"I Promise to Tell the Truth"

2008-04-18T21:51:00.007-06:00

To those "first responders" who are using this forum to pose real questions, thank you. The civility displayed here is admirable and much appreciated. I promised to "tell the truth," so here it is:

Answer me this: What is the punishment for someone who has stolen union funds? Is that the reason why no audit has been done yet?

This is probably the most "serious" question of all. Please realize that I am not a criminal lawyer.

First, of course, there is "punishment" for stealing any money, which is a criminal offense. That can result, after conviction, in fines and prison time. Second, stealing union funds amounts to the breach of a sacred trust, what is legally a "fiduciary duty," as one of the most important obligations of a union is to properly use the dues paid by the members. This is a very "bad" criminal act, morally reprehensible, inexcusable and abhorrent. This can result in both civil penalties, including damages, and criminal prosecution.

That being said, there are numerous examples of criminal theft or embezzlement of union funds, nationally and locally, and there can be very serious consequences, both for the thieves and the unions. It wasn't that long ago that an AFSCME union officer (white collar, I think) stole the union' member's funds. I believe that was investigated by the APD White Collar Crime Unit, and the union official was prosecuted. I don't know the outcome, or if any of the money was recovered, but that is a question best answered by one of the AFSCME organizers or officials.

Even without outright theft, misuse of union funds is also a very serious offense. AFSCME's Local 624 was recently required to return "fair share" money and the cost of losing the federal court "fair share" cases was in the millions. You can see some of the decisions in those cases for yourself at my City Government website: http://www.abqgov.com.

In those cases, Wessel, et al., v. City and AFSCME, Local 624, and Harrington, et al., v. City and AFSCME, Local 624, the courts found that AFSCME had collected money from non-union members and improperly accounted for the money and misapplied it to other locals and expenses of entities other than Local 624. The courts required AFSCME to return all the money it had collected illegally from the non-union members of the Local 624 bargaining unit.

As for whether stealing union funds is "the reason why no audit has been done yet," I certainly hope not. I know that audits are required and have not been done.

I remember when Curtis was running for treasurer of NMTU, he promised to have an audit of the financial records of NMTU, but I guess Fred or Robert got to him. How about it Curtis?

This is a good question for Curtis, not me. How about it Curtis?

Why are we asking a lawyer our questions when he is not a driver with the city or a paying union member. You can only hear our concerns but do not live with the goings on that we do. Why did you not help the last sunvan driver that was let go? You referred her to another lawyer. Why?

I thought a forum where questions could be asked and answers given was needed, and no one else was doing it, so here we are.

As for "the last sunvan driver that was let go," I don't know which van driver you're referring to and I don't remember referring anyone to another lawyer recently. Generally I refer Workers' Compensation cases to another lawyer, but any termination case is represented by me. We've been very successful in getting drivers' jobs back. The only very recent van driver termination case that I know of is Robert Montoya, and he went to AFSCME and the City Council; he didn't ask or want to be represented by NMTU. Please write a private e-mail to me at paul@nmtu.com, tell me who the driver was, and if I can without violating her privacy I'll try to answer your question.

Paul, Are you out there or are you looking for another job?

I'm here and no, I'm not looking for another job. Practicing employment and labor law against the City of Albuquerque gives me more than enough work, with or without the NMTU. We have two large class action overtime cases (totaling around 1,000 employees) pending, and I'm representing a class of long-term "temporary" city employees. My representation of some of the Transit supervisors, as co-counsel with AFSCME's lawyer, resulted in very good settlements for the supervisors.

Paul, why is NMTU allowed to have office, and portable at Daytona provided by the city with all the extras covered b y the city? Why does management attend NMTU meetings on a regular basis?

We asked for an office at Transit a long time ago, knowing other city unions have offices (police and fire, for example) at the work sites. I've always thought this was a valuable benefit, to have an office right there at the workplace. When Transit moved to the ATC and Daytona that left plenty of office space. I think the union pays for the office supplies, equipment, and most of the other costs. As for management attending union meetings, my understanding is that the Director was invited on two or three occasions and that he brings along staff.

Why aren't the results of any election counted in public view?

There are a number of suggestions that NMTU elections are not being conducted fairly and that votes are not counted fairly. I don't know whether or not there is cheating on elections or election results, but of course in a democratic society elections must be conducted fairly and votes must be counted properly. Like stealing members' money, stealing or changing votes is illegal and wrong. If anyone has proof of such allegations, there is a process for filing charges and having a hearing. Again, anything short of fair elections is totally unacceptable.

Why isn't the membership included in what's to be negotiated?

I discussed in response to a previous comment (asking why the negotiating committee wasn't utilized) the fact that the City presents a "take it or leave it" proposal, and then basically refuses to "negotiate in good faith." In my opinion, the City is entirely to blame for refusing to allow real "negotiations." This affects all the unions (except police and fire), not just NMTU. The intent, as I understand it, in this year's "negotiations" was to include membership; concerns. Of course, that never happened, because the City forced the whole focus to be on the pay issues.

An abusive City "bargaining" tactic is to insist on "agreement" on non-economic issues (or "language") before making any "economic" offer ("money"). Thus, in order to "see the money" the union has to agree to the language the City wants. This is coercive, bad faith bargaining by the City. Also, with an ineffective Labor Board and membership that is perceived as more concerned about the money and less concerned about the issues, there is a focus on the money and less attention on issues.

I am very concerned about the City's refusal to engage in real collective bargaining. With my representation, the NMTU has undertaken far more cases and litigation than any other City union to attempt to address and correct the sad state of City labor relations in general and collective bargaining rights in particular.

Conclusion

I have only attempted to answer questions, and I have not responded to statements or opinions. As the lawyer for the NMTU my obligation is to all those in the bargaining unit and my commitment is to integrity and truthfulness. Thank you again for participating in this and please feel free to continuing asking questions and expressing sincere beliefs.

Paul Livingston

WELCOME

2008-04-12T23:10:00.007-06:00

Welcome Bus and Van Drivers and Interested Others,

NMTU or AFSCME, Contract or No Contract, this is the place for the thoughts, opinions, and words that right now define your lives as Albuquerque bus and van drivers. We've had the NMTU website for about three years, but never has there been the activity or the interest we have now. Judging by the nearly 250 "comments" on the KOB-TV-4 website forum, and an anonymous driver's new blog (Abq Drivers Unite!) "about the current situation in the Transit Department," there has never been such a need for a place where the Transit Department drivers can speak and be heard, and respond to what others think. In other words, this is a place to debate the issues that concern us: an Albuquerque Drivers' Forum.

My Introduction:

For those who do not know me, I have been the attorney for the NMTU for more than 15 years. Along with former Union Chairman Robert Gutierrez I fought with the City to bring the Sun Van drivers into the union; we worked together to split from the United Transportation Union (UTU) because we saw them taking your union dues without providing the local assistance and support we desperately needed. We fought hard against the City's abuse of "temporary" drivers. We went for more than three years without a contract. And even today, I struggle to secure recognition of our unique and contractual right to binding interest (contract) arbitration.

As the attorney for the NMTU for many years I have tried, mostly successfully I hope, to not favor bus drivers over van drivers, "old" drivers over "new" drivers, and to represent the legal rights of all drivers as vigorously and competently as possible. I believe that the interests and rights of those I represent should be governed by law, not by power and politics.

Throughout, I have been dedicated to the notion that Albuquerque's Transit Department drivers need and are entitled to the most independent and best possible union of their choice. I have, of course, favored the interests of the incumbent NMTU, the Union that employs me, whenever I could.

Nonetheless, I have tried to fight hard for all of Albuquerque's van and bus drivers and for City employees in general. If there are examples where you believe that has not been true, this will be the place to address those concerns along with any other things you want to say about my work, your work, the unions, the contracts, and anything else you think is relevant and of interest to others.

As for the "current situation," I took part in the March, 2008, contract "negotiations," and I can and will present my views about that. I am also very much involved as the NMTU's lawyer in addressing the legal issues connected with the representational election scheduled for April 25. I believe the City's AFSCME locals are weak and ineffective and not at all what many of you seem to think they are.

I do strongly support labor unions and the rights of employees. I believe that labor and management are natural adversaries, and that it is unhealthy for them to work too closely together. I am extremely unhappy with the way the City of Albuquerque is conducting itself with respect to its labor-management relations and its obligations to bargain "in good faith." I reserve any opinion about the allegations of favoritism by Transit management pending a full hearing on the issue.

Those are my interests and biases, and I intend to be as honest and as open as I can about whatever we discuss. There will be limits to that, of course, but I pledge openness and when I can't talk about something I will say so. I will try to respond truthfully to comments and criticism.

A few rules and a promise:

The "rules" are simple:

No obscenity unless you think it's absolutely necessary and no personal attacks unrelated to work or union activities. There may be more rules later, if necessary, but that's it for now.

Real names are encouraged, but optional. Respect for others and their opinions is also encouraged. My intent is to use this forum for free and honest debate, not propaganda. Please remember that this is a public place and anyone who wants to can read and contribute to it.

The "promise" is that this forum will be fairly moderated, that it will be a place where all sides of the issues can be spoken and heard, and that, to the best of my ability and knowledge, I will "tell the truth."

Where should we start?

Paul Livingston

ALBUQUERQUE DRIVERS FORUM

"I Promise to Tell the Truth"

WELCOME