Jack,
“Sellout”? “Stooges”? That’s two-bit sea-lawyer talk. With all of your legal knowledge you’re wasting your time on the waterfront. Why deprive the world of your expertise? Take up law!
On a more practical note try this one on: “Benefits” and “eligibility” are different. We negotiate “benefits”. Carder’s letter refers to “eligibility”. Did you know that “benefits” were reduced for some pensioners in Alaska as a result of negotiations? They had eligibility but they had some of their “benefits” negotiated away. I believe this was sometime between 1988 - 1991. Why don’t you inquire who negotiated those reductions? It sure as hell wasn’t McWilliams, Ramiskey or Austin.
Now, Jack, if they had “benefits for life” how did some of them get negotiated away?
At a caucus a couple of years ago three different attorneys said we’d have a zero chance prevailing on the lifetime benefits issue. As a matter of fact a member of your local, while questioning the attorneys, said something like this: From what I hear you saying we might as well take all this paperwork that has been passed out and toss it in the trashcan. An attorney replied,“yes”.
The documents you cite in your expert opinion were included in the paperwork destined for the trashcan.
Jack, how old were you in 1972? Ask those of us who paid the benefits assessment following the 1971 -1972 strike if it was a “voluntary” assessment. The answer is no.
One last thing: During our last set of negotiations we made gains for pensioners in health care. That fact doesn’t jibe with your statement about losses and stooges and sellout. Go figure!
Rich
