Author
|
Topic: BC NDP Candidate would probably like this issue kept in the closet
|
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258
|
posted 26 April 2005 03:21 PM
Chuck Puchmayr, BC NDP candidate and former union represenative, would probably like the following issue kept in the closet. The former union representative took issue with a disabled person's opinion. In my opinion, it looks like Puchmayr may have collaborated with the employer to carry out a vendetta against a brewery worker. See what you think.Man accuses councillor of 'blocking' settlement by Ron Devitt, staff reporter New Westminster city Coun. Chuck Puchmayr finds the timing of a man appearing before council making accusations about him earlier this month rather suspicious. Former Molson's Vancouver brewery worker Richard Findlay appeared before council in the open delegation portion of the April 4 meeting. He claimed Puchmayr was complicit in stopping him from winning a judgment against the union in his 16-year fight for justice in what he describes as a wrongful dismissal. "Mr. Puchmayr has kicked me out of the union," Findlay told council. Findlay, 60, said he was terminated by the brewery in 1988 after falling out with some of the union leaders.... Click here for the full news report. Click on Members for Democracy website for more information about the case [ 26 April 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258
|
posted 26 April 2005 05:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: Freedom of Expression: are you known as Labatt Buster at the Members for Democracy website?Your "bust the corrupt union" stance seems remarkably consistent with LB's. If you're not LB, do you personally know LB? Yes or no?
I am not Labatt Buster from MfD and have never met the person. I do not know how you have come to the conclusion that I somehow hold a "bust the corrupt union" stance. Regardless, as you brought up this issue, are corrupt unions okay with you?
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 April 2005 05:39 PM
quote: I do not know how you have come to the conclusion that I somehow hold a "bust the corrupt union" stance.
By viewing some of your posts here at babble. Every one of your last 20 posts has been in one of 4 threads in Labour and Consumption, and the several I checked out had a definite cynicism towards unions that seemed entirely consistent with LB from the other site. I trust you have other interests in your life that have nothing at all to do with unions? If you'd ever posted here on any other topic than unions, maybe I wouldn't have made the guess I did. quote: Regardless, as you brought up this issue, are corrupt unions okay with you?
That's like asking if bad food is OK with me. Certainly we'd both say no, but then agreeing on what is or is not bad food could tie us up forever. But feel free and tell me about some corrupt unions. I'm betting that you have more than a few right there on the tip of your tongue. Am I right?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258
|
posted 26 April 2005 05:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by Erstwhile: [/qb]According to the news report, the judge in the court case disagreed with you. Since I wasn't there (and neither, I suspect, were you), I think I'll take the judge's decision over idle speculation from someone with an axe to grind, thanks.
I have been following Labatt Buster's story for sometime now. I do not believe the man has an axe to grind. In my opinion, he has been treated unjustly by his union, his employer and the judicial system and is doing his best to achieve justice. In my experience, people like him usually win in the end. Martin Luther King, Jr once said, "When you are right, you cannot be too radical; When you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." I believe Labatt Buster is radical because he is right.
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 26 April 2005 06:03 PM
[QUOTE]Findlay said he went to the council meeting to draw more attention to his case. "I knew (Puchmayr) was on council but I didn't know you could speak there," said Findlay. "Someone told me I should go. Somebody from another party gave me a tip." Findlay refused to reveal who the person was or what party told him to go before council.[/QUOTE So let's think...which other political party may have suggested that Findlay press his claim where it would do the most good...
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258
|
posted 26 April 2005 06:12 PM
Mr. Magoo, you also said, "..feel free and tell me about some corrupt unions. I'm betting that you have more than a few right there on the tip of your tongue. Am I right?"You are wrong. I only know of two corrupt unions - the UFCW and IWA-C. That's it. The IWA-C have merged with the Steelworkers and are now bringing that union down. Steelworker members are sure to regret the merger. Now maybe you can tell me the UFCW and IWA-C are strong, democratic and well-run organizations. Am I right? [ 26 April 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 27 April 2005 08:04 AM
Good lord, you don't honestly believe someone who has been flogging their claim for umpteen years doesn't know they can speak to city council.You musta been born last night. The fact that Findlay refused to reveal who 'told him' he could speak to council suggests he doesn't want the answer to be public knowledge. Now why would that be? It couldn't be because he's afraid for the person who told him he could speak to city council. That's certainly no big secret, and I can't imagine anyone worrying because they passed along that bit of knowledge to him. It's not a state secret. The only reason the instigator would have for remaining under cover is if their position itself put Findlay's foray into the lair of city council in a bad light. That would be the local Liberal candidate...
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 27 April 2005 10:10 AM
quote: I have an interest in the state of organized labour that is why I have focussed my attention on the Labour and Consumption thread. My other interests are not topics for discussion on Babble. Is this not okay?
It's OK, of course. But in the same way that only talking about Jesus (which would also, technically, be OK) might lead you to believe I was a born-again, being a one-topic kinda guy makes me wonder. But I'm not a moderator or anything, so you needn't alter your posting choices on my account. quote: Now maybe you can tell me the UFCW and IWA-C are strong, democratic and well-run organizations. Am I right?
I don't believe I've tried to suggest that, so no.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258
|
posted 27 April 2005 11:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: I don't believe I've tried to suggest that, so no.
Mr. Magoo: You made an unfair assumption about me when you said, "But feel free and tell me about some corrupt unions. I'm betting that you have more than a few right there on the tip of your tongue. Am I right?" When I said, "Now maybe you can tell me the UFCW and IWA-C are strong, democratic and well-run organizations. Am I right?" I was just giving it back to you. There are corrupt unions out there and we should be doing everything possible to bring them to justice. Well-run unions should be the first to support new legislation that would help to expose and eliminate the corruption. When reputable unions sleep with dogs, they tend to get fleas. The BC Federation of Labour and Canadian Labour Council encourage corruption when the refuse to deal with it. Its really ashame, corrupt unions are bringing all unions down. [ 27 April 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 28 April 2005 05:18 AM
Hey! I got quoted twice by Labatt Buster on some bullshit forum. Neat!!Too bad the first quote was just me quoting a part of the actual Findlay news story. Labatt Buster didn't mention that. I guess they're desparate for quotable quotes. The second quote was a response to quote: Good lord, you don't honestly believe someone who has been flogging their claim for umpteen years doesn't know they can speak to city council.You musta been born last night.
I was taken to task for indulging in 'innuendo' about who was the motivating force behind Findlay's jaunt to city council. I guess Labatt Buster don't read too well, or his clipping service (someone named FOE...now who could that be?) didn't provide the rest of the quote, which was... quote: The only reason the instigator would have for remaining under cover is if their position itself put Findlay's foray into the lair of city council in a bad light.That would be the local Liberal candidate...
FOE, why don't you find something useful to do with your life? I know living under a bridge makes it tough, but there must be some remedial program you could take to help your return to civilization and respectability. I know you'll feel better for it...
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 28 April 2005 03:29 PM
quote: maestro: If you don't know how to debate in an honest manner and without resorting to personal attacks, I suggest you should reconsider why you participate in this forum. Babble is supposed to be about sharing ideas, information, connecting and growing - not what you have done. If I am wrong, and it is okay to attack the person as you have done, I do not want to be here. It is not worth my time or effort. Thank you.
Well, you've clipped things I've posted, sent them to a a totally different site, mis-attributed them, and truncated them so as to deceive the reader. Don't slam the door on your way out. [ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845
|
posted 28 April 2005 03:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by ian gregson:
Chuck Puchmayer needs to be made accountable to this man and if what Mr Findlay is saying is indeed true, voters need to be made aware of it in order to make an informed voting choice.
How would you suggest he be "made accountable"? How would you suggest we establish that Findlay is telling the truth and not saying something slanderous?
If it's just some guy ranting irrationally about a conspiracy between (it appears) the union executive, union staffers, the employer, and the courts, how does that help anyone make an "informed voter choice"? How is Puchmayer supposed to respond to this other than by bringing an action for slander? I know an election's going on and what's bad for the NDP is good for the Greens, ian, but honestly, from the article it appears that Findlay's had his day in court and couldn't prove his case. Judges don't always make the right decisions, and I'm not claiming that they do, but none of us have any idea what really went on there, so pretty much everything in this thread is speculation.
From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845
|
posted 28 April 2005 07:06 PM
Faith does not make something so.If you want to get all reductionist, sure, we all base decisions on assumptions all the time. I assume that I'm not a brain in a jar, for instance, and that people I meet are not just figments of my imagination. However, what we have here are allegations - allegations that, according to the article, were not believed by someone who, we can assume, had the facts presented to them - i.e. a judge. I'm not saying the allegations are untrue. I'm not saying they're true either. Judges make mistakes. However it's also possible that Mr. Findlay is just an irrational crank. Without more facts, idle speculation is all we have. And to use idle speculation as the basis for a belief, particularly when it benefits your ideology? That's called "blind faith".
From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freedom of Expression
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8258
|
posted 28 April 2005 08:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by maestro:
Well, you've clipped things I've posted, sent them to a a totally different site, mis-attributed them, and truncated them so as to deceive the reader. Don't slam the door on your way out. [ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: maestro ]
maestro: You are completely wrong - I did not do any of the things you are accusing me of. Do you always try to bully people into silence when you do not like what they say? [ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ] [ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: Freedom of Expression ]
From: The Island | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 28 April 2005 08:50 PM
All union people fall under the same obligations as employers. Any arguement that is based on already challenged law in regards to position once adopted, tells the truth of it. Any attempts to disregard the law in practise or devaluation of the ruling, then you would be, and the person would be, in conflict of interest?II. Duty to Accommodate "Duty to accommodate refers to the obligation of an employer, service provider, or union to take appropriate steps to eliminate disadvantage to employees, prospective employees, or clients resulting from a rule, practice or physical barrier that has or may have an adverse impact on persons with disabilities." Canadian Human Rights Commission See CHRC, "Click" Legislation and Policies http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/default-en.asp The duty to accommodate is the single most important factor to positively affect the participation of people with disabilities in the workplace. The meaning of the duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship continues to evolve through legal interpretations of tribunals and courts. The law requires that an employer will provide accommodations unless it can demonstrate that the provisions of those accommodations would cause an undue hardship. In the absence of being able to prove undue hardship, the employer or service provider would not be able to establish a defence against a claim of discrimination. In union processes where the card has been pulled, for behavior contradictory to the unions constitution and bylaws, is removed from the protection of the union. Is thus removed from the site. UNions are a democratic process and institution that serves the needs of people who try and protect themselves. This is a legal and garuanteed rights of freedom and expression, and any attempt to devalue this wording, with false allegation and innuendos is a very corrupt representation. [ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 28 April 2005 10:49 PM
I'm sorry but my "bullshitometer" is going off.We have a disgruntled union member who lost his case attacking a former union staff member who is running for office in the middle of a hotly contested election campaign. I know very well from a lifetime of experience that unions aren't perfect. I also know that the judicial system isn't perfect. But the circumstances of this smell right through my computer screen.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|