysis of the union constitution as a complex of contracts between each member and every other member of the union. Rand J. explained this in the following terms, at p. 445:
Apart, then, from statute, that a union is held together by contractual bonds seems obvious; each member commits himself to a group on a foundation of specific terms governing individual and
collective action, a commitment today almost obligatory, and made on both sides with the intent that the rules shall bind them in their relations to each other. That means that each is bound to all the others jointly. The terms allow for the change of those within that relation by withdrawal from or new entrance into membership. Underlying this is the assumption that the members are creating a body of which they are members and that it is as members only that they have accepted obligations: that the body as such is that to which the responsibilities for action taken as of the group are to be related."
The concept of contract law escapes those who feel that they are powerless to fight an injustice. If a contract exists and there are mutual benefits to that contract ie: rank and file contractual benefits and dues payed to the union that the contract is enforceable. That means the same requirements to act in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution applies with both rank and file and the leadership of the Union. Work from within to improve and empower your Union. Granted with a large organization there is the possibility for corruption but within our Union we can erase that corruption through our constitution.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
So might I ask your opinion on the machine attacks on members free speech via lawsuits? Do those lawsuits fall within the fundamental principles of our union?
Want to try again?
quote:
Granted with a large organization there is the possibility for corruption
There is more than a possibility, there is an actuality of corruption.
quote:
but within our Union we can erase that corruption through our constitution.
Not according to disaffected members who have come up against it. How do you *pretty_over* those concerns?
quote:
The concept of contract law escapes those who feel that they are powerless to fight an injustice. If a contract exists and there are mutual benefits to that contract ie: rank and file contractual benefits and dues payed to the union that the contract is enforceable. That means the same requirements to act in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution applies with both rank and file and the leadership of the Union.
(Emphasis mine).
Your argument would imply that UFCW Canada's lawsuit against the MFD violates that requirement to act in good faith. The UFCW is suing its own members just for exercising their free speech and attempting to expose and root out the corruption you admit may exist. By consequence of your argument, this breaks the leadership's "contract" with the union's members.
Rather than suing, the UFCW leaders should publicly refute dissident members criticism, and by force of their argument, convince the members that they deserve the members continued support. This is the ordinary process of politics and public debate in a democratic organization, like the UFCW claims to be.
Have I stated your position correctly? Do you believe that the UFCW has broken its contract with the members? If not, why not? If so, what should we do about it?
Yes as a matter of fact I have been very outspoken in every venue as to my beliefs and have been ridiculed as a result. The legal approach to internal matters should only arise after all internal reliefs have been attempted. Freedom of speech is not a open invitation to attack without proof of the statements made but if they have merit than there should be no fear of the courts. Good faith and the requirements therein are balance with or rather tempered with the benefit of the group at large. These decisions come from our elected executive members and if we disagree with their philosophy we work to replace them with members we can agree with, that Labours way. UFCW members who have come up against what they feel is a brick wall or who have proof of corruption in our Union you would be doing us all a great service if go above the heads of those who block your efforts. Because accountability is important to us all. The pretty words you refer to are my beliefs in both our Union and the Labour movement at large and are more than just words I assure you.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
I think your Constitution makes internal remedies a priority over external ones. If the International can't or won't follow its own document, why would you believe it's enforcable by anyone else?
quote:
Yes as a matter of fact I have been very outspoken in every venue as to my beliefs and have been ridiculed as a result. The legal approach to internal matters should only arise after all internal reliefs have been attempted.
I think you're responding to a comment I edited out of my earlier post. Initially, I asked whether you had spoken out at union meetings and to your union reps about the UFCW's lawsuit. I took that comment out because I realized that I was implying that you opposed the lawsuits, and I hadn't given you a chance to clarify your position on the issue. Thanks for doing so, and I am glad you are vocal in your union.
quote:
Freedom of speech is not a open invitation to attack without proof of the statements made but if they have merit than there should be no fear of the courts. Good faith and the requirements therein are balance with or rather tempered with the benefit of the group at large.
I take it from this you are saying that the MFD shouldn't have anything to fear if everything on this website is true. Well that's correct, but only to a point. Like weiser points out, the UFCW constitution makes internal remedies a priority over external ones.
quote:
Article 25 (E) (2) No member shall institute an action outside the Union against the International Union, Local Union, or any of their officers or representatives without first exhausting all remedies provided by the Local Union bylaws and rules and the Constitution and laws of the International Union.
Admittedly the MFD are not "officers or representatives" of the Union, they are just plain ordinary rank and file members. But if the members have to go through internal processes before suing officers, why should officers not have to go through internal processes before suing members?
Also note the UFCW has plenty of the members dues money to spend prosecuting their case in court. I don't believe they're offering the MFD a share of that money to defend themselves. That hardly makes this a fair fight. And even if the MFD is right, and will ultimately win in court, the UFCW leadership can still drag out a long expensive process to try and bankrupt their opponents.
Once internal remedies fail than the courts becomes the only avenue open and I have hade some experience in that matter through my dealing with the Workers Compensation Board. As a Labour activist I have argued cases in front of the PEI Supreme Court and have gained justice for the parties I have represented. But before this action should be taken relief should be sought through the Constitution. If that Constitution is being ignored go over there heads to the courts. As the fight you win will be a fight someone else will not have to commit to. But I must repeat my warning that the damage don to our Union is damage don to our ability to defend ourselves against management and government. So be sure of your facts and what will be gained as a result of your actions or rather lost before you attack your Union. The short answer to that statement is found in the cases won and lost in the courts. You can investigate those cases at http://www.canlii.org/index_en.html
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
The pretty words you refer to are my beliefs in both our Union and the Labour movement at large and are more than just words I assure you
I apologize. It was not meant to insult your opinion or beliefs. 
quote:
the UFCW leadership can still drag out a long expensive process to try and bankrupt their opponents.
quote:
But I must repeat my warning that the damage don to our Union is damage don to our ability to defend ourselves against management and government.
That is the argument I have trouble with. Dissension did not beget corruption.
The silence is defeating and it's time to change that. IMHO 
quote:
Once internal remedies fail than the courts becomes the only avenue open... But before this action should be taken relief should be sought through the Constitution. If that Constitution is being ignored go over there heads to the courts.
Many on this site would argue that the UFCW Constitution is being ignored, as are the Policies and Procedures (Check out the bargaining guidelines on pg. 7, for example.)
Going to the courts is one option, if you have the money to do it. But it costs a lot of money, and the people hurt most by weak, undemocratic union representation are often the ones who can least afford such a fight. Also, once you get to court, I'm sure you'd agree that the laws aren't exactly stacked in favour of the working person either. 
Other options for change include calling in another union for a rescue/raid. But you'd better hope the next union will be better. Or, you could start your own union.
And if none of these options are ready to fly, yet, you can still slap up a union democracy website and try to shame the union into cleaning up its act. 
This is rather new to me, posting statements and the like, until now I used the internet as a source of information only. But that being as it may I am now involved in this interesting exchange of viewpoints. The quote:
.[/QUOTE]That is the argument I have trouble with. Dissension did not beget corruption.
The silence is defeating and it's time to change that. IMHO [/QB][/QUOTE]
Merits further discussion. It is true that silence begets complicity in an offence and we as members of the Labour movement must strive to ever improve our Unions. But the balance is the issue. If the leadership is not fulfilling it's obligation to the membership than in a democracy they are replaced when they next offer for office. This can be delayed for only a short time through merging with other unions and a local being placed under trusteeship. The end result will still be the same and that is the will of the majority will be satisfied. In the matter of the legal action taken against MFD be made aware that member to member action for damages over Constitutional violations, the courts reject such individual actions. As violations of the Constitution in the courts are looked upon as group actions and/or liabilities. So this in mind the legal action against the MFD must be civil in nature to be of concern to the courts or it will be rejected on a simple motion to dismiss. I must restate the obvious and that is that a weak Union is incapable of defending it's members and a weak union is one that isn't challenge by it's membership. Within the framework agreed upon in our Constitution of corse.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
Starting your own Union to replace one as strong as the UFCW is playing into the hands of management. Where will the funds needed to defend your members come from, the dues payed by a small group of members. like a pack of jackles you will see management pick away at your rights and benefits. this is not the answer.
quote:
Other options for change include calling in another union for a rescue/raid. But you'd better hope the next union will be better. Or, you could start your own union.
And if none of these options are ready to fly, yet, you can still slap up a union democracy website and try to shame the union into cleaning up its act.
Creating a Internet site to slam your Union is also an action I question. Democracy in the UFCW comes through the elections of officers in the Union and if the majority is not satified than changes will come. News Letters, your internet site, and word of mouth are all good ways to have your coworkers informed on issues of importence. But an open dialoge with your executive is also importent as often the good of the majority outweigs the good of the minority.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
It is true that silence begets complicity in an offence and we as members of the Labour movement must strive to ever improve our Unions.
You pinning the corruption on the Power Source cause we didn't speak up before this?
quote:
But the balance is the issue.
What kind of balance can there be if only one side of the equation has access to millions and is not afraid to spend it?
quote:
If the leadership is not fulfilling it's obligation to the membership than in a democracy they are replaced when they next offer for office. This can be delayed for only a short time through merging with other unions and a local being placed under trusteeship. The end result will still be the same and that is the will of the majority will be satisfied.
I agree to the bottom of my wallet.
quote:
In the matter of the legal action taken against MFD be made aware that member to member action for damages over Constitutional violations, the courts reject such individual actions. As violations of the Constitution in the courts are looked upon as group actions and/or liabilities. So this in mind the legal action against the MFD must be civil in nature to be of concern to the courts or it will be rejected on a simple motion to dismiss.
I guess we'll find out eventually.
quote:
I must restate the obvious and that is that a weak Union is incapable of defending it's members and a weak union is one that isn't challenge by it's membership. Within the framework agreed upon in our Constitution of corse.
Ah .. of course and even easier, now that it's posted.
quote:
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
Ditto Fisher ditto
I am one of the ufcw members being charged by George Fisher . i have noticed that George is enjoying this exchange of opinions . hi george, I hope george realizes that I am not alone in my critizism of the undemocratic practices of UFCW and i will continue to fight for my right to speak out against dictatorship,and to do what the members who elected me wants.
in soldarity Paul W
Hi Paul:
This might be the best way for us to communicate as in plant conversations seem to degrade into allegations of wrong doing. As I am sure you are convinced you are doing the right thing I only ask that you concede the same point to me. This could and should have ended with open and honest dialogue between both sides where an agreement could be arrived at. With numerous attempts on the side of the UFCW to this end and the reactions of you and your supporters, it is you and your supporters that have forced my actions. No one wants or benefits from internal fighting but when the only option is to loose the protections afforded all UFCW members, action is demanded. I do enjoy an exchange of ideas and often through that exchange both sides benefits. But I reject in principle the formation of a pennyless Union to replace a powerful one. Further I reject, as no proof to the contrary has been shown me that your allegations of wrongdoing have any merit in fact. The Constitution of which I referred to so often in this exchange could and should have given you the path to address your grievances if only you understood that document. And by the way democracy in the Labour movement and in particular an organisation the size of ours is only achieved by the electoral process where the elected officials act in the benefit of the majority. If we disagree we replace but the majority will be satisfied. The whim of a small group in the local, no matter how vocal will or should not sway the obligation of the Local to the majority of the members. Look deep into the reasons for your actions as I have in mine, if they are not self-serving than proceed with your beliefs as I assure you I will.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
am one of the ufcw members being charged by George Fisher .
So we can dispense with the introductions
OK I'll ask .. wanna elaborate?
quote:
i have noticed that George is enjoying this exchange of opinions
Isn't MFD fun! 
quote:
hi george, I hope george realizes that I am not alone in my critizism of the undemocratic practices of UFCW
It's no longer a secret, criticize away, be prepared to back up what you say 'cause you will be asked.
quote:
and i will continue to fight for my right to speak out against dictatorship,and to do what the members who elected me wants.
This thread has more than confirmed the importance of breaking the silence.
quote:
in soldarity Paul W
MFD traditional Paul W
In no uncertain terms do I blame anyone for their silence when that silence comes from ignorance of the facts but if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. I speak only for myself and my beliefs in the Labour movement in this matter but improvements must be made from within to benefit us all. The process is in place, use it, your Constitution.
quote:
posted by siggy:
[QB][QUOTE]It is true that silence begets complicity in an offence and we as members of the Labour movement must strive to ever improve our Unions.
You pinning the corruption on the Power Source cause we didn't speak up before this? [QUOTE]
The beliefs of the executive within our Union are as valid as ours and their dedication to the Labour movement without proof to the contrary should be accepted as fact. If grievance exist there are ways to address those complaints, search them out and be part of the solution as complaining without action is just noise.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote by Fisher
quote:
Further I reject, as no proof to the contrary has been shown me that your allegations of wrongdoing have any merit in fact
What allegations of wrongdoing are we refering to?
aboutunions
George .Iwould rather be a member of a pennyless union that is democratic ,then one that is rich and undemocratic. as you know the elected inhouse committee was removed and another one appointed .A call for an election was refused by the local. It took me a long time to get copies of the constitution for my members as i was told it would only widen the rift between the two sides.we have a president in the national office who was appointed .ops
I better not say any more incase you add more charges against me .
PW
quote:
The beliefs of the executive within our Union are as valid as ours and their dedication to the Labour movement without proof to the contrary should be accepted as fact
I think the proof about what the executives are dedicated to is all over this web site and it's pretty overwhelming.
A while back I asked you about these internal procedures and if you ever tried them and found that they worked. How about an answer.
Paul this forum is for the free unfettered exchange of ideas and beliefs, there is no fear of reprisal on my part but tomorrow will tell the tale if the same can be said of you. The open hand of brotherhood was and is still offered but this attack on our Union must be directed through proper channels ie: the Constitution. The division within our unit only weakens us and the creation of a new union to replace the UFCW is a direct threat against me and my family through my ability to support them. It has gon past a simple agreement to disagree on the issue of democracy, you have your ideas as do I. Working from within to encourage positive change is doable through the confines of our Constitution. The only stipulation I insist on is if accusations of wrongdoing are brought forward that those accused have the ability to address them in an open forum before they are condemned in the court of public opinion. The term public in this case refers to the rank and file members within our unit. Integrity is important to us all and attacking someone simply because their beliefs differ from yours is not democracy in action. Neither is bending to the whims of the majority if that majority is swayed by lies and innuendo, the fundamental rights of the individual must be protected before democracy can exist. This is what I believe in as a Labour person and I will not bent to the majority when my beliefs hang in the balance. If you are interested in working togther there can be a mutual solution to this issue where no one pays more than they are willing to loos. It is easy to sit-back and condemn those in power but the challenge is to those who promote positive change from within the framework of the Union. This will be the last olive branch offered on my behalf.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
A while back I asked you about these internal procedures and if you ever tried them and found that they worked. How about an answer.[/QB]
I have always found the Local to be open to my concerns and as for the National, I have had little need to include them in the day to day activities involving me. However there is an expectation within the Constitution on the behaviour of it's members, including executive members from the Local to the National and all the way to the International. When that expectation is violated there is a provision where they can be held accountable through a panel of there pears. Have I had the opportunity or the need to take that action, no. Can I say with any authority that a complaint will be handled as described, again no. But the framework is in place for accountability within our Union and until I am proven wrong, my faith lies within our Constitution.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
Hi Fisher, I was a UFCW Business Agent and an International Representative. I can understand your belief that the International Constitution is a document that works. Let me tell you, it doesn't. If it was controlled from the bottom up rather than from the top down, I'd give it more hope.
If the International backs your Local Union President, there isn't anything you can do about his or her activities.
Here are two interviews I did with the MFD: Interview One and Interview Two.
Here's how we conducted business with employer while I was with the UFCW. Affidavit.
Fisher, there are things happening within the UFCW that wouldn't have happened if the MFD hadn't produced this Internet site. The change is comming not through silence but through lots of noise and lots of activity that rips at the shrouds that hide corruption within the house of labour.
Keeping silent is what enables sleazebags to putrify the house of labour. Be more afraid of the labour fakers within than the employers without. You always know where the employers are comming from. The labour fakers are more dangerous and more insideous by far.
Look I stopped reading after the 4th post, "framework to grieve within the UFCW"??? Your joking right? do you even know what the hell your taking about Fisher? Spare me that worthless piece of paper you call a constitution, the UFCW officials don't even follow it. If you know the inner working of a union than pigs fly.
The UFCW has brought upon itself it's just rewards and I can only hope the future brings them even more of what they deserve. Right now, today...the best thing that could ever happen to union members accross the labour movement is that this so called wannabe pretender union is wiped off the face of the earth forever where it's warped sence of me first unionism can no longer hurt or undermine the lives of working people. That you feel you have to defend it suggests your current lifestyle depends on the status quo. Enjoy it while it lasts.
quote:
posted by HJFinnamore:
[QB]Hi Fisher, I was a UFCW Business Agent and an International Representative. I can understand your belief that the International Constitution is a document that works. Let me tell you, it doesn't. If it was controlled from the bottom up rather than from the top down, I'd give it more hope.
This top down, bottom up concept needs more discussion. If officials are elected from the rank and file and those officials control the union, can it not be said that we already have a bottom up control over our Union. I have read your interviews with MFD and the internal politics of the UFCW differs little from other Unions. If in the short-term making deals for easer access to a companies employees lessons the benefits of the existing members, surely negotiations in the future from a stronger member base will far ought weigh the sacrifices made. If a Union can disrupt an entire chain of stores doesn't that Union hold a better hand in negotiations with the employer. Access to workers are controlled through the individual Labour Act's of the provinces and some are more labour friendly than others. The protections afforded the workers who's shop is being organised also differ from province to province. Who is to say that if deals were made for easer access that those deals benefited the members in the long run. I don't have enough information to make that determination.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
Who is to say that if deals were made for easer access that those deals benefited the members in the long run. I don't have enough information to make that determination.
Please, you're not serious. You suggest the reason for the backroom deals is 'cuz the machine has a master strategy?
quote:
If a Union can disrupt an entire chain of stores doesn't that Union hold a better hand in negotiations with the employer.
In theory it should. Why doesn't the UFCW use its power where it has entire chains organized, instead of trading its power away?
Fisher, you're a good guy, who wants to believe, but just because a dude get's placed in office, don't think it's got a lot to do with the informed choice of the Power Source.
quote:
The Toronto Star -- FIN
NEWS Thursday, November 10, 1988 A40
Food workers' vote rigged against him candidate charges
By Peter Edwards Toronto Star
SUBJECT: Canada labor
Vote-rigging is rampant in the race for the presidency of Canada's largest union local, a senior officer with the United Food and Commercial Workers charges.
"The whole thing has been rigged to defeat me," says Bill Reno, the union's education and research director and a candidate for presidency of Local 175.
And ballot scrutineer, Diane Gale of Hamilton, said a new election should be called because of repeated violations of the union's constitution, including the denial of secret ballots to some members of the 40,000-member, province-wide local.
Reno, who bills himself as a reform candidate, accused his opponent, Jim Crockett, a negotiator and the union's top Canadian officer, of repeated violations of the union's constitution in the balloting, which ends today.
Union time
Among Reno's charges:
* While he was refused an unpaid leave of absence to campaign, 34 of 35 salaried union staff members were campaigning against him on union time while drawing union pay cheques. This violates the union's constitution, Reno said.
* Balloting has been switched in mid-election out of workplaces where Reno's support is particularly strong to discourage voter turnout.
* More than $250,000 of members' dues has been spent, contrary to the union constitution, against him in the campaign. "They've spent enormous amounts of members' money on Crockett's campaign," Reno said. "What I've learned is they have no compunction about spending members' money in order to get elected."
Crockett dismissed Reno's charges as electioneering and said it wouldn't be proper to respond to them before all ballots have been cast.
"I've run a clean campaign all the way through and I'm not going to start doing something now I shouldn't do," Crockett said.
Cliff Evans, the food union's Canadian director, said Reno hasn't bothered to make any formal complaints or offer any evidence to the union's head office.
'Challenged ballots'
Gale said she was shocked this week when serving as a scrutineer during early balloting. For the first time in her 16 years in the union, Gale said, she saw large, brown envelopes at polling stations with, "Challenged Ballots" written on the side.
Gale said she asked an election official about the envelopes and was told: "They're going back to the union and if we need to use them, we'll use them and if we don't, we won't."
Gale also charged that members' social insurance numbers have been written on envelopes containing their votes. She said this can only be seen as a form of intimidation, letting union members know that their ballots aren't secret.
Gale said cynicism was pronounced among members during this campaign. She said she and many co-workers have no faith in either the reform or establishment slates, but want another election to restore faith in union democracy.
Reno was one of the union's staunchest defenders a year ago when it was accused of being undemocratic in an ugly jurisdictional battle with the Canadian Auto Workers over 23,000 east coast fishermen. The union accused the Auto Workers of stealing members while the CAW argued it was providing the fishermen with an avenue of escape from a union that was insensitive to their needs.
Oh, BTW, Bill is now doing work for 1000a
.
quote:
Suggest No, hope yes. I can only speak from my limited experience. The inner workings of any Local is open to question but their actions and results are not. This exchange of views is an important and valuable tool for anyone involved with Unions. There are many who find fault with the UFCW as the replies to my statements will attest but are there any who are willing to work to improve our Union. My position hasn't changed, if you are not part of the solution than by default you are part of the problem. Again thanks for your input, you have given me food for thought. I can only hope the same can be said from my statements.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
Suggest No, hope yes.
Don't worry you'll get over it.
quote:
I can only speak from my limited experience. The inner workings of any Local is open to question but their actions and results are not.
What are some of the results as you see them?
quote:
This exchange of views is an important and valuable tool for anyone involved with Unions.
That's what we do.
Fisher I really want to hear your version of how the machine is leading us to the light. Wouldn't it work better if the Power Source was in on it? How do you see the machines' strategy culminating? And when?
quote:
I am a employee of Garden Province Meats Inc. a division of Maple Leaf Foods. Within our unit in the past three years we have seen decertification attempts, a creation of a new Union the AMU ( and it's defeat in an attempt to replace the UFCW as bargaining agent)...
Come on, now, someone fill us in on what exactly is going on out east. I'd heard the UFCW was having some troubles, but this sounds real big!
Who created this new union? Why? Does it have a website? Has it won certification for any plants? How much support does it have?
Fill us in, Fisher and "whiteway". 
Here's what I found:
quote:
Union representatives at Garden Province trying to replace union: United Food and Commercial Workers Union has become unresponsive to workers, say activists.
BY: Ron Ryder
Charlottetown-Guardian
Disgruntled union representatives at Garden Province Meats are trying to start their own breakaway union and sever their long-standing ties to the United Food and Commercial Workers. But the UFCW's Island business agent says he thinks the upstart
Atlantic Meatpacker's Union is just a takeover attempt in disguise.
The AMU is a new entity, being promoted by Garden Province workers Mark Chiasson and Paul Whiteway.
The pair now hold rank with the UFCW, Chiasson is chief steward for the plant, Whiteway is unit chair. But they charge their union has become unresponsive to workers.
This past summer they tried to have UFCW decertified, leaving workers to deal with Garden Province directly. That plan was abandoned before a formal decertification process could begin. Now they want to see UFCW replaced.
Whiteway said Garden Province has always felt it was treated as an afterthought by their Halifax-based local.
He said that problem became more aggravating recently when they were unable to convince the union to switch health insurance companies to one that would pay up-front for prescriptions. Another involves difficulties they have had obtaining detailed financial
records from their local's head office.
"It's hundreds of little things," he said.
"Where we are at now is that the majority of members want out." Whiteway and Chiasson held their own union drive Sept. 26 getting two-thirds of the roughly 90 workers at Garden Province to sign up for the AMU.
The results went to P.E.I.'s Labour Board Sept. 26 and the last of the paperwork for the union fight was filed by the end of October. Both sides are now waiting for a response from the labour board on whether AMU's request will be granted, denied or sent for a hearing. The upstart union shouldn't expect an easy victory, according to UFCW business agent Ray Gallant.
"I'm not going to start a war of words with these guys in the media," he said. "But there's some things going on behind the scenes here that are going to come up when it gets to the labour board."
Gallant said the action reminds him of the late 1980s when the Canadian Auto Workers attempted to replace UFCW as the union at Garden Province.
"In my view, this a situation where another union is trying to raid us," he said.
"We'll be appearing before the labour board probably the first of the year and we'll see what this looks like when the dust settles." He said he isn't impressed with the numbers Whiteway and Chiasson have signed up.
"Petitions don't amount to a hill of beans, it's how the names were gathered," he said.
UFCW represents workers at some of the province's major employers including Cavendish Farms and Amalgamated Dairies. Recently the union has been active in unionizing workers at a number of Polar Foods' seafood processing plants. Chiasson said despite UFCW's current growth, he thinks there is widespread disenchantment with the union among its established shops.
He said they have been coordinating their efforts with disgruntled workers at the Larsen's meat packing plant in Berwick, N.S., in hopes of setting up another AMU shop.
"Right now, I just want to get word out about what we're doing to try to replace this union. I think there are people out there who are unhappy with UFCW who might be glad to talk to us."
Here's something from the MFD news archive about the AMU:
quote:
East coast meat packers give biz-union the boot
by sleK Thursday, Nov 15 2001 12:00 AM - Discussion
Some 280 workers at Atlantic Meat Packers in Berwick, N.S., voted earlier this month to decertify the UFCW. The workers have created their own independent local union, the Atlantic Meat Packers Union. The vote, supervised by the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board, was 70% in favour of booting out the biz-unionists and came part way through contract negotiations.
This is how, I think, the biz unions are going to meet their demise. Workers are going to form their own smaller local or regional unions. If they network with each other effectively, they may be quite effective and be able to hold their own quite well.
I couldn't help but catch the UFCW rep's comment: "Petitions don't amount to a hill of beans..."
Good example of un-democracy.
Good Catch Troll
Although I really do not know all the facts, I really feel for <whiteway>. I would really like to hear more from someone on his side of the argument. Even if Brother Whiteway were to post under another name and speak in the third party so we can get the other sides view point.
Heck if you want, post under <aboutunions>, but do
try to tell the world what is going on. I know first hand how you are feeling. That is one of the reasons why I am here at MFD.
<aboutunions>
Fisher has never supported the elected inhouse committee of Garden Province Meats nor has he tried to work with us. he always went outside the plant to the BA .who controlls each unit on PEI LIKE A KING. I do not trust George enought to spill my guts on the internet (past experences). He has laid charges against me for calling someone an asshole . so i have to be carefull. We have big problems with UFCW in the maritimes .Ican asure you that we have exhausted all possible avenues within the union to solve our problems .The system does not work. .george
your full of hot air.
Your post comes as no surprise to me Whiteway, I was part of a group who went through the same hoops and got nowhere. I congradulate you on your efforts and courage in the face of a so called union that seems to save it's most aggressive tendencies for members who are fed up with their bull rather than fighting employers they're worried might be mad at them if they don't bend over backwards to make them happy. Stay the course brother Whiteway the members will thankyou for it one day.
quote:
posted by <whiteway>:
Fisher has never supported the elected inhouse committee of Garden Province Meats nor has he tried to work with us. .
Hi Paul:
Well I guess the open hand of brotherhood is rejected. As there are time restraints built into the Constitution, I alone as the charging party could have withdraw those charges leaving your violations of the Constitution mute. You are well aware that my only vocal objections to the old in-plant executive at GPM were as a result of your executive's attempting to alter contractual guarantees without the benefit of either a member wide vote or an information campaign. The only other objections came as a result of you and your followers alleging wrongdoing in our Union to the rank-and -file but refusing to address those concerns in a public forum where the accused could defend against those charges. I went from never missing a union meeting to going almost three years without attending one all in the name of solidarity, as I refused to allow attacks on my union brethren to go unchallenged. This disrupted your meetings according to you and I complied and stoped going. Any time you asked me as a unionist to assist your executive by refusing overtime, in fact any attempt to place pressure on management I was there. Legislation information, information of any kind I never denied you. I only refused to sit in silence when you attacked the credibility of our union or the members there of, without offering any proof to support your allegations. Paul it is true however that I took part in making snide comments when you were within earshot over the past couple of days and for that I apologise, treating you as I have been treated was wrong. I refuse to allow you or your followers to change me as a unionist and will simply ignore the childish taunts directed against me. At the hearings you will be given the chance to defend your actions in front of a panel of your pears this is something you have denied the targets of your attacks and is democracy in action.
In solidarity if not respect
G. Fisher
Hi George
Just prior to our open period Markand I had a meeting with Dan GILBERT of the national office Ihad all my concerns and problems typed out and every one backed up by documentation. I presented a copy to dan after Iread it to him .We told dan we wanted our own local within the UFCW or we wanted some major changes within the local. We made some recomendations that we though would improve the local.We advised dan that we wanted an answer by sept 30 /01. We never heard from him till 3 weeks after the 30 /sept/01. We told Dan that if we didn't get an answer by the 30 we would decertifly.
Hi Paul:
This situation we find ourselves in is a prime example why communication between members and executive within a union is so important. The last time you tried to explain the bottom-up principle to me, all I heard was everything being decided by an open vote among the members. This concerned me as I interpreted this to mean my contractual rights would be based on a popularity contest. Perhaps it is time I listen more carefully. Could you take the time to post this bottom-up theory.
Solidarity is the Key
G. Fisher
whiteway: What was Dan Gilbert's response?
We met with Dan Gilbert on July 04, We told him unless he had an answer before august 1st. (our open period) we would decertifly.We received a letter during the week of the 13 of Aug. We filed to dercitifly Aug 15. His reply was The information provided to me at our meeting of Wednesday,July 4.2001 has been given to Director Fraser.
This office will be in further contact with youin the near future in an endeavour to resolve the collective problems to everyons satisfaction.I havenot heard from him since. IT was clear to us that there would be no changes or sollutions.
They must have a whole drawer full of the standard response. Just fill in the mames in the blank spaces.
Your letter sounds sooooooo familiar.
Who is Director George Fisher when he is at home? What is the structure in an UFCW system, other than I know each local has its executive? Where does the "Director" come in?
aboutunions
It's the Canadian Director Mr. Michael Fraser, nephew of ex-Canadian Director Clifford Evans, father to UFCW lawyer John R. Evans.
The head guy in Canada is called the Direcor, but he is also an International V.P. The heads of UFCW Locals like to be referred to as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Most CEOs have at least one male flunky known as an Executive Assistant.
quote:
Just prior to our open period Markand I had a meeting with Dan GILBERT of the national office Ihad all my concerns and problems typed out and every one backed up by documentation.
More info on Dan Gilbert.
quote:
Brother Gilbert started his union career as a shop steward in what was then The Loblaws Workers Council at a store in Chatham, Ont. Recognizing the need for a stronger union, he led the council into becoming the 22,000-member Local 1000A of UFCW Canada. President of that local for 30 years, Dan is now Executive Assistant to the Director of UFCW Canada.
I understand that Dan's move to 61 International Boulevard was part of a bigger shake-up of Local 1000A, but I don't know the details. Can anyone help me out?
Pass the pension please, urp!
What do you do when they say no? Three years later:
quote:
Friday, April 26, 2002, By Ron Ryder, Charlottetown Guardian
(excerpt)
At a press conference Thursday morning, leaders of the United Food and Commercial Workers said government is letting Polar Foods run roughshod over their attempts to organize and negotiate contracts.
... [Mark Dobson, Atlantic region representative for the UFCW] said Polar workers now make as little as $7.45 per hour working seasonal jobs and the company has spent a small fortune fighting the union's attempts to organize....
The touted benefits of unionization have yet to materialize however. Three years have passed since UFCW first organized in a Polar Plant and no collective agreements have been signed.
...Premier Pat Binns said government wants to see its labour laws followed but it won't be taking sides in any talks between UFCW and Polar Foods....
...He said the best outcome would be for the workers and owners to come to a resolution by following the normal course of labour talks....
..."As I understand it, there is a meeting scheduled between the two parties. If that fails they have the right to request a conciliator, but there are other steps that can be taken. The right to strike is there by employees, the right to lockout is there by employers. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that."...
quote:
posted by about unions:
Who is Director George Fisher when he is at home? What is the structure in an UFCW system, other than I know each local has its executive? Where does the "Director" come in?
aboutunions
Is this "Director George Fisher" description an attempt at a joke at my expense? I am simply a rank-and-file member fighting for what he thinks is right. In a Democratic society the voice of the minority needs to be heard as well. The situation at GPM here on PEI is complex and I feel my coworkers have been manipulated into taking sides through half-truths, innuendo, and outright character assassinations against anyone who dares speaks up against the AMU. Point in question a censored copy of the charges I filed against the executive of the AMU was circulated along with a copy of the Sins of the Father. The following day I posted a complete copy of the three charges because being totally honest with my coworkers is a sign of my respect for them. As far as the distributing of that story on that didiler an attempt to connect that sick bastard with anyone who supports the UFCW is cowardly at best and shows no respect for ones fellow workers. I understand the MFD and Sharyn Sigurdur are being sued, has the posting of that story on the MFD site have anything to do with that action? I have attempted to resolve the issues in dispute at my plant with the president of the AMU and have been rebuffed for my efforts. When one is standing up for what he/she believes and ones popularity suffers as a result it shouldn't be a choice between ones integrity and acceptance among the members in any Labour Movement!!
In Solidarity
G Fisher
quote:
posted by weiser:
[QB]What do you do when they say no? Three years later:
First contract legalisation is something the UFCW has been lobbying for here on PEI for some time now. The power of an employer in a province with double didget unemployment is almost overwhelming. With a Labour Standards Act that provides that overtime is only to be payed after 56 hours for line workers and some 75 hours for forklift operators per week is achieved among fish-plant workers the UFCW should be commended in their efforts to organise this oppressed group not ridiculed for the employer dragging their feet. Have you written the employer to voice your displeasure with their treatment of there workers? Have you written the government of PEI as to there justification for there oppressive Labour Standards Act? Well I have been working hard to fight for the fair treatment of the workers on PEI and have achieved some minor victories in that effort. This is positive unionism at work, and the UFCW here on PEI has made this possible.
In Solidarity
G Fisher
quote:
posted by <whiteway>:
We met with Dan Gilbert on July 04, We told him unless he had an answer before august 1st. (our open period) we would decertifly.We received a letter during the week of the 13 of Aug. We filed to dercitifly Aug 15. His reply was The information provided to me at our meeting of Wednesday,July 4.2001 has been given to Director Fraser.
This office will be in further contact with youin the near future in an endeavour to resolve the collective problems to everyons satisfaction.I havenot heard from him since. IT was clear to us that there would be no changes or sollutions.
Hi Paul:
Has it ever accrued to you that when the decertification application was filed with the Labour Board that the attempts to resolve your concerns were taken out of the internal procedure. By the way during that decertification drive not telling the members that the companies obligation to comply with our contract would be lost should the drive be successful was misleading. Why do you and the remaining executive members of the AMU force me to correct your mistakes? A little ground work before attempt something would go a long way in achieving your goals.
In Solidarity
G Fisher
quote:
to connect that sick bastard with anyone who supports the UFCW is cowardly at best and shows no respect for ones fellow workers.
What about connecting an organization that would knowingly support a "sick bastard"? Is that fair?
quote:
I understand the MFD and Sharyn Sigurdur are being sued, has the posting of that story on the MFD site have anything to do with that action?
There is no direct mention of this in the documents. As to whether the "posting of that story" is a reason, you would have to ask UFCW.
Fisher, I don't think the MFD suit has anything to do with Father Ron. The UFCW has sued me for articles I've written, and they've sued William Gammert for posting the UFCW Constitution and I believe they have sued Steve Guiliano and others for complaining about the UFCW barging in on a community group's meeting. I believe they sued a rank and filer who ran for president of Local 832.
In my opinion, they sue people to shut them up.
Like it or not, Fisher, old father Ron and his RHK Capital is in real deep with the UFCW through the many business entities (IF Propco's) beneficially owned by a UFCW pension fund (CCWIPP). In fact, father ron was getting involved in maritime food plants just around the time he seems to have disappeared to, I believe, Panama.
quote:
What about connecting an organization that would knowingly support a "sick bastard"? Is that fair?
I challenge the accuracy as to our pension plan administrators knowingly doing business with that "SICK BASTARD". The last time I applied for a loan a question as to sexual deviancy was not on the application. After committing funds how would you cut there losses without losing the money already invested. The administrators of that pension are equally represented by Labour and Management, why does the story only focus on the labour connection? The Ontario Teachers Pension Fund is a shareholder in Maple Leaf Foods, a company who devastated the benefits payed to packing house workers to the toon of a %40 loss. There was a stipulation that the jobs in the hotel's in question would be unionized this is positive use of Labours Money.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
Fisher, all of the lawsuits that we're discussing - the ones against MFD, Sharyn Sigurdur, Kelsey Sigurdur, William Gammert, HJ Finnamore - were started long before the Sins of the Father article appeared on this site. BTW, most if not all of the information in the article appears to have come from earlier media reports. If the UFCW takes issue with them, why isn't it suing the newspapers that ran those stories in the first place?
As far as the article goes, union members have a right to know how and where their money is being invested and about the kind of company their representatives and officials are keeping.
If members are outraged or, in the least, not too impressed with Kelly's history, it's their right to be. If they're letting their representatives know how they feel, that's their right too isn't it?
Enough of this, "let's keep the dirty secrets in the family - it's our duty and obligation" nonsense.
quote:
Like it or not, Fisher, old father Ron and his RHK Capital is in real deep with the UFCW through the many business entities (IF Propco's) beneficially owned by a UFCW pension fund (CCWIPP). In fact, father ron was getting involved in maritime food plants just around the time he seems to have disappeared to, I believe, Panama.[/QB]
Like it, I do not. I will lobby the trustees of (CCWIPP) to exercise greater care in how our money is invested. I suggest you do the same. That is how positive change is achieve.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
The administrators of that pension are equally represented by Labour and Management, why does the story only focus on the labour connection?
CCWIPP does not have equal representation. It's supposed to have, but it doesn't.
By the looks of it, Mike Fraser's uncle controls all the "investments" made by CCWIPP. What the hell is he still hanging on for?
Fisher, I don't want to burst your bubble, but Ron Kelly was doing business with Cliff Evans and the rest of the CCWIPP/IF Propco crews long after he was front page news.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
Fisher, all of the lawsuits that we're discussing - the ones against MFD, Sharyn Sigurdur, Kelsey Sigurdur, William Gammert, HJ Finnamore - were started long before the Sins of the Father article appeared on this site. .
Thank-you for clearing that up. But as a statement of belief I encourage all rank-and-file members to speak up when they feel the need, this is democracy. When I make statements I stand by them and am ready to defend them, if I am mistaken I correct that mistake.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
quote:
posted by Troll:
CCWIPP does not have equal representation. It's supposed to have, but it doesn't.quote:
The administrators of that pension are equally represented by Labour and Management, why does the story only focus on the labour connection?
By the looks of it, Mike Fraser's uncle controls all the "investments" made by CCWIPP. What the hell is he still hanging on for?
Fisher, I don't want to burst your bubble, but Ron Kelly was doing business with Cliff Evans and the rest of the CCWIPP/IF Propco crews long after he was front page news.
When was the last time you saw management give up the control open to them on millions of dollars? Common this is a self-serving statement and one that requires proof.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
You're a good man, Fisher.
I don't agree with all you say, but you put your beliefs up here with good and honest intention.
However, if you need proof, here it is.
When you are out campaining to have the board check out it's business partners, you might want ot ask, "who the hell is Howard Preston; what employers actually 'vote' him in as their representative; what connections, business and otherwise, does he have with Cliff Evans, and why is he always the one who is running the Propcos with Cliff rather than the Safeway, Weston or A&P reps?"
quote:
posted by Troll:
You're a good man, Fisher.
I don't agree with all you say, but you put your beliefs up here with good and honest intention.
However, if you need proof, here it is.
There is a discrepancy in representation between Labour and management with a 5 to 4 split in favour of Labour. This is something I didn't notice before. Interesting! I must investigate to determine if Clifford Evans as Chairman of the Investment Committee has a vote. The structure of some of the committees I have sat on the chairman is restricted from voting. Federation of labour, Joint Health and Safety, and political committees to name a few.
In Solidarity
G. Fisher
The Chair always has a vote as a tiebreaker, does he/she not?
We gave Dan Gilbert untill the 1st of Aug to reply ,he did not. we were always willing to talk even after the decert was filled.But no one made contact. this is the way the UFCW handles internal problems by intimidation and with high priced lawyers paid for by the members dues.I am Glad that the CCWIPP has been brought up, About 4 years ago some of us at the plant noticed that the rate of return on our pension compared to previous years was lower ,we were also paying 3 cents extra into the plan(58cents per hour to get 40,00 per
year pension return. the max was55 cents to get 40.00 per year pension.)and getting nothing in return, We asked our local union reps about this they told us if we didn't like the plan we should get out. We then wrote the board of directors of CCWIPP and received a letter from CLIFF EVANS. He replied that there could not be any changes in the plan because the Alberta Pension Commission was looking into the solvency of the plan, We were concerned about these comments ,So we wrote the alberta pension commission and asked them what was going on.They replied that the plan was having some problems and hopefully they could work out their problems in a few months.Each member received a letter about a year ago from the Board of Directors of CCWIPP explaining the new changes .The most importent was If a person was not eligible to retireas at Jan 1 ,1997 (was not 50 in 1997 )the amount of their pension would be reduced between 50 and 65 .Full pension available without reduction at 65. When we got into the plan we were promised that we could rtire at 60 with a full pension. THE other change was to received the 40.00 per year pension we would have to contribute 65 cents per hour instead of 55 cents per hour.The letter also that there would bea supplement ary income benefit , finances permitting, which would provide a full pension at 60.I then E-Mailed Mike Fraser and asked him where the money for the supplement was comming from ,(maybe from a surplus) Mike then phoned me a couple of weeks later and assured me that I would get a full pension at 60 .Last year we received our pension statement , There was no mention of the supplenmentary income benefit .It statedthat if you were not eligibleto retire in 1997 yoy would take a one -half percent per month reduction from ages 50 to 65. (what happened to the supplement?) Ithen wrote the board of directors asking them to garentee me in writeing that i would get a full pension at 60 .I received a letter from C Ormond Administrater stating that the trustees implemented a supplementary income benefit on the understanding that alberta had approved the process. However ,Alberta have now decided not to approve the payment of the (sib) in yhe form which it has been currently structured .Therefor ,the payment of the SIB has been suspended untila solution to the problem has been sorted out. We are not sure when that will be (so much for my garentee).Why weren"t the members at Garden Province Meats told that the supplenment had been removed . I posted the letter on the board . I then wrote the Alberta Pension Commission about the supplement ,they replied ,CCWIPP currently has some funding problems.These were caused by a number of things ,most noteably some inaccurate information and advise from one of their advisers (who has been fired).When a pension plan is in a deficit situation (i.e. does not have sufficient funds to pay all benefits promised).then it must take action to eliminate the deficit.pension legislation requires that the deficit be eliminated within 15 years. It looked to me that there were some bad investments made at a time when other pension plans have incurred large surpluses.The members then received a letter fron Joan Tanaka of CCWIPP stating that the pension funds had been transferred from Alberta to Ontarioand that the (SIB) had been reinstated and was now called the supportive Temporary Outlay. It states the solvency requirements are less severe in Ontario. Why didn"t they transfer the plan to Prince Edward Island WHERE WE HAVE NO PENSION LEGLISLATION TO PROTECT PENSION MEMBERS. We have the rite to ask questions and to get answers about our pension plan without being labeled a trouble maker. our local union leardres should be providind the members with this information .I wonder what is going on in other provinces regarding theCCWIPP pension plan?We were screwed when Canada Packers left the Island by the Canada Packers pension plan(100).WE received only the money we put in and none of the companys share .then we find out the plan has a 50 million dollar surpluss of which we will get nothing. In solidarity PW.
Hi whiteway all the CCWIPP files may not be unpacked yet, but you can contact these people. They have the CCWIPP files. A guy named Larry Martello is managing the CCWIPP file. You can call the OPB and get Larry's e-mail.
What's astounding about the CCWIPP plan is that unlike other plans, it gets huge amounts of money dumped into it every year that won't benefit those on whose behalf it was remitted.
To get a pension benefit, you have to be "vested". To be vested, you usually have to be in the plan for at least two years. If you quit before vesting occurs, all the money remitted on your behalf dissappears into the fund. This money is called "breakage."
As we all know, retail food has huge turnover of employees. All these employees get from 40 to 50 cents per hour dumped into the plan, but the vast majority of them leave before vesting occurs.
Now "breakage" cannot be used for anything but improving or maintaining the pension benefits of vested members.
If you think about it, CCWIPP should not be facing solvency restrictions. They should be scratching their heads about what to do with the huge amounts of "breakage."
What in hell happened to the plan? How much has been lost in bad investments like hotels, shopping malls and bankrupt meat plants?