Letters of Support

Contrary to what the plaintiffs and their cronies would have us believe, letters of support are coming in for the seven Vice Presidents who made a stand for the voting rights of UTU members.

These seven men are all that stands between a free democratic union and a takeover where dissent is squashed through the use of trumped up charges, rumor, character assassination and innuendo. They are the victims of a vindictive and divisive campaign of libel, slander and ridicule based on the personal ambitions of a select few who are putting their interests above those of their union.

These letters of support link to the original pdf documents found at utucandidate.com.

RS Knutson, General Chairman GO-245
". . .during our darkest times, intolerance prevailed internally. I am therefore deeply concerned with the manner in which members of our governing body are being subjected to unfounded ridicule, charges, and now charges, for voicing their disagreement with your attempts to derail the SMART merger between the UTU and SMWIA."

AL Suozzo, General Chairman GO 769
". . .without the right of dissent by the Board of Directors, we will have a dictatorship."

Barry Abbott, General Chairman GO 721
"Perhaps in 1969 when the UTU was originally formed, disagreements such as what we are experiencing today existed as well. I don't recall the differences of that era resulting in charges and countercharges being filed."

James A Houk, General Chairman 679
". . .their removal from office and expulsion from this union would have devastating long term consequences."

JL Schollmeyer, General Chairman GO 386
"Your January 4, 2008 posting on the UTU website was entitled "Let Them Explain Themselves" - will you ever give those officers an opportunity t o address the members as you have asked?"

John Hancock, Genera Chairman GO 851
"While I am sure that many of the individuals who levied these charges are good Brothers and Sisters, I also find it interesting that many of the "stand" to be elevated if the charged indviduals are removed from office. They can say "it isn't so." but the stench will linger, and it will smack of personal gain."

LR Bumpurs, General Chairman GO 577
"this course is especially not favorable to the members we represent or to the prospective members."

Pat Ojard, General Chairman GO 325
" We do not see how the UTU can in good conscience continue down the path to charge these men on this pathetic excuse for a political housecleaning. I trust that these charges will be sent to their rightful place, the nearest trash receptacle.

Patrick F Reilly, General Chairman GO 610
"the proposed process and imposing of these charges will definitely divide our union."

Robert Keeley, General Chairman GO 342
"the face the very real possibility of capital punishment merely for being steadfast in their dissent of President Futhey's opinion concerning the SMART merger and the protections afforded by the UTU Constitution. Their efforts are meant to protect our members' democratic rights. . ."

WE Young, General Chairman GO 17
"We must maintain the checks and balances that the forefathers of this union provided in our Constitution or we are nothing short of a dictatorship."

MJ Reedy, General Chairman GO 225
"Your leadership is sorely needed at this time to quell the internal strife in our union, and to reassure those members that those officers they elected will continue to serve this organization."

Richard H Westbrook, NC State Legislative Director
"I urge the Executive Board to recognize these charges for what they are, vindictive and revengeful, and to do the right thing by dismissing these charges.

Rick Johnson, Colorado State Legislative Director
"With the phrase - the membership deserves better, in this matter, they deserve these charges be laid to rest in the best interest of the UTU."

Thomas E Hensler, Indiana State Legislative Director
"What started out as nothing more than union salting of another union by a couple of Teamster radicals quickly became a feeding frenzy fueled by the SMART merger."

Timothy S Deneen, Wisconsin State Legislative Director
"To silence those who differ is neither healthy nor democratic."

CM English, Texas State Legislative Director
"I find those bringing the charges have taken very small kernels of truth and spun them into a whole harvest of exaggeration, retribution, vengeance, false accusations and innuendo."

Daniel J O Connell, NJ State Legislative Director
"many (of the charges) are from officers holding alternate positions who will benefit by ascending to the offices presently held by these individuals."

George Casey, New England Legislative Director/Chairman
"The philosopher George Santayana advised: Those who do not remember the past are bound to repeat it."

Joseph Szabo, Illinois State Legislative Director
"Any attempt to stifle debate or punish dissenters should be viewed as an attack on our union."

Lawrence Kasecamp, Maryland State Legislative Director
"The bottom line is that these individuals, as well as any member, has the right to take a position they deem appropriate regarding any issue before our organization and they should not be expected to be retaliated against with frivolous charges for doing so."

Ronald Koran, Local 1594 General Chairperson
"I find it disturbing that certain officers continue to support the anti UTU "Save Our Union" website while filing charges against our own brothers."

Local 1067
"Goose-stepping groupthink gave us the Iraq War and Class I management, it has no place in the business of a brotherhood."

Walter W Yeatts
"There are some members of our union that are bent on revenge and settling old scores. Our union is better than that. These members are attempting to hurt our union and bring people up on charges that are based on nothing more than a member disagreeing with the judgement of a member of the Board of Directors."

An Attack On Free Speech

According to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act:


"It shall be unlawful for any person through the use of force or violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, to restrain, coerce, or intimidate, or attempt to restrain, coerce, or intimidate any member of a labor organization for the purpose of interfering with or preventing the exercise of any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this Act. "

We are nothing more than regular old UTU members. We have no ties to the Teamsters Union, no financial assistance from any DLCs looking to get back to the Boyd/Little years, and not too much skill when it comes to manipulating html code.

When we started this, we went to a friend of ours from back in New York who does know a thing or two about html codes and asked if he could lend us some assistance. As an old high school friend, he agreed.

For that, he got his name, address and telephone number plastered all over the Internet by the plaintiffs who are blocking the democrat rights of the thousands of UTU members who voted in for the SMART merger in August.

Ironic, isn't it, that the same people who supposedly "champion" the democratic rights of UTU members such as ourselves are the first to veto the exercise of those rights when they don't fit into their world view. Isn't it ironic that they're the same people who also are now attempting to suppress a dissenting viewpoint by posting the personal information related to an individual who helped us set up this web site?

Even more interesting is that the four Teamsters conveniently had the resources and access to the UTU database to do a very quick search on our friend's name.

Releasing membership information like that to outsiders is a serious violation of the memberships' privacy rights, made worse if it was done by someone on the inside at UTU headquarters in Cleveland.

To those who chose to take it upon themselves to shut down dissent through intimidating it by plastering some one's private information all over the Internet, we have this nugget from section 209 of the LMRDA:

Any person who willfully violates this title shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

What the plaintiffs and their supporters don't want people to talk about is their motives for their lawsuit. And the only way to find their motives is to take them at their words. Their past words that is. The words they scrubbed from their websites when they embarked on their twisted journey of character assassination, innuendo and intimidation.

Posting someone's personal information with the intention of intimidating them is something we've come to accept from a group of Teamsters, so we shouldn't have been surprised.

First they ignore you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
--Mohandas Gandhi.


Those words ring as true today as they did when they were first uttered decades ago. The four "Teamsters of the Apocalypse" first attempted to ignore this site, they found that they couldn't.

They then tried to laugh off our research uncovering their deep ties within the Teamsters. Of course, now they see we knew more than they thought we did.

And now, in a last gasp of desperation, they've taken to an anti-democratic tactic originated in places like China and Iran. In China, blog spot sites such as ours are banned or discouraged from being visited by goverment officials due to "reports" that readers have and will be stricken with computer viruses. They do this to keep the roots of democracy from spreading by controlling the information their citizens see to only what the government approves.

Borrowing from Communist China, the Teamster Four are now urging readers to avoid our site or suffer from a horrible "keystroke virus" which will permanently damage your computer and allow us access to all your personal and private information.

What the "Four Teamsters of the Apocalypse" won't talk about is their whereabouts before the UTU membership voted on the recent merger. They won't discuss Ed Michael's work to recruit UTU members into the Teamsters, they won't discuss their involvement in the 2006 Teamster Convention, not their years of work with other Teamster groups looking to bring the rail unions within the Teamster fold.

And good luck getting them to talk about the Teamster agreements like the MFA which seek to remove fright from the rails in order to preserve trucking jobs.

Maye it's too difficult a task, talking about the truth when there's no room for it on their agenda.

We as UTU members deserve to hear the truth. From every side. That's why this site emailed both Presidents Futhey and Sullivan and asked for direct information (submitted by site members) from original sources -- not rumors and innuendo that have been used to divide and distract us.

That is why we make every attempt to link all our material here to the original source --- rather than tell readers what they should be thinking as is done on the other site. We have too much respect for our readers' intelligence to do that - show people sources and they have the brains to make their own conclusions themselves.

Ww feel when presented with the facts, members will make up their own minds. That's why over 1,500 visitors have come to our site just this week. Because like us, our brothers and sisters want facts, not rumor mongering, character assasination, or childish threats.

We will continue to seek and tell the truth about the SMART merger.

It's our hope that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse make some attempt to their claim of promoting democratic trade unionism.

But we are not holding our breath for that.

Ed Michael on Competition

“Competition between IBT trucks and railroads is virtually non-existent. In fact, these two modes of transportation work together efficiently!”

Taken from the BLET Division 724 Membership Packet written by Division President Dale Edward Michael.



For a railroader to believe the plaintiffs who say there is no competition between IBT trucks and the railroads means you have to believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and that Weapons of Mass Destruction are due to show up in Iraq any day now.



The truth is, there is competition. And due to back room deals made behind the backs of railroaders, we in the UTU are losing out thanks to Michael, Eubanks, Don Hahs and their and their friends at the IBT.

All it takes is a quick read through the IBT Master Freight Agreement (MFA), where it’s plain to see whose side the IBT is not on.

Below are the ground rules the Teamsters set in 2005 for who gets to transport intermodal freight. As you can see, not only do over the road truckers win out, but the MFA lays out the groundwork on Teamster plans to promote trucking jobs at the expense of the rail industry:

Total intermodal rail miles included on line 303 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report shall not exceed 28 percent of the Employer’s total
miles as reported on line 301 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual
Report during any calendar year. . . Effective for Calendar Year 2005
and thereafter, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percent of total miles as calculated above will be reduced from 28% to 26%.

Since the intermodal clause was first put in place, the IBT insisted on renegotiating its share of trucking miles at intermodal sites.

Guess who lost out on that deal?

Yes, the same railroaders that Ed Michael and the Akron plaintiffs want to merge into theTeamsters - the very union openly lobbying to take our jobs away:

Subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the Article, total intermodal rail
miles included on line 303 of Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report shall not
exceed 24 percent of the Employer’s total miles as reported on line 301 of
Schedule 300 of the BTS Annual Report during any calendar year. In the event
intermodal rail miles exceed this 24% maximum, the Employer shall be required to remove an appropriate amount of freight from the rail and add a corresponding number of drivers at each affected domicile.

A 28% share of the freight in 2005 that the Teamsters shrunk down to a 24% share today.

But according to Ed Michael, competition is virtually non-existent, right?

The current terms of the MFA are only the tip of the iceberg.

The agreement goes on to detail the IBTs’ future plans for its vision of adding drivers to the detriment of rail workers:

The parties recognize that the current shipping markets demand expedited delivery of freight in a manner that may not be accomplished by hauling certain freight by rail.

Last time I checked, I thought the price of gas was increasing demand for rail, not decreasing it. But what do I know. If Ed Michael says it's true it must be, right?

These market demands create a need to reduce the amount of freight hauled
by rail and to use alternative methods of substitute service.

Unless the Starship Enterprise is an alternate method of transportation, they mean truckers.

As contemplated by Article 20, Section 4, new business opportunities may be
pursued that promote new Teamster job opportunities while protecting existing
Teamster jobs, benefits, and working conditions.

Once again, Teamster jobs, benefits and working conditions only apply to truckers. Railroaders never figure into the equation as Teamsters:

With these facts in mind, the rail miles as a percentage of total miles
will be reduced as follows:

effective Calendar Year 2010, the maximum amount of rail
miles as a percentage of total miles as calculated above will be reduced
from 24% to 21.5%.

Effective Calendar Year 2011, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percentage of total miles as calculated above will be reduced from 21.5% to 21%.

Effective Calendar Year 2012, the maximum amount of rail miles as a percentage of total miles as calculated above will be reduced from 21% to 19%.

Maybe Ed Michael is right. Maybe competition is virtually non-existent. Competition only exists if it’s allowed, not when the rules are written to benefit one side over the other. Maybe that’s what Ed Michael meant. . .competition is non-existent because it's not even allowed.

According to a handout found at Teamsters.org, the Master Freight Agreement assures truckers that it “allows enough freight to be taken off the rails to create new jobs for at least 1,000 Teamster drivers.”

Not a single word about creating jobs for the railroaders that Ed Michael has been lobbying to join the Teamsters.

Instead of fighting their international on behalf of their members’ interests, Teamsters like Ed Michael and Jimmy Eubanks have resorted to slithering on over to our union to block OUR democratically held vote. According to Michael’s old Division 724 website, it’s all in the hope of folding OUR UNION into the Teamsters instead:

We believe that once the operating crafts, and ultimately all rail labor unions unite as Teamsters, we can successfully compete in the bargaining arena to win good contracts for not only transportation employees, but for every rail labor
employee.

Just A Rank and File Doubleheader?

Justin (aka "Jimmy") Eubanks will tell you he's just another doubleheader. That's far from the truth.

Like Ed Michael, Eubanks is heavily involved in the Teamsters Union, going so far as to serve as a delegate for Tom Leedham at the 2006 Teamster Convention.

Above is a screen shot taken from the September 2006 Teamster Magazine during the time Eubanks was helping the Leedham campaign at the Teamsters.

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.

He's Not Just A Teamster. . .

But Ed Michael was also the President of BLET Division 724 in Illinois.

Yes, the same Dale Edward Michael who was the driving force behind the lawsuit disenfranchising the tens of thousands of votes cast by UTU members last summer. The same Teamster activists who consistently writes about folding the UTU into his union on his TDU blog and on the old website for Division 724:

BLET Division 724 is very excited about the new beginning and possibilities created by the historic merger between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). . .We believe that once the operating crafts, and ultimately all rail labor unions unite as Teamsters, we can successfully compete in the bargaining arena to win good contracts for not only transportation employees, but for every rail labor employee.

This is the same Ed Michael who claimed to a reporter at the Kansas City Star that he only belongs to both the UTU and Teamsters because "he holds seniority in both unions."

If you go to the same Division 724 website, as it is today, you will see that Ed Michael no longer remains as President of the local. Material calling for the Teamster takeover of the UTU has also disappeared, replaced by political and worksite messages. Why he left, we do not know. We do know that he left his position immediately before the SMART merger was voted on last August.

There is nothing wrong with somebody expressing their opinion. Free expression without fear of retaliation is the central linchpin of democratic trade unionism. However, there is a problem when someone hides their true intentions and keeps it hidden under a veil of attacks, mistruths and glaring factual omissions. That’s not free expression – it's deceit and manipulation in its lowest form. It means someone is hiding something, and usually it's not something good. We are better than that and the though of a Teamster official vetoing our cherished votes through a hidden agenda is something that needs to give each one of us pause.

Letter from General Chairman Keeley

General Chairman Keeley (GO-342 Amtrak) wrote an open letter to President Futhey last week, setting some issues straight in regards to the lawsuit blocking the SMART merger. It’s a long 9 page letter but brings up a host of facts and issues that have being buried and hidden from view.

While the letter is long, the points boil down to a host of still unanswered questions revolving around the motives and reasons for the International’s support of the Akron lawsuit.

it has become apparent that the facts regarding the UTU / SMWIA SMART Merger remain unclear and the record still needs to be set straight.

As to what is known about the SMART Merger Agreement itself, much was available to us on the UTU web site up until January 1, 2008, when the current administration had it all removed.

Keeley begins by unearthing some questions about some recent actions that have come from Cleveland. He finds it a bit curious that somebody decided to delete everything from the UTU website on January 1 regarding the SMART merger – including the link to the SMWIA Constitution that was made an issue by the Akron plaintiffs. It seems that if the SMWIA Constitution was an issue, then wouldn’t the new Administration want to include a link to it so that all members could read it for themselves?

Is it me, or is it a bit odd that the same people who complained about access to the SMART Constitution and its supposed “conflicts” seem to be the same people limiting members from seeing those conflicts? I don’t believe I have read a single exert You have to wonder if there’s something they’re trying to hide or if they’re trying to tell you there are conflicts, without showing you if any actually exist.

Keeley seems to call Futhey out in this next section when he reminds him that Futhey endorsed the decision that the SMART Constitution not be mailed out to every UTU household. The SMART Constitution is made up of the UTU Constitution bundled together with the SMWIA Constitution – and not something newly written. Futhey agreed with everyone else to make the SMWIA Constitution available at the UTU.org website – since that was the one part of the SMART Constitution UTU members were not familiar with. It’s interesting that Futhey bases his veto of the member vote for the SMART merger on his opposition to something he voted for in the first place.

According to Keeley’s letter, Futhey had an ample number of opportunities to oppose the SMART merger not only during the summer but even in the time before he made his arguments against it in late December.

The issue at heart is “whether our members received sufficient information about
the SMART Merger Agreement to make a fully informed decision”. At point is
whether or not the members received a copy of the SMART Constitution. The SMART Constitution is the SMWIA Constitution with the UTU Constitution inserted intact as Article 21b. The 2007 Board of Directors agreed unanimously that it was not necessary to provide a hard copy of the proposed Constitution but would instead post it on the UTU web site, where it could be downloaded and
printed by anyone with access to the internet. While there were many questions submitted about the merger itself (104 to be exact), there were never any objections submitted by anyone concerning the distribution of the proposed Constitution. At least not until December 7, 2007, well after the SMART Merger Agreement was put out for vote and ratified by the membership.

Keeley further explains that:

‘While still serving in the capacity of Vice President, and still serving as a
member of the 2007 Board of Directors, President Futhey received the e-mail and attachment on September 20, 2007. Article 23 of the UTU Constitution, effective August 2003, required the 2007 Board of Directors to meet on the first Tuesday of every April and October. The members of the 2007 Board of Directors were then required to have met on October 2, 2007. There is no evidence and/or any references to discussions during this meeting regarding the recently discovered problems concerning the SMART Merger Agreement. No one made any objections to moving forward with the merger.

After learning of the problems and conflicts with the SMART Merger Agreement and after assuming his position formally as our International President on January 1, 2008, President Futhey could have convened a meeting with the 2008 Board of Directors to resolve the issues as provided by Article 23 of the UTU Constitution. This never happened. Not even when all were present at the same time at the same location in New Orleans for the S. of U. meeting.

It’s the timing of Futhey’s objections to the merger that gives Keeley pause, and not only his lack of willingness to address the issues he waited until the last minute to object to but also his refusal to attempt to hammer out those issues during the meeting in New Orleans.

In an earlier letter, Keeley had asked Futhey many of these same questions he is asking now. He never received a response from Futhey besides a note asking him to attend the meeting in New Orleans. Besides taking Futhey to task for being elusive, Keeley begins to raise some doubts about some of Futhey’s actions:

Because the current administration has chosen not to engage me in my efforts to
seek out the truth, I have been forced to investigate this issue on my own
and to draw my own conclusions. . .after attending the State of the Union
meeting in New Orleans and hearing President Futhey’s S. of U. address, I respectfully submit that I am more confused now than ever before. . .First, to my great disappointment, the questions submitted in my January 14, 2008 letter to the Board of Directors were completely ignored as not one was answered.


With that understanding, we must consider when everyone involved first became aware of the alleged problems and conflicts with the SMART Merger. Then we must ascertain what actions were taken subsequent to acquiring this knowledge. How and when did they take any action? When we learn the answers to these and other questions, we might be able to discover the true purpose behind everyone’s actions. Are their intentions really in the best interest of UTU and that of our members?

At any time after Former UTU President Thompson first presented the SMART Merger Agreement, President Futhey could have and in retrospect he should have, refused to support the measure without first having in his possession all the relevant documents (SMART / SMWIA Constitutions), taken the time to necessary to review them closely; document his questions and concerns and wait until he received a written response which would have enabled him to make an informed and intelligent decision. In President Futhey’s own words, this never happened.

Addressing the charges against the seven UTU board members, Keeley begins by attacking the twisted notion that any of them are blocking the actions of their own union.
Bringing everyone back to reality, he lays out that they were only standing in support of their obligation to recognition the membership vote, but they did not even initiate a lawsuit against the plaintiffs – instead they are the victims of a suit seeking to have them shoved out of the way for a goal that none of the plaintiffs have yet to reveal.

Another allegation about the seven Board of Directors concerns the financial burden that their continued support for the SMART Merger has contributed greatly to the fiscal crisis that UTU is currently facing. This simply is not true. Evidence the undisputable fact that these seven Board of Directors actions are only subsequent and in response to actions taken against them by the engineers of the anti-merger movement.

Keeley openly wonders why a meeting of everyone involved in the merger talks never took place to answer the questions and issues posed by anti-merger plaintiffs. While the SMWIA signaled its willingness to attent such a meeting, nobody from the International responded:

in a letter addressed to President Futhey and dated January 17, 2008 (see attached), I requested to have all parties involved with the UTU SMWIA SMART Merger, including all members of the 2007 Board of Directors, all signatories and authors of the Merger Agreement present at the S. of U. meeting. My reasoning and purpose for having everyone involved with the merger agreement present was so that they could explain their actions and be held accountable, which would ensure that the record would indeed be set straight. This request went unanswered and for reasons never explained by anyone at the International Office, none of the UTU Officers listed in my letter of request
were invited to explain their actions.


Keeley’s letter raises some serious questions that still haven’t been answered.

Why did President Futhey not raise his concerns about the merger during the time from August to December 31st when he had every opportunity to do so?

Why did President Futhey object to the merger based upon an action that he himself voted to endorse?

As President-elect, why did it take Mike Futhey, an attorney specializing in contract law, at least three months to sit down and read the SMART merger agreement and decide he was opposed to it?

As President-elect, why did Mike Futhey not bring up any objections he had to the merger agreement during meetings on October 2nd and later in November?

As President-elect, should Mike Futhey not have raised his objections during the fall when he could have avoided what he now calls a “costly lawsuit?”

As President-elect, when did Mike Futhey and or Arty Martin and Kim Thompson meet with the plaintiffs? Did the plaintiffs have any of their attorneys with them? Who were those attorneys associated with? Were there any Teamster officials or staff at those meetings? Was President-elect Futhey aware that the plaintiffs were associated with the Teamsters?

What parts of the SMWIA Constitution did President Futhey have an objection to? Why has he removed any trace of the SMWIA Constitution from the utu.org website for members to see?

Why did President Futhey decide until after the membership voted, to oppose the merger and eventually take it upon himself to veto their support of it?

These questions are just the tip of the iceberg. There is still more to Keeley’s letter to President Futhey. These questions are only those from the first 4 pages of the letter and are no way a complete accord of the whole letter. We will continue to provide more commentary on this letter tomorrow, but in the meantime you can take an unfiltered look at it [here].

Let's Have Some Answers

We have been posting your responses and like you we now need answers. I don’t know if President Futhey or General President Sullivan will answer us, but we are going to forward questions to their offices to see if we can get answers to the real questions we have.

Not the questions they want to answer.

Let's Get to the Bottom of Things

Anyone who thinks that Jim Eubanks and Ed Michael are working solely for the membership of the UTU need only take a look at this Teamster site.
Writing as Teamster activists, they both talk quite a bit about the UTU, rather than their own union.
They even acknowledge that the UTU is losing money. Of course, that's before they began posting their new financial figures that paint a much different picture from what they conveyed before.

Instead of respecting the wishes of the UTU members who voted in August, they have attempted to run over the wishes of UTU members with a convoy full of half-truths.

Of course, they seem to have had their own answer for Cleveland’s cash flow problems.

Their answer on how to bail out the UTU? It’s not hard to find, it’s even on Ed Michael’s own Teamsters blog - Put Teamster Power to Work on the Rails.

Yes, the very same union that joined with its’ freight haulers to prey on rail jobs is now looking to represent those of us who didn’t lose our jobs to the freight haulers. Even worst is that the ringleader of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the lawsuit happens to not only be a card carrying Teamster, but an open advocate of merging our union into the Teamsters.

Anonymous News Tips

In just a few days, we’ve had several anonymous emails sent to us about events at the UTU that we are currently verifying. As with any organization, there are always going to be rumors floating around – our intention is not to push those rumors but instead to get the TRUTH out to the membership by confirming information to be accurate.

With that in mind, have you seen or heard something that your fellow union members should know? You can provide information anonymously to the site administrator -- no information about you or your e-mail address will be forwarded to us and your anonymity is entirely preserved.

Alternatively, you can email us at therealutu@gmail.com.