Posted By: Friends of Local 70 <hmarti0115@aol.com> (spider-to043.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 7/7/99, at 1:41 p.m.

Recently "Randy Olson's Friends" self-servingly asked the question, "Who
is Randy Olson?"

Good question! Bad answer!

The truth: Olson has been a member of Local 70 for over 25 years. In all
that time, he hasn't attended 10 membership meetings. Over the past four
years he has had literally no presence in the Local. And, hey, Randy knows
how to avoid trouble. This "dedicated union man" has been "AWOL" during
every major struggle Local 70 has faced over the last decade. The Freight
strike, the Chain Store battles, and Fleming Foods ---- all had one thing in
common ---- no Randy.

Even the 1997 UPS strike had no Randy. At the same time, Chuck Mack,
Marty Frates and a host of UPS Rank and Filers were battling police and
the company in the streets every day for two weeks. Olson, with seniority at
UPS ---- a self-styled Steward ---- was a no-show.

Now, taking on Chuck Mack and Local 70 is nothing new for Olson. He ran
against Mack in 1995. He was trounced by a 3 to 1 margin. His sin wasn't
running, that's his right. But, he ran for all the wrong reasons. He wasn't
interested in the membership, negotiating contracts and administering the
Local. He had cut a deal with Ron Carey and TDU ---- run against Mack
and we'll take care of you. They did. Guess who showed up as a Sergeant
at Arms at the 1996 Convention? Yeah, you're right. Randy. A week in
Philadelphia, courtesy of Ron Carey, all expenses paid by the membership.

Olson's defeat in 1995 was not surprising for a number of reasons:

1. The members didn't know him.

2. Those who did know him, didn't like him.

3. He was identified as more business than union. You see, Olson owned,
and maybe still does, a non-union construction company. He spent more
time there, exploiting his non-union workers, than he did at UPS.

4. His candidacy was seen as an attempt by "outsiders" to take over Local
70.

"BUYER BEWARE"

Before you dig into your pockets and give Olson some of your hard-earned
cash, you should know that his suit against Local 70 is his third "bite at the
apple."

The Election Officer and NLRB have already rejected the same charges.
Yeah, after he was terminated for exceeding the Teamsters/United Parcel
Service contract's Leave of Absence provisions,* Olson filed charges with
the Election Officer and NLRB crying discrimination. Both bodies, after
investigating the charges, dismissed them. In his decision, the Election
Officer, Michael Cherkasky, found that:

"Although Mr. Olson provided several documents as evidence and letters
containing arguments in support of his protest, he has submitted no
evidence showing that the actions of Mr. Frates, Mr. Mack or Mr. Naddy
occurred in retaliation for any election-related activity. Mr. Olson bears the
burden to come forward with sufficient evidence to support the conclusion
that a violation has occurred....."

"On October 9,1998, the Election Officer's representative telephoned Mr.
Olson and left a message to return the call and to submit, all evidence
supporting his claim, by October 14, 1998. Although the protester
subsequently provided additional documents, he never returned the call.
The Election Officer's message also specifically requested that Mr. Olson
forward all evidence supporting his contention that his representation by
Local Union 70 was unfair and due to 'your support of Mr. Leedham.' The
protestor submitted no evidence connecting any of the material facts in this
case to the exercise of an election-related right. There is further no
evidence that Mr. Mack or Mr. Naddy violated the Rules as alleged by Mr.
Olson."

"Accordingly, the protest is DENIED."

Local 70 has not short-changed Randy Olson. He was represented fully
and fairly. He just can't accept the outcome and is blaming everyone but
himself.

Olson needs to do something completely out of character ----- accept
responsibility for his actions, or, in this case, inaction. He's the one who
didn't come to work, not the Local, Marty Frates, or Chuck Mack. He played
a game and, not surprisingly, miscalculated.

Finally, anyone familiar with Local 70, Frates and Mack, knows they
provide aggressive, militant representation. If there's a doubt, ask any
employer in their area. They also know the Local's Officials do not retaliate
politically. Check the record. Have any of Mack or Frates' past political
challengers been fired? No! _____________________________

* Northern California Supplemental Agreement between Teamsters Local
Unions 70, et al and United Parcel Service, Article 8, "Leave of Absence,"
Section 2, Paragraph 2: Any employee who is unable to work because of
sickness or injury shall be deemed to be on leave of absence. Such leave
will not exceed two (2) years unless extended by written consent of the
Union and the Employer. In the absence of such consent, a request for
extension of such leave shall be subject to dispute procedure, but in no
event shall such leave exceed three (3) years, except with the written
consent of the Union and the Employer.
______________________________

Olson was off work for approximately three years as a result of a
non-industrial accident. He made no request to the company or union to
extend the leave at the conclusion of the second year.

Posted By: Randy O. (port19.slvd.prodigy.net)
Date: 7/7/99, at 3:18 p.m.

In Response To: "2 B OR NOT 2 B" --SCAMMED (Friends of Local 70)

Scam 

Posted By: Walt Petitt <wpetitt@lodinet.com> (206.101.173.121)
Date: 7/7/99, at 6:45 p.m.

In Response To: "2 B OR NOT 2 B" --SCAMMED (Friends of Local 70)

Friends of Local 70. Thanks for the input on Randy Olsen. I hope this sets
the record straight. I have known Chuck Mack for twenty years or more and
have never known him to let a member down. He has always been a hard
hitting, straight forward union man.

I never believed any of the garbage Chuck Engle was posting, But it's nice
to know the real facts. Thanks.

Posted By: truthseeker (sfr-qbu-pql-vty8.as.wcom.net)
Date: 7/7/99, at 11:18 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "2 B OR NOT 2 B" --SCAMMED (Walt Petitt)

HO HO HAR HAR HAR... Please - acting as if Marti and Chuck are hard
hitting negotiators - my sides are splitting.

Both of them have never met an employer they didn't like.

Business unionism boys...that's the name of that song.

Posted By: farley l. hatcher <farley6255@aol.com> (spider-tl072.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 7/8/99, at 9:22 a.m.

In Response To: OH PLEASE! MARTI AND CHUCK? (truthseeker)

Are you the same "truthseeker" that the cat dragged in? farley 

Posted By: Walt Petitt <wpetitt@lodinet.com> (206.101.173.112)
Date: 7/8/99, at 9:38 a.m.

In Response To: OH PLEASE! MARTI AND CHUCK? (truthseeker)

Truthseeker, if you will re-read my post you will find that I spoke of Chuck
Mack. I don't know Marti, but if Chuck thinks he's doing the job then I'll give
him the benefit of the doubt.

As a Union rep for about 28 years, I have been called a friend of the
employer many times. But have you heard the saying "honey catches more
flies than vinegar.?" I have seen Union reps go into negotiations and pound
on the table, scream and yell, call names, and threaten only to get what
they were really asking for, a strike. I have also saw many good contracts
come out of negotiation where both side sat at the table and talked like old
friends. I have also settled some grievances on behalf of the member over
the lunch table with the employer. So call Chuck any name you like, and
attack his methods all you want, but compare his accomplishments with any
other labor leader. I think he will come out close to the top.

Posted By: The Friends of Randy Olson <olsonsfriends@aol.com>
(209.66.83.101)
Date: 7/8/99, at 3:54 p.m.

In Response To: "2 B OR NOT 2 B" --SCAMMED (Friends of Local 70)

I appreciate your well written post. I will endeavor to answer that which is
appropriate. You are welcome to characterize Mr. Olson in any fashion you
like. Regardless of how skewed it is. In order to answer your
characterization I would have to attack Mr. Mack and Mr. Frates on their
ethical behavior. Mr. Mack and Mr. Frates are very shrewd manipulators,
artistically mixing truth and deception. I salute them. I would have to paint a
picture of local 70 with too broad a brush and characterize its environment
as repressive. Also, I would be engaging questions that are not relevant to
Mr. Olson's charges filed with the court. Therefore, enough said.

Mr. Olson is a very ethical person, but If Mr. Olson was the absolute worst
Teamster of the 1.4 million Teamsters, he is still entitled to a fare defense
at the grievance panel.

1. The grievance panel never should have heard Mr. Olson's case. Mr.
Olson was ill and could not attend. Mr. Olson's excuse from his doctor at
San Leandro Hospital was posted in a previous thread.

2. You quoted Northern California Supplemental Agreement between
Teamsters Local Unions 70, et al and United Parcel Service, Article 8,
"Leave of Absence," Section 2, Paragraph 2: Any employee who is unable
to work because of sickness or injury shall be deemed to be on leave of
absence. Such leave not exceed two (2) years unless extended by written
consent of the Union and the Employer. In the absence of such consent, a
request for of such leave shall be subject to dispute procedure, but in no
event shall such leave exceed three (3) years, except with the written
consent of the Union and the Employer.

Yes, Mr. Olson was on leave of absence for more than 2 years. At the 2
year interval Mr. Olson did not request an extension. UPS had 5 days to file
a protest. They did not. Therefore the point is moot. Now, for Mr. Olson to
remain employed at UPS he would have to go back to work or file for an
extension before the 3 year interval.

Mr. Olson was released to go back to work before the 3 year interval. Mr.
Olson went back to work and was not allowed on UPS property and was
not allowed to work. It was UPS that prevented Mr. Olson from going back
to work before the 3 year interval.

UPS was then and is now in violation of the contract.

3. As stated in a previous post in another thread, Mr. Olson's Protest to the
Election Officer fell outside of the jurisdiction of the Election Officer. And
that Mr. Olson withdrew charges with the NLRB and chose to file in federal
Court.

The friends of randy Olson 

Posted By: Friends of Local 70 (spider-tf011.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 7/8/99, at 9:18 p.m.

In Response To: "2 B OR NOT 2 B" --SCAMMED (Friends of Local 70)

FACT AND FICTION:

Two sentences in your response stand out.

First: "At the 2-year interval Mr. Olson did NOT request an extension."
TRUE!

Second: "UPS had five days to file a protest." ASSUMPTION!

Are you sure? Who says? Where did you read that?

It's an interesting theory. I'd probably make the same argument if I was in
Olson's position. But, let's face it, it has real shortcomings.

Consider, did the company terminate Olson or did he terminate himself?
Assuming he was terminated by UPS and assuming it was not
accomplished within a five-day period after the two-year leave had expired,
would the company be forever prevented from terminating Olson? Would
the company have another shot at three years? What if they missed?
Would Olson's seniority go on forever should UPS fail to terminate in the
five-day period after a leave expired? I like it. Great theory ---- BUT is it the
contract?

The grievance panel said no.

Time to move on.

Posted By: The Friends of Randy Olson <olsonsfriends@aol.com>
(209.66.83.101)
Date: 7/8/99, at 10:34 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "2 B OR NOT 2 B" --SCAMMED (Friends of Local 70)

In answer to your question. "Second: "UPS had five days to file a protest."
ASSUMPTION! Are you sure? Who says? Where did you read that?"

Article 7, Section 4 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement: (c)
Within five (5) days of the occurrence of the alleged cause for discharge or
suspension, the Employer shall give written notice by certified mail to the
employee and to the Local Union of its decision to discharge or suspend
the and such notice shall set for the reason or reasons for the discharge or
suspension. If the Employer fails to give such written notice within the
specified five (5) day period, the right to discharge or suspend for that
particular reason shall be waived."

The termination was and is illegal.

The answers to your other questions would be best addressed during the
next contract negotiation and wording added to clarify that portion of the
contract.

Again, I state that the panel, that upheld the firing of Mr. Olson should
never have been convened, as Mr. Olson was ill and could not attend. Mr.
Olson's Doctors excuse was ignored by the panel, Local 70 and UPS.

The Friends of Randy Olson