Members for Democracy Archive

UFCW International Union strikes again!

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which boasts that it is the Voice for Working America, has commenced a lawsuit to silence the MFD. The suit names Kelsey Sigurdur, MFD's webmaster and site owner, and Sharyn Sigurdur, a UFCW Local 1518 member in good standing who works as a part-time grocery store clerk as defendants. Although Kelsey is named in the documents served on Sharyn Sigurdur, he has not yet been served with the suit. Also named in the suit are "John Doe and Jane Doe, persons whose names and identities are presently unknown" to the Voice for Working America. The UFCW claims that Ms. Doe and Mr. Doe have "participated with the identified Defendants in the conduct set out" in its Writ of Summons.

What has prompted this latest UFCW assault on freedom of speech?

Of particular issue appears to be MFD web site's use of the acronym "UFCW" in its URL. According to the UFCW's Statement of Claim:

"The MFD Website is not approved by or affiliated with the UFCW or any local of the UFCW... The Defendants have not obtained the consent or authorization of the UFCW, or any local of the UFCW, to use the UFCW's name or acronym in connection with the MFD Website."

The Voice for Working America also takes offense at MFD's criticism of the UFCW and the labour movement in general:

"The content posted on the MFD Website is critical of the union movement generally and of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and their executive members and employees.... Further, many of the postings on the MFD Website are defamatory of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and their executive members and employees."

Finally, the UFCW believes that the MFD web site is likely to be mistaken for a UFCW web site:

"The Defendants' use of the UFCW's name and acronym in connection with the MFD Website... was and is calculated to cause and is likely to cause confusion between the MFD Website and the websites operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals. In so doing, the Defendants, and each of them, are passing off on the goodwill of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and are passing off the MFD Website as and for a website operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals or as being authorized, sanctioned or affiliated with the UFCW and its affiliated locals."

As a remedy, the UFCW is seeking a declaration that MFD's use of the UFCW name or acronym constitutes "passing off" and "an interim, interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, from using the UFCW's name or acronym in connection with the MFD Website or any website without the approval and consent of the UFCW, and in particular, from using the URL - www.ufcw.net. The UFCW is also seeking general, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount.

Sharyn Sigurdur intends to fight the lawsuit and so does Kelsey, better known as "slek" - if he is ever served with it. He expressed surprise when asked about the UFCW's pursuit of a "passing off" declaration. "Absolute rubbish. There's no way anyone could mistake our site for a UFCW site. We outclass them by miles. The only similarity is the URL." he said. "We have UFCW supporters and UFCW officials that visit the site daily and post in the forums. I highly doubt that these visitors have ever thought that we are an "official" site. It's about as likely as someone mistaking the UFCW-sponsored walmartyrs.com site for an 'official' Wal-Mart site.".

The UFCW has threatened MFD with legal action twice in the past. On the last occasion, in August 2001, Sigurdur asked for specifics as to exactly what material on the site the UFCW considered defamatory. He never received a response. This is the third lawsuit the UFCW has initiated against Canadian union reform activists in the past six months. In addition, three other activists and a Socialist newspaper have recently been threatened with legal action by the UFCW.

We'll bring you more as this story unfolds.

Ooooh, we're soooo scared!

Well, I'd say the UFCW leadership has really gone and done it now. It's about time these issues had a full and public airing.

Thanks DriveOn. Yes, let's spread the word around. It's time the world knew the truth about how some unions treat their members.

Although there is so much about this shameful display of macho-moneyed-might that makes me positively want to barf, the question that is really plaguing me right now is:

The UFCW is suing a woman, part-time service industry worker. Is this the UFCW's way of telling us they care about women workers? Here are some sites that imply that they care:

http://www.ufcw.ca/women/index.html

http://www.ufcw.org/issues/page.cfm?subsection_id=170

Hey check it out! International women's day is coming up - maybe the UFCW meant to send Sharyn Sigurdur a big bouquet but its lawyers suggested a lawsuit instead.
http://www.ofl-fto.on.ca/

Shame on you all.

I think William clarified in another thread that he makes $22 and change, but that he's capped at 25 hours per week.

What's amazing is that he's at top rate and it takes nearly six years to get to top rate and still he's only working just over half time.

"The Defendants' use of the UFCW's name and acronym in connection with the MFD Website... was and is calculated to cause and is likely to cause confusion between the MFD Website and the websites operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals. In so doing, the Defendants, and each of them, are passing off on the goodwill of the UFCW and its affiliated locals, and are passing off the MFD Website as and for a website operated by the UFCW and its affiliated locals or as being authorized, sanctioned or affiliated with the UFCW and its affiliated locals."

Only the UFCW could come up with a theory this stupid. Kick their ass, MFD!

Maybe you should run a poll and see how many viewers are confused and don't know where they are.

I think what Laura means is having a poll question that asks:

Whose web site do you think this is:

1. MFD
2. UFCW

SLAPP SLAPP SLAPP

Thanks to the widspread use and acceptance of the Internet the MFD, along with other labour media sites have created one of the most clever Chinese finger locks in human history. I suppose though it's less a credit to our own intellect and more likely do to the predictable nature of our principle antagonists that we've managed as well as we have.

A huge fan of NBC's "the West Wing" I marvelled at the ironic microcosm surrounding the Chess games on tonights show. "take your time and see the whole board" the President kept saying. Then he moved in for check mate. I take great satisfaction in knowing that the principle leaders of the UFCW and other business unions seldom if ever take the time to see the whole board. With an endless supply of available funds they've gotten SLAPP happy and become completely relient on their lawyers.

It doesn't matter how hard they try and force it, they will never be able to get the cork back in the bottle The UFCW is running out of moves and they are to blinded to see that it wasn't the panic button they hit...it was the self destruct. Good riddence.

I think this is a good time to quote my late brother as well.

My brother would taste just about anything that went past him and when I asked him if there was anything he didn't like or wouldn't eat he said

quote:

---

Yeah .. tomato sauce 'cause the fly shit quota was too high

---

I had no idea at the time that this was a much broader observation and would apply to other things in life .. but it definitely applies here!

Here's the obvious inconsistency:

On the one hand they accuse you of being anti-union, and on the other hand they accuse you of trying to pass off as a union publication.

The whole "business" thing is a real knee-slapper! I'd love to see how they substantiate that!

They got the date of the site's inception wrong too! Waaaaaaay off!

I think the CSN would be outraged to have the UFCW speaking on its behalf.

I am embarrassed to be a part of the ufcw. Thanks Mr.&Mrs.slek for your (our) site!!!!!!
The ufcw sites pale in comparision to MFD and www.caw.ca!! Without a doubt!!!!!
In my opinion the ufcw should be turfed out of the CLC for contradicting themselves
over and over again SHAME on YOU UFCW You truly are an EMBARRASSMENT.....
You are not worthy in OUR country/ ufcw are voluntarily WRECKing themselves!! Believe it you are detrimental to the young working people!!!
Go away leave us alone!!!!

Lawsuits? Bad strategy for an outfit that depends on secrecy and control. Lawsuits draw the media and the public and create paper trails. Shame on our friends at the UFCW. I thought they were smarter than that. There's no quicker way to a good outing.

Nonetheless, I too am righteously indignant. Take not UFCW central command: I have not yet begun to snoop!

I used to play hockey with a guy in Cambells cabnet and I had a chance to get to know the President of the B.C. liberals when I was at 7-11. Seems to me with all the crap thrown at the B.C. Liberals by unions in the past couple months they would love a few stones to hurl back. Unions suing their own members in a blatent effort to silence their critics for doing far less than the UFCW dishes out to people and org. they don't like would be great cannon fodder. I don't think anybody on our site has ever called a UFCW staffer a lier have they? I make the calls tomorrow.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=142566&group=webcast

A great many people are getting to hear and see incompetance from the
UFCW. Most people do not care until they are personally affected{I like that
riddle -and then there were none-} To the educated person they know this
gag-ordering of members is appalling to say the least!!!!
We in the labour movement don't need a union{ufcw} to walk us backwards!
the sheep can do that for us by themselves
A constitution is to live and ABIDE by--- Shame ufcw for quieting your critics!
You shall become still in the water when the truth gets out!!!
On a parting note gonna go spread this bolagna in Windsor to some
people who shall be quite eager to care and spread the word
Power to the LEFT Power to Mr & Mrs.slek

quote:

---

As for Scott's comment about the BC Liberal Party, I'd say tread carefully.

---

He isn't easy to get a hold of but remember this.. no sacrafice is too great, no cause more nobel and no price too high to defend freedom of speech. If it comes down to a choice between saving the labour movement and protecting my right to free speech....the labour movement will be sacraficed every single time!

As long as we protect our right to free speech we can always start over agian. But for workers to have the right to organize without the ability to criticize those who govern us is of no value and we are better off without them. So spare me the concern for the movement. I don't see a single union representative of the B.C. fed or the CLC stepping in do you?

quote:

---

but we don't want to bite off our nose to spite our face

---

Sometimes the only way to save the body from cancer is to cut off the appendage that's infected. If that's our nose than our nose has to go. If it spreads than those appendages also have to go. If there is nothing left...we only speeded up the inevitable. I am making the call, let the chips fall where they may.

Labornet has got us on its front page: http://www.labornet.org/

Retailworkers coverage of Williams suit too!



Purty cool!

quote:

---

i am a grassroots marketing machine!

---

Seriously though!

http://www.politechbot.com/

What's the latest with this? Do Teamsters unions do stupid stuff like this? Is UFCW 400 in on this to? I can't believe a union would go after it's own members.

quote:

---

it's only fair that the machine be reminded everyday what it's doing to its' members too.

---

I think it is definately a good idea to keep it fresh in their minds. They need to be kept aware of the suicidal tendencies that exist within their little machine heads! Just because there hasn't been much activity from their side concerning the lawsuit, isn't any reason not to keep visitors here at MFD aware of the situation.

I have seen Section 199 of the United Association's Constituion deleted because it was ruled by a federal judge to violate the member's basic right of free speech. We as members have rights, and by God we need to make sure they know it! It is not a dictatorship but a Democracy, period!

I think it's hard to imagine anyone looking bad when we members pay so much for all those fancy cloths.

Here is, at least some confirmable information. Every province has legislation covering liable and slander published with the intent of public viewing. [http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/statutes/index.php3] is where Prince Edward Island has the Defamation Act and insomuch as all provincial legislation must comply with Federal laws this legislation must be enforceable in-part throughout Canada. After viewing you will find the burden of proof for the Appellant is to show the extent of real personal damage caused or general damages by the alleged defamatory statements made, punitive damages are left up to the courts to determine. The Respondent, in this case the MFD site and specified administrators have the burden of justifying the alleged statements. Here is some actual case-law where two competing Unions found themselves in a similar situation [http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/1998/1998bcsc11121.html]. Freedom of speech is not a free for all where one is given the opportunity to slander or liable at will. Both parties have rights and protections and I think it is about time the UFCW starts defending itself from this kind of attack. Statements of fact are just that fact but the one sided bias reporting of events designed to ridicule my union and the members who support the UFCW angers me to no end. Everyone has the right to their own perception of the events taking place around them but when they publish that perception as fact we enter a whole different arena, welcome to Democracy at work.

In Union Solidarity

Fisher

quote:

---

Freedom of speech is not a free for all where one is given the opportunity to slander or liable at will....I think it is about time the UFCW starts defending itself from this kind of attack

---

Your right! they can start by ending partnership agreements with employers, they can start by prosecuting people who stuff ballot boxes during elections or who use union funds to campaign. They can start by prosecuting officials who steal union funds, or abuse their positions on union committees such as the pension fund. They can start by amending the constitution to reflect true participatory democracy instead of the sham the currently exists. They can start by holding elections [one vote one member] for top UFCW offfices. They can start by cracking down on employers who always "seem" to pursue termination and disciplinary actions agains union reformers. They can start by eneding sweetheart deals with employers.

Wow, what a list I could give you as just a starting point for the UFCW to start defending itself. None of which includes legal action against a member who is only speaking the truth. Your pissed, me too! I don't like being fooled into a false sence of security that my union is actually working for me and on my side instead of carrying out it's own agenda for it's working eliete.

You want to bring it? bring it. if there really is something there that's liable the UFCW has always had the opportunity to pick up the phone and call. People on this site always make every effort to edit material that could be liable or slanderous. Legal action has never been needed. But for candy ass union hanchos who've gotten caught with their hand's in the perverbial cookie jar that's not enough. They want to return to the dark ages when members never knew about their dirty deeds. To bad for them and too bad for you.

I to have not been sued by UFCW but have been charged buy my union brother under the International constitution for exerciseing my rights under the PEI LabourAct to change unions. The charges were laid against me and two other brothers who spoke out against UFCW. These charges have caused the three of us a lot of sleepless nights with the possibility of being expelled from the union and being fired. Iam convinced that the person who laid the charges is a front for ufcw in an attempt to silence us and to scare us into not attempting to certifly another union again. If anyone is looking for democracy within ufcw they will not find it. The BA removed me and my executive from office.NOT THE MEMBERS. The BA removed me from the negoiation committee.NOT THE MEMBERS. the BA opened our contract . Not the members. The BA appointed his own union stewarts NOT THE MEMBERS For four years we have tried to make changes from within .It is impossible .We are tired of talking LET THE MEMBERS GO, LET THE MEMBERS DECIDE . IT IS TIME FOR ACTION NOT WORDS. By the way ,the member who has LAID CHARGES AGAINST HIS OWN UNION BROTHERS IS GEORGE FISHER.

Our battle with the ufcw is a long one,The ufcw is a dictatership accountable to no one,not even the members.The ufcw solves their internal problems through threats,intimadation,and high price lawyers.The ufcw SUCKS. GOODBY, SOLONG.Its been a nightmare. If I seem bitter its because Iam!

George. I have been threatened many times to have my card pulled and my job lost by ufcw. Isn"t this a direct threat to my family? If you want to eliminate the threat to your family then for gods sake open your eyes leave the ufcw and sign an AMU card. The members will decide who they want to represent them in the end . that is all I ask,and that the majority has their say.

I would like to rebut somethe comments made by Fisher about me and my executive. When we filed to decertifly we knew there was going to be a short time where we would have no union,our legal adviser told us that but said it was very unlikely the company would do this.We took our lawyer with us to a UFCW meeting to debate that very issue with the UFCW lawyer and UFCW would not let our lawyer into the meeting ,so we left. The UFCW had a petition out for people who wanted to take their name off the decertifaction list and they only got 3 names and one of them resigned later so the members were willing to take the risk to leave UFCW We then dropped the decertification and applied to certifly the AMU This way we would not be without union for any period of time
We were having problems with our benifits plan in the time it took to process claims so we formed a committee to look around to see if there was a better plan, Great west life found out and agreed to make some inprovments.We sent a copy of the changes to the local making sure they were informed of everything. The local asked us to wait untill negoiations and we agreed ,they wanted us to take a look at the union plan.The contract was not opened so we decided to make the changes while they were available. We asked the local they replied that they would not interfere if we wanted to make these changes. We hah a meeting of the members ant the benefit committee gave a long presention explaining the changs. We then had another meeting ant the posted union notice stated there would be a presentation on the proposed changes and that there would be a vote.The members present voted to accept the changes. The next day the company received a letter from the BA stating that there would be no changes to the health plan without 100% approval of the membership. Fisher was not in attendance at either meeting. We then put a petition on the board asking who was in favor of the changes in yhe health plan and of those who signed everyone was in favor and none oppossed. By the way Fisher signed the petition in favor of the changes.
Ihave to go now but I will comment on the rest of Fishers statements later.
Downeaster:

quote:

---

posted by <Don>:
As far as I understand. If you change unions you would not lose the vested pension you have accumulated. One of two things would happen

1. If the contract ends upon the certfacation of the new union the company would not be required to contribute to a pension on your behalf or deduct and remit employee contributions to a pension. until when and if the new union negotiates a collective agreement requiring them to do so.

2. If the old pension plan was a union plan the new union would not be able negotiate back into the same plan. they would have to negotiate a new plan with no guarantees about benifet levels etc.

---

The pension plan I referred to is CCWIPP, a UFCW plan where you have to be a member of the union in order to participate. Currently the plan offers forty dollars a month pension for every year your employer contributes 60 cents per hour worked. Upon leaving the UFCW the members can, of-corse either elect to keep the money in CCWIPP and receive the pension generated to the date they left the union or have the money released and purchase back years in another plan. Here is the crunch, the cost to purchase back years is more expensive than continuing to an existing plan based only on the fact that years the new plan would have access to the money is reduced. The situation at Larsons, our sister plant who opted to replace the UFCW with the Atlantic Meatpackers Union sees the pension money generated from the employer from the date they left the UFCW being warehoused in a bank account and not generating the pension credits for the members it once did. So now the pension money generated from years of service for the members at Larsons is generating only common savings account interest and not coming close to the pension credits offered through CCWIPP. Is this a loss of pension? In real terms, that being the amount of money one has to retire on, it most certainly is.

In solidarity Fisher

quote:

---

Here is the crunch, the cost to purchase back years is more expensive than continuing to an existing plan based only on the fact that years the new plan would have access to the money is reduced.

---

Perhaps if you had to pay back years in a new pension plan, that in fact you may be paying into a defined pension plan that requires a substancial amount of money to bring up new members to that level of existing members. Exceptions to no money down, are usually agreements made between similar union benefit plans to accept contributions at par from the previous pension.

Did anyone have consultations with an unbiased third party pension company to get an idea of where the bottom line rests?

However, I must admit that if I was fed up with my union representation, I might want to get rid of the union at any cost and start new, if I new members would get democracy. I personally know that "the treat of loosing a pension" or the threat of "losing your contract" are all tactics used by status quo supporters to implement the fear tactic.

quote:

---

The pure audacity of your belief that a small group of ninety men can supply the same representation and protection as the UFCW bogles the mind.

---

What makes you so certain that a small group of workers couldn't out-represent the UFCW? From some of the articles on this web site, I sometimes think that it would be hard to do any worse. There are many smaller unions and independents out there which do quite well for their members. In fact, going back a hundred years or so, most unions were small, locally-run grassroots organization. They really knew hard times and evil employers but were able to organize 1000's of workers and get decent improvements for them just the same.

Speaking of the CCWIPP, Fisher what do you think about these unusual investments? It seems to me that someone who is concerned about his pension (and rightfully so), would want to know what's going on here.

When a person leaves the CCWIPP ,for whatever reason after 24 months that person has the option of leaving his or her money in the plan and collecting their pension that they have accumulated up to that point in time at retirenment age or to transfer the funds to another pension plan or RRSP.If you change unions you cannot continue to participate because you have to be a UFCW member.The CCWIPP is totatly controlled by UFCW.
About 6 years ago some of our members noticed that the rate of return for the amount of money that we were putting into the plan was getting smaller ,so we went to the BA and asked him we were told we were troble makers and if we didn"T LIKE THE PLAN WE SHOULD GET OUT OF IT . So we decided to do our own research.
We sent a letter to Cliff Evans a director and chief investnment officer .He replied that the Alberta Pension Commission was looking into the solvency of CCWIPP.I then wrote the Alberta Pension Commission and they stated that CCWIPP was having some funding problems and hopfully could work out these problems in a few months. We then received notice from CCWIPP stating that if you were not eligable to retire in 1997 or were not 50 years old in1997 there would be a reduction in your pension if you retired at 60 of 1half % a nonth or 30%from60 to 65. WHEN WE GOT INTO CCWIPP WE COULD RETIRE AT 60 WTIH A FULL PENSION. CCWIPP also stated that for those who were not eligable to retire in 1997 there would be a supplenment called the Supplementary Income Benefit(SIB) WHICH WOULD BE PAYED TO PEOPLE WHO RETIRE AT 60 SO THEY WOULD NOT TAKE A 30%REDUCTION. It also stated that the supplenment would be reviewed from year to year and available finances permitting. We then received our 2000 statement from CCWIPP .The statement said that if you were not eligable to retire in 1997 wou would take a reduction of 30%at age 60 ,60% at age 55 and 90%at age 50. There was no mention of (SIB).Prior to receiving my statement I wrote Mike Fraser about the pension reductions ,He latter called me on the phone and he garenteed that Iwould get my full pension at 60. When Ireceived the statment I then wrote the board of directors asking them to garentee me in writing that I would get my full pension at 60. THEIR REPLY WAS ALBERTA HAVE NOW DECIDED NOT TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF THE SIB IN THE FORM WHICH IT HAS BEEN CURRENTLY STRUCTURED. THERFOR, THE PAYMENT OF THE SIB HAS BEEN SUSPENDED. Why were the members not told that the supplement had been suspended? why was the Vice President of the local who works at our plant telling people that there would be no reduction in pension at age 60 when it simply was not true? The supplement was removed.
Ireceived an E-Mail from the Alberta Pension Commission about the supplement they replied that CCWIPP currently has some funding problems .These were caused by a number of things, most notably some inaccurate information from one of their advisers(who has been fired)
The members then received a memorandum and a letter from the BA and CCWIPP stating that the(SIB)is now called the(STO) Supportive Tempory Outlay ,has been reinstated. NO ONE WAS TOLD IT HAD BEEN SUSPENDED. We were told the pension funds hah been transfered from Alberta to Ontariowhere solvency requirments are less severe.A payment of 55 cents per hour would give you a pension of 40$ per year now we need 65cents per hour to get the same benefit.
I have written the board of directors Asking these questions Who WAS THE PERSON FIRED, WHAT BAD INVESTMENT ADVICE DID HE GIVE THE TRUSTEES OF CCWIPP? I ASKED FOR A FULL DISCLOSER OF INVESTMENTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUNDING PROBLEMS OF CCWIPP WHO RECOMENDED AND APPROVED THOSE INVESTMENTS DECISSIONS AND DID ANY MONEY FROM THE FUND GO TO BUINESSES IN WHICH CCWIPP TRUSTEES HAVE AN INTEREST.I ASKED FOR A LIST OF COMPANYS AND INVESTMENTS THAT CCWIPP IS INVESTING IN.I ALSO WANTED A GARENTEE THAT IWILL GET A FULL PENSION AT 60.I also sent a coppy of the letter to Larry MARTELLO (FSCO) ONTARIO PENSION BOARD.
THIS PENSION REDUCTION AT AGE 60 HAS AND NO GARENTEE OF THE SUPPLEMENT REPRESENTS A DIRECT FINANCIAL THREAT TO FISHER AND THOUSANDS OF CCWIPP MEMBERS IN OUR AGE RANGE WHO WERE PLANING TO RETIRE AT 60 WITH SOME DIGNITY.THE PENSION STATEMENT SAYS THE TRUSTEES HAVE AGREED TO FINANCE AN ADDITIONAL MONTHLY PAYMENT(STO)PROVIDED THAT THE ANNUAL ACTUARIAL REVIEW CONFIRMS TAHT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. (that says it all).
According to my pension statement if I were to retire at 60there is a 30 % reduction in my pension.Icalculated my pension at 60 assuming the current rate of 40$per year to be 800$ per month minus 30%or 240$which gives me 560$a month less taxes ,Icannot figure in the (STO) because it is not garenteed from one year to the next. This huge pension is my rewards for working 30 years in a meat plant . THANKS UFCW FOR THE FINANCIAL SECURITY
I know this is boring stuff But I tried to condense my comments as much as I could
In solidarty for the workers
keep asking questions
Downeaster

No you still retain what you have earned and can leave the money in the plan or transfer it to another plan.

Siggy, let me repeat. if you change unions, you dont have a pension to contibute to because your collective agreement ended the day you switch unions. you must negotiate an entirely new collective agreement including a new pension plan. grievances that were outstanding on the day you switch including termination greivances become null and void. You start over as a newly certified bargaining unit.

I'd like to shed some light on this issue of what workers lose if or when they change unions.

Once a new union is certified, the union and the employer are obliged to bargain in good faith to conclude a collective agreement. In most (maybe all) Canadian jurisdictions, my understanding is that the wages and working conditions of the workers are frozen an can't be altered during the certification process and while bargaining is in progress (at least until a legal strike or lock out occurs and even then there are some obstacles that an employer may need to overcome if it wants to roll back workers' entitlements to the bare minimums provided by law).

While it is true that the employer is not legally obligated to give the new union the same or better agreement as that which it had with the previous union, it is also true that an employer is not legally obligated to give any current union the same or better deal when its collective agreement expires.

The outcome at bargaining depends on a wide range of factors and this is the case whether the union is one that the employer has dealt with for years or is a new union that has just displaced an existing union. It comes down to bargaining power.

Based on what I've seen, a union that has just been voted in has a strong incentive to negotiate at least as good a deal (more likely a better deal) than the union that it has just displaced. While employers sometimes make noises about all the terrible things that will happen if a new union gets in, they know damn well that - if pushed - they'll have to bargain a reasonable deal. Look at the settlements the CAW negotiated at workplaces that were previously represented by the SEIU. From everything I've seen they bargained improvements over the old collective agreements.

In jurisdictions that have imposed first agreement legislation, the new union may actually have an advantage, in that it may be able to ask the LRB for an imposed first agreement. It's not likely that the LRB will impose something worse than the workers had before.

As far as what happens to workers' pension entitlements if they change unions, I'd say the best way to get accurate information about that is to contact the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing your pension plan. I doubt very much that workers would simply forfeit what is in their pension accounts. My guess is that you would be treated in the same way as a worker who ceases to be a member of the union because s/he quit or was laid off or fired. In the case of the CCWIPP, the pension regulator is the FSCO. In the alternative, I would imagine that members could contact the CCWIPP administrator and request an answer (maybe in writing).

quote:

---

I've read arbitration awards from Ontario where the sucessor union tried to arbitrate terminations filed by the the old union and the arbitrator ruled he had no authority to hear the case due to the change of union and the employee stayed fired with no recourse

---

I really don't like people who use the loss of their pension plan to scare people into staying in their crappy union and I expect you would want to provide us with the case you mentioned above. I didn't ask my question because I didn't know the answer....most of you who know me well might have already guessed that. It ticks me off when I hear somebody bemoan how one group isn't representing "all" the facts and in the very next breath they do precisely the same with what has to be the single most important benefit a workers has.

SEIU tried that "you'll loose your pension" crap and it didn't take them long to stop it after a letter from the CAW legal department. Are you really better off in a pension fund who's administrators buy up hotels and then set themselves up as board members of the management company that runs those hotels? use your heads.

Article 16 of the PEI labour act states.Where an application is made under this part for certification of a trade union as bargaining agent of employees in a unit, the employer shall not, without the consent of the board,increase or decrease rats of pay or wages or alter any other term or condition of employment of any employees in the unit until the board has given its decision on the application and ,where the board certifies a trade union as bargaining agent.untill section 22 has been complied with.
Article 17 of the PEI Labour Act States: if at the time of certification ,a collective agreement binding on any of the employees in the unit is in force ,the trade union shall be substituted as a party to the agreement for such employees in place of the bargaining agent that is a party to the agreement.

Downeaster

I sent a letter to CCWIPP on May 10.2002 .and a copy to l. Martello of FSCO .Igot a reply from FSCO saying that they would be looking into my concerns and would be getting back to me . They also sent me information on the responsbilitys of the FSCO and the administration people of a pension plan. I gave this to a friend and he lost it so I can"t recall all that was in it in detail.
I received a letter from CCWIPP asking me to send a copy of the e-mail I received from the Alberta P ension Commission .stating that one of their advestment advisers gave CCWIPP some bad advice who (has since been fired). I sent CCWIPP a copy of the e- mail and I sent a copy to FSCO.I received a letter from Clifford Evans on June 18.2002. The letter is fairly long . THEY SAID THE TRUSTEES APPOINTED AN INDEPENDENT ACTUARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING THE REQUIRED VALUATIONS. THIS CHANGE WAS MADE BECAUSE OF DETERIORATING HEALTH OF THE FORMER ACTUARY.THIE FORMER ACTUARY SERVED THE CCWIPP FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND WAS HIRED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
tHE LETTER WENT ON TO BLAME PENSION LEGLISLATION FOR MULTI-EMPLOYER PENSION PLANS AS BEING TO HARSH. THE LETTER WENT ON TO SAY .THERE IS NO FUNDING PROBLEM IN RESPECT TO CCWIPP ON A GOING CONCERN BASIS ,WHICH IS HOW THE PENSION PLAN IS FUNDED DAY TO DAY. They sent me a copy of a financial statement that was plublished in the UFCW mag.dated Jan 1,2000 to Dec 31.2000.Ithen wrote Clifford Evans back on July 10.2002 saying that my questions had not been answered so I am asking them again and adding a few more. There is another multi -employer plan called CWIPP with one C that is much the same setup as CCWIPP .that has different unions involved .you have to be a member of the CLC and I haven"t heard that they were having problems with the pension boards or with their funding.i AM WAITING FOR A REPLY FROM THE FSCO.
Downeaster

There are many other unions in the CWIPP not just CAW . but it would be an alternative to the CCWIPP pension plan and easy to get in to if you were looking for another pension plan with defined benefits. what i am trying to say is there are other pension plans available.
downeaster

I cant name other unions that are in CWIPP ,but I know you can be a member of CWIPP no matter what union you belong to but you have to belong to the CLC. Maybe someone out there who is listening can nane some other unions other than the CAW who belongs to CWIPP. My knowledge about CWIPP is very limited.
Downeaster

Please keep us posted on what happens Downeaster. This is a really important issue that you've raised. The pension fund is union members' money. Can you imagine going to the bank to find out why there is less in your account than there ought to be and getting the same kind of answer?

Molson Loses Domain Name Rights

Molson might be huge, wealthy, and powerful, but an Ontario Judge tells Molson they do not own the rights to the domain "canadian.biz".

In what Douglas Black thought was a "lottery" win, turned out to be a scary head butting experience with a gready beer company.

In March of 2002, Douglas Black won a domain draw, and the right to canadian.biz. However, when Molson found out about Black having the name canadian.biz, they asked Black to voluntarily turn over the domain name. Black refused and Molson took Black and his domain name to the National Arbitration Forum, in Minnesota, United States.

A retired judge ruled that Black had in fact registered the domain name in bad faith and was forced to turn over the domain name to Molson. Black without any appeal process available to him, went to the Canadain courts.

A Canadian Judge ruled that Molson did not infact own the exclusive rights to "canadian.biz" and that Douglas Black could keep the name. As well, the Judge made Molson pay for all Black's legal expenses.

The case will have future legal ramifications as Black's lawyer said:

"On a legal level, it's the first case in Canada that a person who has lost their domain name at the quasi-arbitration stage . . . has appealed to a Canadian court," he said.

"And it's the first case worldwide with respect to a dot-biz decision from a court."

Isn't it funny that a Canadian Court overturns the pro business National Arbitration Forum kangaroo court that so many rich and powerful people count on to maintain the status quo. Someone finally, has had the courage and the money to adventure into the boundaries of the trademark realm. Hats off to Douglas Black, and thank you for setting a positive precident in trademanrk law.

aboutunions

Domain Name Precedent Set

quote:

---

My ex-wife has already taken half of my pension,

---

by Fisher

Sorry Brother Fisher, and I say this with all due respect, but your wife never took half of your pension, but in fact only got what was in fact legally hers. Divorce is a casualty but a reality of modern day life.

Despite the fact that you are always polite and courteous, I can not help but feel that you are just not getting the point many of us unionist are making. I would hope that if one of your neighbors robbed your home, that you would in fact defend their actions as you have the union that you belong to.

Perhaps Brother Fisher, rather than depend on a pension to retire on with the utmost security, you might be better off as most of us, in ensuring that unions negotiate the best wages for us all to put our own money away for our retirement. It would seem obvious at least to me that we can not depend on the integrity of union pensions to look after our retirement.

I for one changed my job and my union affiliation for a better life now and the future. To date I feel that you have adopted the defence strategy of the status quo in all due respect. It may be due to the fact that you have not had the true to life experiences with unions like a lot of us who visit this web site.

Union propaganda is very convincing and I almost bought into it myself before I was rudely awakened by the corrupt autocratic status quo union philosophy.

Let me share with you Brother Fisher, what a law professor told me in one of my courses.

If you learn nothing in this course, always remember this. Never take things at face value. Always break things down and build them back up again. Find the advantages and disadvantages of the point of view and make up your own opinion.

In conclusion it always take more courage to go beyond comfortable boundaries, than to sit on the status quo side. Brother Fisher, one day,with all due respect, you will be one hell of a unionist if you are able to just look past some of the walls that are implemented to prevent union members from grasping new concepts.

In Solidariy
aboutunions

quote:

---

posted by about unions:
Sorry Brother Fisher, and I say this with all due respect, but your wife never took half of your pension, but in fact only got what was in fact legally hers. Divorce is a casualty but a reality of modern day life. [/QB]

---

It was not my intent to give the impression that I in any way regret the fact that my EX received half of my pension, she deserves it, we are among the luckiest of the separated/divorced couples in Canada. We still respect and to a lesser extent care for each other. We have two underage children that due to the medical condition of our youngest can't live togther so one lives with me and the special needs child lives with her. We of corse exchange the children on the weekends and some weekends I am lucky enough to have both of my children in my home.

The quote from your professor has given me food for thought as I must admit an inherent bios in favour of the UFCW. But I have not experienced the bios or corruption reported by others. I have always found my union to be open to my concerns and to change, when the Constitutionally proscribed method of achieving these ends are followed. I am among the lucky ones if there is any weight to be given to the majority of members on this page. The Atlantic Meatpasckers Union who is trying to replace the UFCW at my plant is an organization that I have been very critical of. I have broken it down to what I feel are it's base components and taken great interest in it's constitution, executive makeup, and reasons for it's existence.

The constitution has a glaring flaw and that is it can be misused by the executive to punish members who spoke out in favour of the UFCW. That being the lack of a hearing or an appeal for charges, should they be brought. Further within that document the process for filing charges is wide open, it would only take one member to state that my actions, statements, or beliefs were contrary to the best interest of the membership and my union card could be forfeit. This would force me into seeking a legal remedy while coping with raising a family without a job.

The executive of the AMU have proven themselves to be less than honourable in their reporting of the facts and the way they have treated my coworkers. Not informing them that the companies obligation to comply with the contract would end upon the Board granting their decertification attempt was unforgivable. This was their first volley against the UFCW, a decertification.

The reason the AMU came into existence according to Paul Saunders the president of the Larsons unit was a letter from the CAW stating they had no interest in either the Larsons or Garden Province Meats plants. Further there is a long history with two members of the AMU executive who also held positions with the UFCW until removed for not filing grievances brought to there attention by UFCW supporters. Now first let me state that all three of the members I speak of are dedicated and apparently believe what they are doing is in the best interest of the membership, this is something we have in common. The problem is the blinders all four of us are wearing and although I have attempted to start a dialogue my efforts have been met with less than open ears. The charges I filed with the local under our constitution no doubt plays a part in this. There is room for change I believe, and there is a proscribe method to that end, bettering the representation for my coworkers is something I cam fight for. Changing the ratio from one voice in four hundred thousand to one voice in ninety may strengthen the individual voice but at the cost of weakening the overall voice. This is fact not fiction and the cornerstone of my position. Corruption can be found in every organization and we must always be accountable in the labour movement for our actions, when that accountability is not present only then should we step outside the framework of our unions to seek justice. The critical eye I have placed on the AMU should in all fairness be placed on my union of choice, I will attempt to do this with an open mind.

In Solidarity Fisher

I would like to find out about the pension plans of the presidents of the locals, the BA, the hired staff of UFCW . I bet they are better than the worker they represent. What Kind of pension do you have Bill Pearson.
Downeaster

ABOUT UNIONS Maybe we could ask Bill Persons How much he makes and to tell tell us about his pension plan .
Downeaster

quote:

---

posted by about unions:

Brother Fisher, if you were making this much money would you do what ever it took to stay in power even if it meant running things how you want rather than how the members wanted it? Food for thought- Does money and power corrupt even the strongest union person?

---

Brother about unions:

My dedication to the labour movement and the beliefs that it is founded on has taken me in many directions. Being among the first on PEI to be connected to the Internet I freely published a monthly news letter for my unit keeping them informed on every facet of the red-meat industry and the labour movement at large. For my efforts all I received was ridicule for my spelling. The news letter lasted three years until the personal cost to me became more than my budget could absorb. I created a website and attempted to collect as many UFCW online locals as I could, this list has been used and adopted by many union sits over the years. Quick links to federal as well as provincial sites where labour legislation was available, the list of sites was more extensive than I will go into today. My site only vanished when family obligations demanded my full attention. I have spent the last ten years educating myself and as many as would listen as to the importance of knowing labour legislation, I have also stood in front of standing committees on legislation reform and fought for workers rights. Non unionised workers on the Island have sought me out and I have assisted them in their compensation cases and have taken a case all the way to the Supreme Court of PEI. Within my unit I have, when asked assisted every member in getting the maximum compensation benefits available to them. I have sat on almost every voluntary labour committee you can think of, from the local to the Federation of Labour levels. Would I exchange my dedication to the labour movement for cash, I believe I would not. I can only hope that the rank and file members who have risen to the top of my union has the same dedication as I do and until shown differently I believe they do.

In Solidarity Fisher

Fisher, again you show your gullibility.

Bill Pearson is one of the few who will voluntarily tell you how much he makes, so let's quit carping about his salary for now.

As for the Ontario "sunshine" law, it really has no impact in telling union members how much their machine heads make. The law requires Union pay to be revealed, not T4 earnings.

The International is a union and a local is a union, so income from those sources have to be reported.

Pension plans, benefit plans, labour councils, federations, benefovlent funds, building funds, education funds and all the businesses associated with those plans and funds aren't unions, so money paid out of those funds don't have to be reported.

In fact union members ususally don't have any legal right to have access to the financial records of those funds because they have access to the "union" financials only.

AFM Hospitality pays directors $700 for each meeting they attend and a thousands a year as a stipend. Does Wayne Hanley receive and report that on his sunshine declaration? Why don't you ask him next time you see him, Fisher.

UFCW tells me we have the best contract to (I'm in retail). They tell everybody that and can usually prove it because they have an even more stinko contract just down the road from all their so called best contracts.

Where this falls apart for me is how they measure the best contract. Compare it to another contract that they've undermined and it looks pretty good.

Measure it against the rent and groceries a worker has to pay for and their self professed best ain't so hot.

Scott, think of it this way....

Fisher gives us an opportunity to discuss the stupid version of what the UFCW is all about. He pukes the official Party line. We respond with our version and facts and document to back it up.

This site has a huge flock of "readers", they visit, read, go away and think, return and read. They do learn a lot from this site. Without guys like Fisher, we would get lazy and just print views and maybe not bother to back those views up with proof.

Fisher isn't blind, he's just trying to curry favour with "da boyze". You can cut and paste his comments from the UFCW sites.

And who knows, Fisher may one day figure out that what he thinks is a bed of roses is nothing but weeds growing out of a pile of manure.

Fisher, as for insulting you personally, I apologize. As for attacking your regurgitation of machine-made baloney, I stand my ground.

Fisher said:

quote:

---

Unions must become more cognisant of what is being said about them and be on guard to defend it's position because no matter how ridiculous the statement if it is repeated enough times it is believed.

---

On one hand, you're right on the money there Fisher. If a union is sleazy enough for long enough, there comes a time when nothing surprises people about it, so yes indeedie, people will believe just about anything that's said about a sleazy union.

On the other hand, you may be living proof that "no matter how ridiculous the statement, if it is repeated enough times it is believed."

I know, I know, you'll think that I'm dissing you again, but you continue to make comments about things like pension plans--ridiculous comments--and we know you have no idea whether they are true or not. You say them because you belive them. You belive them because you've been fed the same stupid line over and over.

Lets try setting aside our differences and concentrating on what we have in common, for I suggest we have more in common than our posts suggest. We all have an intense interest in the labour movement and defending the dignity of working Canadians. We feel that when a workforce is united they can demand there rights instead of requesting that they be complied with. The ideology of being a unionist is the corner stone of our beliefs and when that ideology is violated by individuals within the labour movement it damages that movement.

In Solidarity Fisher

As a non UFCW member, am I correct in believing that UFCW has shown its ability or lack of ability to even finish sueing this web site. They also appear from the evidence provided on this site not to be able to bargain great collective agreements, or to go all out on campaigns for fight for members jobs.

As a non UFCW member could you answer me as to what do you do great besides spending money on starting law suits?

quote:

---

we are trying to make a difference in workers lives.

---

correction....you appear to be, and that's about it. One guy leading one local. I have yet to see proof of another in the UFCW Bill. I've been waiting....I've even been hoping. Your it.

Tell me Bill, honestly, 1518's elections are in 2003 just months after the new CBA for Safeway and OFG are ratified. They say they'll be working with local 247 on this. Think about it, I have. What happens to elections in the year of a merger???????

The original MFDer's warned everyone who said

quote:

---

lets give them one more chance. Sure they stuffed the ballot box, everybody knows it, but maybe you guys gave them the scare of their lives and now they'll know if they don't do their job they'll be toast next time". 2003 is going to be tuff and they have the experience, lets see what they do

---

Brilliant logic. I bet the loman guys have a different point of view.

Let me suggest that they'll deal with OFG first.
-That more people will move over to the exclude personel list
- that junior clerks will get their 20 hrs cap lifted but their wage will top out around $15 bucks and it'll be a 1000hrs progression instead of 520.
- the interior will get nothing and perhaps take a slight roll back because the cost of living is cheaper. [on the Island and in Nelson this already happend]
- OFG will increase the pension contribution
- part time benefits will be on a cost sharing basis, most likely 60/40 or 70/30 but just to be optomistic lets say 50/50
- produce manager will get a 3% raise [highest published rate ya know]
- if a buy-out is offered it will be so a third tier can be instituted and it'll be very similar to the current junior clerk fiasco but with a 32hrs cap or no cap at all
- ATO's, to keep will cost big time, you take your pick what people give up. My guess is if you don't currently have ATO's you won't ever get them meaning pre rad part timers going full time won't be entitled to ATO's in the future.
- Service clerk...well if I was OFG I'd get rid of this class altogether. junior clerks or clerk three's can work anywhere where as service clerks have to stay at the front. Makes no sence don't ya think?
- Off till duties....expect big changes once again.
-rack jobbers...expect more duties going to sales man
-expect to see benefit qualifications increase, meaning the average hrs you have to work to maintain your qualification for benefits will go up from 24 -28 or even 32. Even though dental is paid by 1518 they'll tag that as well you can bet on it.
- increased schedual flexability!!!!! I don't have a crystal ball but it's coming.
-call in language will change...see above

Honestly I couldn't name it all but the fact is this next contract is going to wipe out the MFD's supporting demographic to secure 1518's political safety and bring OFG's cost in line with non union competitors. Just to be sure don't be surprised to see a merger if they get even a wiff that an opposition slate is in the works. No way they'll win even with a stuff and they know it. Witlock will retire Pres emeritus, Sundin may be swept aside as the scape goat and moved across the country and the new guy will glide in here with the winds of change that just won't ever blow hard enough to help anybody. With the 3 locals merged it'll be too big to ever reform. Reformers will stick out like a sore thumb and like siggy said, nobody will risk their neck for another.

The war's over, it was in '99 and even 2000. You missed it for now...they win. Either we start another union and try to go after them, or an astablished union worth joining comes to the rescue. But more likely the industry waits until the employers get tired of the UFCW and boot them out the door for good. Then maybe when they've beaten up on people long enough a new generation of workers will breath new life into a dead idea.

And Bill....your too far away to help anyone in B.C. but even if you were here...who in 1518 could help you? Frank? Kim? I'm at a loss after that I think our home support rep is pretty good but I'm just guessing. How you gonna turn a local around on a dime in just 6 months without any help? who do you know big enough to fill those shoes? and remember...Mike Fraser loves to cut deals of his own so if it gets tough locally OFG can still afford tickets to Toronto. Make me a believer Big guy! show me the way.

As frustrating as the history of this local is, I think it is important that Local 1518 members give some serious consideration to running a reform slate in the '03 election. There's no doubt that the events surrounding the 99 elections are demoralizing (among other things) but a lot has changed since then and a lot has been learned since then as well.

In 99 you were only beginning to use the Internet as a campaign tool. Now there is a well established site that you could use to get your message out and people are more familiar with the Internet anyway. There is a lot more that you know about your union and how it operates today than you knew in 99.

Local 1518 leaders, while I wouldn't put it past htem to hang on to power any way they think they can, will be under a microscope in the coming campaign. I would expect that this site would be very interesting in covering the campaign, in depth.

I think that those members who want to bring about positive change for their brothers and sisters ought to be thinking about running for office and developing a strategy now. They will be in a better position than the members who opposed the current crop of leaders in 1999. As frustrating as the past may be, think of it now as the beginning of something.

As far as the possibility of a merger is concerned, I suppose the Local 1518 execs could try to pull that. It would still require a vote of the membership wouldn't it? If that doesn't give you a warm feeling, (given the events surrounding the 99 vote), tell your leaders that - at the first hint that a merger is in the works - you'll launch a decertification campaign aimed at changing unions. That ought to make them think twice if nothing else will.

Let me toss out something really radical that has been occurring to me recently: I'm not sure that we should tar everyone in a leadership position the UFCW with the corruption brush. There are some who richly deserve it and I'm all for tarring them whenever an opportunity presents itself. But I wonder if - among the thousands of officials and executives - there are not at least some who are aware of the sad state of affairs within their union and genuinely supportive of change. (No, I don't know of any personally but then, I don't know most of them.)

Bill P. certainly falls into that category. While, as you say Scott, he is one President from one local who has come to this site and been quite supportive of reform, I find it hard to believe that he's the only one out there. Considering their numbers alone, the probability is that there are others. They just need a little prodding to come out and voice their support for change.

It may be worth thinking about making an appeal to those "others" - about the need for reform generally and to get their support for specific actions. Can you ijmagine sending out an email notice to every local saying: "tell Brother Brooke to respect our constitutional rights?" or "support democracy in our union", "let our people vote" or something like that? Could make for effective internal lobbying. It won't change things over night, but it will make the leaders less likely to engage in reformer-busting and will help get the issue of reform "on the screen" (no pun intended).

I'm just brainstorming here. There are a lot of strategies that you can employ in the coming election campaign to give yourselves an advantage and protect against the kind of dictatoring that heppened the last time around.

genep@ufcw555.com,President Pronovost,Local 555
news@ufcwlocal56.com,UFCW Local 56,Local 56
local839@unions.com,Local 839,Local 839
rbenson.local870@unions.com,President Benson,Local 870
JCSperry@ufcw324.org,President Sperry,Local 324
Lee@UFCW328.org,President DiIorio,Local 328,Rhode Island
fruney@ufcw791.org,Secretary-Treasurer Runey,Local 791,Massachusetts
ufcw175@IDIRECT.COM,Locals 175 and 633,Locals 175 and 633,Canada
greg@ufcw1400.ca,Special Assistant Eyre,Local 1400,Saskatchewan
ufcw1496@alaska.net,Local 1496,Local 1496,Alaska
bfinley@ufcw227.org,Director Finley,Local 227,Louisville KY
lrussell.local373@unions.com,President Russell,Local 373r,San Francisco
tmcnutt@LOCAL400.ORG,Secretary-Treasurer McNutt,Local 400,Maryland
gwen.local480@unions.com,Secretary-Treasurer Rulona,Local 480, Hawaii
Office@UFCW588.org,Local 588,Local 588,California
dkeene@ufcw700.org,Mr. Keene,Local 700,Indiana
rwathen@ufcw700.org,Director Wathen,Local 700,Indiana
dkeith@ufcw832.mb.ca,Director Keith,Local 832,Manitoba
INFO@UFCW888.ORG,Local 888,Local 888,New York
Labor@ufcw1036.com,Local 1036,Local 1036,California
smccann@ufcw1105.com,President McCann,Local 1105,Seattle
UFCW1459@aol.com,Local 1459,Local 1459,Western Massachusetts
local6@smig.net,Local 6,Local 6,Minnesota
kpalazzo@UCFWLOCAL880.COM
UFCW1099@AOL.COM
rick@ufcw770.org
info@ufcw1776.org
hugh.caballero@ufcw540.org
johnr.rodriguez@ufcw540.org
ufcw1996brad@aol.com
victor@ufcw175.com
UFCW1625@aol.com
ufcw1540@aol.com
joinus1500@AOL.COM
ufcw1442dlelea@AOL.COM
bcarpenter.local1179@unions.com
ufcw135@ufcw135.com
mail@UFCW206.COM
rmk@UFCW23.COM
eduran@ufcw7.com
lgriffiths@ufcwlocal81.org
ufcw876@mindspring.com

The stuff you're talking 'bout Scott was the beginning of the end of the best retail agreement and the end of solidarity in 1518.

Members listening to reps (they were still called reps then), after losing that election, rip the incumbent_executive day after day was destructive enough.

The real punch was when the leftover_disenchanted_losing_slate made the about face and suddenly started chanting Sundin ... Sundin.

Whoa!
Back from the dead.

quote:

---

Where do I send a donation for your defense fund?

---

When, and if , we ever actually end up in court, we'll let you know.

Thanks though!

Yeah what sleK ^^said^^.

Thanks Kilroy, always nice to know the smoke hasn't blinded everyone.

Tell us about your travels, where've you been, who've you seen?

To owner of MILK BARN in LAKEWOOD.....
You shop at Walmart every day to stock your shelves. Walmart has shown when they come to town, they destroy and eliminate MOM AND POPS stores like you!!!! Get a clue your cutting your own throat.

^^^ LOL. Drugs and the internet do not mix....

Keep up the good fight!