SMWIA President's Responses to Our Questions

When we started this site, a number of readers sent in questions that really none of us here could answer. Hoping that maybe we could clear the air to get to the bottom of things, we ask users to submit questions to both Presidents Futhey and Sullivan via the email addresses available for both.

There have been a lot of rumors, innuendo and character attacks made recently that never helped any of us with what's really happening with the merger. While neither Futhey and Sullivan know us from a hole in the wall, it was our hope to establish some dialogue or at least some explanation of what is going on.

This morning, we finally received a response from the Sheet Metal Workers. These are all answers to a number of questions submitted by may of you at this site.

While we have yet to hear from President Futhey, we hope that this is a first step that will eventually result in us hearing from both union presidents. Below is the response we received from the SMWIA in its unedited form.

The response from the SMWIA is in blue as they seem to have copied and pasted our questions into the email back to us with their responses.

In response to your email of March 7, 2008.

Thank you and your readers for taking the time to ask questions on our SMART Merger.

I have submitted answers in the space below your questions and have highlighted them in Blue for clarity.

Michael J. Sullivan

We are writing on behalf of the concerned UTU members who have subscribed to and built our website, known as The Real UTU. Last year, we voted for our union's merger with the Sheet Metal Workers due to our concern over the direction of our union. When we heard about the merger's approval by an overwhelming majority of our membership, we were ecstatic to learn that we were finally going to turn the corner from the old days of infighting, backstabbing, and corruption that ruled rampant during the Boyd/Little years.

Much to our disappointment, we leaned that the merger was stopped by an eleventh hour lawsuit. We listened to the arguments presented by the plaintiffs in that suit, yet, very little of what they allege makes much sense and sounds much like the innuendo and rampant infighting that has defined political discourse within our union.

We have heard very little from the Sheet Metal workers in this matter. We have heard a great deal from the opponents of this merger, but nothing in defense of it or in defense of the actions of the SMART supporters.

What happens with this merger has the undeniable potential of affecting the lives of thousands of my UTU brothers and sisters. Just recently, we have uncovered information tying some of these plaintiffs to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Our website has already received tips from many other UTU members who are now coming forward out of concern for the future of their union.

With everything that is at stake in this merger for both of our unions, we would like President Sullivan to answer some of these following questions in regards to the merger as submitted by visitors to our site. We have also submitted the same list of questions to UTU President Mike Futhey.

• It appears most of the rumors and conflicts being exposed by Michael, et al and supporters are just that merely rumors. The sad truth is Mike Futhey and his elite have been the initiators of this action. Futhey and others at the top have made promises to to previously designated counsel that would reinstate some of those firms. Sounds like Boyd and Little have been reincarnated. I doubt that such appointments would be considered under the SMART union. Did those legal firms provide financial support to Futhey and now to Michael, et al.?

This question would be more appropriately answered by President Futhey, as I have no personal knowledge of who may or may not provide financial support to President Futhey. I can only assume that President Futhey did everything according to the UTU Constitution and would be disheartened if he had not.

• Here is a question concerning alleged changes that would occur under SMART:

1) We have been told the General Committee advance funds and State Legislative Board funds will be taken and put into the SMART General Fund and the General Chairmen and State Directors will have to beg for money to pay bills, is this true?

The SMWIA has a current system where we process the dues for our Rail Local Unions. Under this system, dues are processed, the per capita amount is deposited in the SMWIA General Fund with the remaining dues monies sent back to the Local Union. The SMWIA does not retain the dues monies beyond the per capita, nor do we wait for a request to be made before we release the funds back to the Local Union. The UTU has its own system where they collect dues and distribute them to the General Committees and Legislative Funds and I see no reason to change that system.

2) We have been lead to believe by Michael, et al. and their supporters that General Committees and Locals will lose their autonomy and the ability to make local or system agreements. Is this true under SMART?

SMART Local Unions would have autonomy, but they are not autonomous. They are affiliates of SMART and while they have autonomy to carry out their representational and financial duties under the Constitution, including negotiation and ratification of local agreements, they are not without oversight by the International if they fail to perform their required duties. I would suggest that any Local or General Chairmen who have concerns over this issue contact any of our SMWIA Local Union Business Managers and ask how they conduct their business and how much autonomy they feel they have.

But, to answer your direct question they would not lose their autonomy to make local or system agreements.

3) There are rumors that FELA firms who lost designations as a result of the BA Boyd and CL Little cases will be receiving redesignations under SMART. Is this true?

I don’t know which firms lost designations as a result of the Boyd and Little cases. But, I believe the process to select firms to represent our SMART members must be based on the ability of those firms to provide excellent service at a price favorable to the membership with sufficient professional insurance coverage. This is the only responsible criteria that can be used in making a selection.

• Has President Futhey met with Mike Sullivan to discuss the merger?

I met with President Futhey in early December to discuss the merger. At that time he stated he was in full support of the merger and had issues with some of the provisions of the Constitution, but was not prepared to state what those provisions were. I again made contact with President Futhey to schedule meetings in December, but he indicated that due to his schedule he was unable to come up with any dates we could meet. Shortly thereafter the lawsuit was filed. I would say I was a little disappointed that President Futhey had signed an affidavit supporting the suit prior to the early December meeting, but made no mention of the affidavit, nor brought up any issues raised in the suit.

To date we have had no further meetings on the merger.

• I was a delegate at the UTU convention and Mike Futhey supported the merger. Why did he change his mind? When did he change his mind? Did he make his concerns or objections known at the UTU Board of Directors meeting in October 2007?

I have no knowledge as to why or when President Futhey changed his mind. This is a question for President Futhey.

Recent UTU news states that there was a meeting in New Orleans. I'd like to know why Mike Sullivan was not there.

I received information on the UTU New Orleans meeting and contacted President Futhey to offer, that I thought it would be important that I attend this meeting so questions from participants directly related to the SMART merger could be answered by me. President Futhey stated he did not feel it was appropriate that I attend this meeting and thanked me for my request. I followed this with a second request, but received no answer.

• Is craft autonomy going to be eliminated under SMART?

I have heard this statement several times. Clearly, craft autonomy is not eliminated by the SMART merger.

• Are SMWIA Rail Department General Chairman autonomous?

As I stated above, they have autonomy, but are not completely autonomous. No one in the SMART Union or the SMWIA is autonomous. We are all required to perform our duties as required by the Constitution, and we are and must be accountable to the organization and ultimately the membership of SMART.

To answer your direct question of will UTU Chairmen who become SMART Chairmen lose their autonomy? The answer is no.

• How much money is in the SMWIA strike fund? How much money is in the UTU strike fund?

As of December 2007, there is $ 46.7-million dollars in the SMWIA Strike Fund.

Appropriately, President Futhey should answer questions related to the current UTU Strike Fund. But, to our knowledge as of the end of November 2007, there was approximately $1.8-million dollars in the UTU Strike Fund.