• authored by HB
  • published Fri, Sep 28, 2001

UFCW 400

Has anyone had any problems with local UFCW 400?

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Sep 28, 2001 2:29pm

Is Local 400 the Washington DC Local run by the McNutts--Sr. & Jr.?

  • posted by HB
  • Fri, Oct 12, 2001 12:20pm


  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Oct 12, 2001 7:16pm

Oh, it's not this UFCW Local 400:Local 400 News

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Oct 12, 2001 7:24pm

And ain't it the same everywhere you look:


McNutt's strength, sources said, was his ability to understand management's side while still fighting for workers' rights. Grocery store executives have said that if they had to deal with a union leader, they wanted it to be McNutt.

The McNutt name lives on at Local 400, however. Thomas McNutt Jr. was elected to replace Lowthers as secretary/treasurer. He had been the organizing director for the past three years.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Oct 12, 2001 7:44pm


McNutt Sr. will begin a "quasi-second career" as a consultant with the District office of Kamber Group, a public relations firm with a long list of union clients, his son said.(bold added)

Is that machine talk for 'still on the payroll"?

  • posted by Richard
  • Sat, Oct 13, 2001 7:10am

I do believe McNutt senior was also involved with WebGalaxy.


CONTACT: Tom McNutt, Director of WebGalaxy, Inc., 301-563-6910, or General Inquiries, Norha Lee, 212-661-8030, ext. 3087, or Media Inquiries, Jason Rando, 212-661-8030, ext. 3036, both of The Financial Relations Board- BSMG Worldwide

As for Kamber, they do a lot, a real lot of business with the UFCW.

The multi-million dollar International Conventions have Kamber fingerprints all over them. Kamber does a fine job of putting them together, so don't get me wrong. However, the conventions are a prime example of obscene excess that the elite shower on themselves and the few that they reward.(Conventions)

Why would a PR agency hire somebody like McNutt? is the big question. How would he earn money for them? Is his going to work for them ethical considering the amount of money the UFCW pays Kamber each year?

  • posted by Richard
  • Sat, Oct 13, 2001 7:14am

You'll also notice that ULOL is a client. That's the parent of WebGalaxy. Who would have given the Kamber Group the ULOL contract?

  • posted by Richard
  • Sat, Oct 13, 2001 7:18am

Help! I've looked everywhere at Kamber and can't find Tom McNutt Senior:(People)

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Oct 13, 2001 10:02am

He's probably not on the payroll as an employee. We'd probably be amazed at how many cheques are cut each month for "consultants" to companies and local unions with ties to the parent union.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Oct 13, 2001 10:16am

K.. we know it's not ethical ... but is that legal?

  • posted by HB
  • Tue, Oct 16, 2001 12:25pm

That's old news. James L has been there for some time.

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Oct 16, 2001 1:44pm

It's old but true. And besides, McNutt Jr. is still collecting a cheque. How did McNutt Jr. get his job? Why is McNutt Sr. involved in ULOL and taking a job from one of ULOL's suppliers? Aren't some of the WebGalaxy guys on the list of contributors to the Hoffa campaign? (McNutt)



Findings of Fact

A. The WebGalaxy enterprise. WG is a publicly held company with stock traded on the over-the-counter market. In early 1999, WG announced that it was in the process of launching a new "affinity" web portal service[1] to the labor movement, in partnership with Affinity Telesystems, Inc. ("ATI"), a closely held corporation. ATI would be the marketing agent to various labor organizations. Thomas R. McNutt and John Irvine, both principals of ATI, were named as directors and executive vice presidents of WG. Irvine had gotten to know McNutt during previous efforts to market other products to various labor unions through ATI. McNutt had been an active United Food and Commercial Workers union official in the Washington, D.C. area until his retirement from that union in 1997, and was brought into ATI by Irvine to help gain access to labor leaders.

Lawrence and Michael Schaffer controlled WG. They had been urged by investors to join forces with ATI. The arrangement that WG and ATI were marketing to labor unions involved payment of a monthly royalty to union partners for each union member purchaser of the web portal service. WG named a labor "Advisory Board" of labor union associated individuals as part of its marketing strategy.

On March 9, 1999, WG issued a press release announcing that it had signed a letter of intent for the provision of union member web portal services with the Laborers International Union and that it had earlier signed a similar letter of intent with three other international unions. The press release announced that WG was "introducing United Labor OnLine (ULOL) in the first half of 1999," which it characterized as "a combination of online services all meant to support and enhance the collective communication, buying, social and political power of Unions and their members." The press release stated that because of the foregoing WG was "positioned to become the leading Internet Service Provider, web site designer, host and web site destination for labor Unions, labor Union members and their families in the United States and Canada."

Beginning in early 1999, WG was also attempting to secure an overall web portal arrangement with the AFL-CIO. It retained what it referred to in a June 1999 letter to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney as a "WebGalaxy team of professional advisors includ[ing] Patton Boggs, Legal Counsel, Thomas Havey Company, Accountants, Concept Foundry and Kamber Group, for Public Relations and media services."

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by Richard
  • Tue, Oct 16, 2001 3:06pm

Wow! That's sure a nice comment on the business practices and eithics of former UFCW official. Quite a wheeler dealer.


D. The WebGalaxy contributions to the Hoffa legal and accounting fund. At around the time of the September 21, 1999 fundraiser, a number of entities or individuals involved in the WG-ATI enterprise made significant contributions to the Hoffa legal and accounting fund. Most of those contributions were discussed in our earlier decision in 2001 EAD 302, supra. Contributions from those related to WG-ATI enterprise included:

* John Irvine, Affinity Systems, Inc., $25,000 donation on September 15, 1999, $15,000 returned on August 9, 2000, $10,000 returned on April 23, 2001;

* John Irvine, WebGalaxy, Inc., $3,000 donation on September 20, 1999, returned August 9, 2000;

* John Irvine, $5,000 donation on September 15, 1999, returned August 9, 2000;

* Michael A. Schaffer, $1,000 donation on September 15, 1999, returned August 9, 2000;

* Michael Schaffer,, $10,000 donation on September 15, 1999, returned April 23, 2001;

* Thomas R. McNutt, $1,000 donation on September 15, 1999, returned April 23, 2001;

* Donna Ann McNutt (spouse of Tom McNutt), $1,000 donation on September 27, 1999, no record of return to this date;

* Thomas Havey Company, $3,000 donation on September 15, 1999, returned September 15, 2000;

* Vince Kensil, Union Labor Life Ins. Co., $2,000 donation on September 21, 1999, returned December 20, 2000;[13]

* Dennis Walston, Concept Foundry, Inc., $1,000 donation on September 7, 1999, returned December 20, 2000;

* Jason Endicott, Program Direct Affinity Inc., $200 donation on September 27, 1999, escrowed per decision in 2001 EAD 302;

* Victor Kamber, $1,000 donation on September 27, 1999, escrowed per decision in 2001 EAD 302;

* Tom Boggs, $5,000 donation on September 27, 1999, escrowed per decision in 2001 EAD 302;

* Lawrence Schaffer; $1,000 donation on September 27, 1999.

In short, total contributions to the Hoffa slate legal and accounting fund from entities or individuals related to the WG-ATI enterprise totaled $59,200.00.

Was it stuff like this that the $500,000 CCWIPP investment in WG was spent?

© 2020 Members for Democracy