Thank you Arthur for another lifeline to the facts in this age of lies. I have two questions:
1. Who amended the resolution to say "at this time"? Such language seems to invite negotiation instead of a taking a stand on such a risky proposition.
2. Isn't trust earned? Perhaps, it should be that people do not trust the Trustees "at this time" until they prove themselves when there is a crisis such as being informed of a risky scheme and letting the pensioners know right away- Oh isn't that what happened? And they kept mum instead for two years?
I can only suppose someone in RTC leadership did it. I recall getting emails about how it needed to be altered so as to pass the DA--which to me, indicates getting Unity approval. We do not require Unity approval. Unity appears to be working against our interests, particularly in regard to health care.
And yes, they told us nothing for two years. I believe Victoria Lee said something to the effect of how their meetings were public and we should be monitoring them if we were interested. I'd argue, and I think I did, that it's on them, as our representatives, to inform us.
In search of: the pre-turnover election RTC leadership wannabes who promised a new day.
Instead we seem to have been misled into the same day,same year mode of operation. Just with different faces. It's one thing to be undefended but to be undefended or defended so weakly by our own group is disappointing.
How sad it is that everything must be watched so carefully. A simple touch of a resolution's wording is all that's needed for our Unity Leadership to weasel out of what we members expect from them. And It is why it feels like a step towards what's "good," can't seem to take hold. Unfortunately the other key RTC officers have too often accommodated Unity. Only after you reported this have those words been removed from the resolution.
I, and countless UFT members, are grateful to your unwavering reporting Arthur. It's this insistence on transparency and accuracy that has me proud to say: ABC has our backs!
I think he emailed the resolution that passed the RTC. The one for the DA has been edited to be largely meaningless. That's how it will pass the DA, if it ever comes up. Unity will support it because for them, it's no commitment whatsoever.
Interesting. Could be a lawyerly loophole meant to nullify the resolutions, or true misrepresentations. Either way, fraud.
It is difficult to extrapolate the standard of living needed into such a far distance for our retirees. But, there is no fiduciary guarantee for Social Security payments to be valid “at this time” for us millions who depend on said payments. Please bring up this comparison, as no legislation founding and funding our greatest guaranteed elder anti-poverty source of income had this absurd loophole. Roosevelt was too wise.
This, in fact, is agreeing to Unity's preconditions for supporting this at the DA. I'd argue it's an egregious error, and that it renders the resolution meaningless.
Thank you Arthur for another lifeline to the facts in this age of lies. I have two questions:
1. Who amended the resolution to say "at this time"? Such language seems to invite negotiation instead of a taking a stand on such a risky proposition.
2. Isn't trust earned? Perhaps, it should be that people do not trust the Trustees "at this time" until they prove themselves when there is a crisis such as being informed of a risky scheme and letting the pensioners know right away- Oh isn't that what happened? And they kept mum instead for two years?
I can only suppose someone in RTC leadership did it. I recall getting emails about how it needed to be altered so as to pass the DA--which to me, indicates getting Unity approval. We do not require Unity approval. Unity appears to be working against our interests, particularly in regard to health care.
And yes, they told us nothing for two years. I believe Victoria Lee said something to the effect of how their meetings were public and we should be monitoring them if we were interested. I'd argue, and I think I did, that it's on them, as our representatives, to inform us.
In search of: the pre-turnover election RTC leadership wannabes who promised a new day.
Instead we seem to have been misled into the same day,same year mode of operation. Just with different faces. It's one thing to be undefended but to be undefended or defended so weakly by our own group is disappointing.
Very sorry to say I couldn't agree more.
How sad it is that everything must be watched so carefully. A simple touch of a resolution's wording is all that's needed for our Unity Leadership to weasel out of what we members expect from them. And It is why it feels like a step towards what's "good," can't seem to take hold. Unfortunately the other key RTC officers have too often accommodated Unity. Only after you reported this have those words been removed from the resolution.
I, and countless UFT members, are grateful to your unwavering reporting Arthur. It's this insistence on transparency and accuracy that has me proud to say: ABC has our backs!
Thanks for your kind words Laura. Yes it's disappointing that no one bothered to think this through. It's really not difficult at all.
Oh, but wait. So Bennett emailed the resolution that should have passed -but didn't? What's up with that?!!
I think he emailed the resolution that passed the RTC. The one for the DA has been edited to be largely meaningless. That's how it will pass the DA, if it ever comes up. Unity will support it because for them, it's no commitment whatsoever.
Got it. What games we're being subjected to! Thanks for clarifying this for me.
Sorry it's not better news.
So TRUE! It's UNPROFESSIONAL!
To say the least.
Interesting. Could be a lawyerly loophole meant to nullify the resolutions, or true misrepresentations. Either way, fraud.
It is difficult to extrapolate the standard of living needed into such a far distance for our retirees. But, there is no fiduciary guarantee for Social Security payments to be valid “at this time” for us millions who depend on said payments. Please bring up this comparison, as no legislation founding and funding our greatest guaranteed elder anti-poverty source of income had this absurd loophole. Roosevelt was too wise.
This, in fact, is agreeing to Unity's preconditions for supporting this at the DA. I'd argue it's an egregious error, and that it renders the resolution meaningless.