I was not confusing the Alaskan benefit as the same as ours. And yes to my understanding the issues were very much the same. The “documents” I saw were from the PMA pamphlet from the 50’s or early 60’s that included the language “medical benefits for life” in reference to ILWU personal and retirees. I have also read in old “dispatchers” or something similar that had copies of Harry Bridges speeches from that period of time. Great emphasis was put in these speeches that we had “won” medical benefits from, I think the term was “cradle to the grave”. I think that Jack also refers to these.
This whole things is based on semantics. The employer changed the wording because he thought it would suit him. We did not catch it in time. The use of the word “eligibility” over “lifetime” in essence conjures the same meaning. Of course if your not alive your not eligible, in the same tone if you be dead then were past your lifetime!!
As to why our situation was the same as the Alaskans (in my opinion) the employer changed the usual and customary language in the SPD to stop the medical benefits to the pensioners. The same basic change was made in our SPD. The employer would never change the wording in something like this unless it was to his benefit. If you buy the story of “opps!!” we didn’t mean to and a written letter meant to appease us that’s your right. I ain’t arguing with you. BUT, the language was NEVER changed back was it??? And, again my opinion, the “new” language is unclear as to whom and what it means or refers to.
And to Roger from Tacoma I do not mean to confuse anyone with what the lawyer said and his $5,000,000.00 guarantee. I am glad the caucus decided not to fall for that scheme. As for reading the “documents” you can find them at one of the ILWU sites, or you used to. My computer crashed recently and I ost all my stuff. But a guy named Chuck out of LA/LB (again if memory serves) had allot of this at his web-site. If I find them again I will send them to you. Jack out of Portland might have them also, so might Ole.
It all come down to Who benefits from the change in language, what reason are there to change it, if indeed it was a harmless mistake why not change it back, why was it done without the Union’s knowledge, why didn’t the officers demand it be changed back?? Did the employer gain from this or did the Union?? Seems pretty simple to me. . . . . .
Tim35181
