Click on image for full size!
Click here for more info on Lopez for Sheriff
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NEWS SITE FOR CURRENT AND RETIRED CORRECTIONS OFFICERS! This blog will keep up on current events affecting Detention Deputies and Corrections Officers. SINCE 2006!
Monday, October 30, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Walking the Line With Mesaba's Unions
Today I took a day off of work and spent it walking a picket line with the Mesaba Labor Coalition, which includes the Air Line Pilots Association, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association. There were about 150 people protesting Judge Kishel's ruling outside of the federal courthouse in Minneapolis. There were Teamsters like myself, as well as UAW workers from the Ford plant in St. Paul, people from the Restaurant Workers Union and pilots from Northwest and other airlines, and probably others I didn't recognize.
Why? I don't work for Mesaba. How does this affect me? It affects all working Americans! The right to strike is a fundamental of the labor movement. Judge Kishel voided the union's contracts with Mesaba. Then when Mesaba stated they wanted the unions to cut their wages by 17.5% the unions threatened to strike. Judge Kishel then decided they could not strike! What would happen to a union worker if they disobeyed this ruling? They could be jailed! Let me paint the picture crystal clear. The government voids your contract, your bosses say they're cutting your wages, and the government further strengthens management's hand by threatening to jail you if you don't go to work! This has to be stopped in it's tracks. The right to strike is not some privilege granted by the government. It's what working men and women do when they've had enough.
Working people understand tough times and having to tighten belts. However those cuts need to be negotiated. If the employees need to cut back, then so does management. The sacrifice needs to be equitable. Too many time we see employees taking pay cuts and management getting bonuses. The right to strike is a great equalizer. Judge Kishel wrongfully took that right away leaving management in total control.
In 1886 union members died in the Haymarket Riot in Chicago fighting for the eight hour day. Even the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. If judge Kishel's ruling doesn't equate to involuntary servitude, I don't know what does.
Being a union member is about more then just our bargaining unit. It's about securing living wages and good benefits for all workers. We must stand together or be picked off alone. We've had two decades of the government and companies telling workers they didn't need unions. What did we get? Jobs being outsourced to other countries. Good paying union jobs being replaced by Walmarts paying substandard wages with no benefits. We've seen small raises being out paced by rising health insurance costs. All while the health insurance executives walk away with billion dollar umbrellas. Now today we have federal judges ruling workers can't strike even when their contract has been voided. It is time for America's workers to wake up, organize and fight back.
One final note. At todays rally I saw not one politician. Not one of these politicians asking for, or touting the Labor Endorsement. Listen up, the Labor Endorsement doesn't just mean free mailings. It means you stand with us. If you don't, we'll find people who do!
Why? I don't work for Mesaba. How does this affect me? It affects all working Americans! The right to strike is a fundamental of the labor movement. Judge Kishel voided the union's contracts with Mesaba. Then when Mesaba stated they wanted the unions to cut their wages by 17.5% the unions threatened to strike. Judge Kishel then decided they could not strike! What would happen to a union worker if they disobeyed this ruling? They could be jailed! Let me paint the picture crystal clear. The government voids your contract, your bosses say they're cutting your wages, and the government further strengthens management's hand by threatening to jail you if you don't go to work! This has to be stopped in it's tracks. The right to strike is not some privilege granted by the government. It's what working men and women do when they've had enough.
Working people understand tough times and having to tighten belts. However those cuts need to be negotiated. If the employees need to cut back, then so does management. The sacrifice needs to be equitable. Too many time we see employees taking pay cuts and management getting bonuses. The right to strike is a great equalizer. Judge Kishel wrongfully took that right away leaving management in total control.
In 1886 union members died in the Haymarket Riot in Chicago fighting for the eight hour day. Even the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. If judge Kishel's ruling doesn't equate to involuntary servitude, I don't know what does.
Being a union member is about more then just our bargaining unit. It's about securing living wages and good benefits for all workers. We must stand together or be picked off alone. We've had two decades of the government and companies telling workers they didn't need unions. What did we get? Jobs being outsourced to other countries. Good paying union jobs being replaced by Walmarts paying substandard wages with no benefits. We've seen small raises being out paced by rising health insurance costs. All while the health insurance executives walk away with billion dollar umbrellas. Now today we have federal judges ruling workers can't strike even when their contract has been voided. It is time for America's workers to wake up, organize and fight back.
One final note. At todays rally I saw not one politician. Not one of these politicians asking for, or touting the Labor Endorsement. Listen up, the Labor Endorsement doesn't just mean free mailings. It means you stand with us. If you don't, we'll find people who do!
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Support Mesaba Protesters
Last week U. S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory Kishel threw out the union contract of Mesaba airline employees. The company wants to cut their wages by 17.5 %. They were going to strike but yesterday U. S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory Kishel ruled they could not.
This is a serious thing. A contract voided and then the employees right to strike denied.
Mesaba's union employees are staging a rally on Thursday October 26th at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Minneapolis at 11:30 AM. They are asking for a show of support from other unions. If at all possible please attend and show your solidarity. The government's anti-union, anti-worker action has to be stopped.
"We will not stand for this injustice," said Captain Tom Wychor, chairman of the ALPA unit at Mesaba. "Under the law, if your contract gets rejected, you don't have to perform under that contract. No bankruptcy court has recognized any exception under the statutes until today." -Workday Minnesota
This is a serious thing. A contract voided and then the employees right to strike denied.
Mesaba's union employees are staging a rally on Thursday October 26th at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Minneapolis at 11:30 AM. They are asking for a show of support from other unions. If at all possible please attend and show your solidarity. The government's anti-union, anti-worker action has to be stopped.
"We will not stand for this injustice," said Captain Tom Wychor, chairman of the ALPA unit at Mesaba. "Under the law, if your contract gets rejected, you don't have to perform under that contract. No bankruptcy court has recognized any exception under the statutes until today." -Workday Minnesota
Monday, October 23, 2006
NLRB UNDERMINES WORKERS' RIGHTS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 03, 2006
CONTACT:
Sarah Massey
(202) 445-1169
NLRB UNDERMINES WORKERS' RIGHTS
WASHINGTON, DC – In a series of cases widely viewed as among the most important the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will decide this decade, the Board ruled to undermine workers’ rights to union representation. The Bush Board’s new definition of supervisor significantly departs from past interpretations and could have the result of depriving millions of workers the opportunity to choose to unionize because they are classified as a supervisor. It is yet another decision by the current Board that sides with business, directly against the interests of workers, and that explicitly professes to be unconcerned with the far reaching consequences of its interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“This decision continues the Labor Board’s alarming trend of eroding workers’ rights in America,” says Mary Beth Maxwell, Executive Director of American Rights at Work, a workers’ rights advocacy organization. "In the last few years, the Bush-appointed Board has utterly failed to do its job and protect workers’ rights."
In 2001, the Supreme Court rejected the Board’s method of determining supervisory status in the Kentucky River case, forcing the Board to reexamine the issue. In three cases, Oakwood Healthcare, Golden Crest Healthcare, and Croft Metals, the Board tested the determination of who is a supervisor. Under the new test as explained in the Oakwood decision, the assignment of routine tasks is sufficient to confer supervisory status, even if the assignment is a reflection of professional judgment and even if the employee in question has no input into the general allocation of work assignments.
Dissenting Labor Board members aptly expressed their grave concern about the ruling, stating that, “The result could come as a rude shock to nurses and other workers who for decades have been effectively protected by the NLRA, but who now may find themselves treated, for labor-law purposes, as members of management, with no right to pursue collective bargaining or engage in other concerted activity in the workplace.. ..The majority’s decision thus denies the protection of the Act to yet another group of workers, while strengthening the ability of employers to resist the unionization of other employees.”
American Rights at Work strives to inform the public about the NLRB, the federal agency that makes critical decisions affecting workers’ lives and freedoms. Through its website feature, “Workers’ Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB,” the labor policy group monitors and publicizes the insufficiency of U.S. labor law to ensure employees the freedom to exercise their legal rights to organize. With these rulings decided, workers now anticipate similar judgments in the 135 cases pending at the Board.
###
American Rights at Work is a leading labor policy and advocacy organization dedicated to educating the American public about the barriers that workers face when they attempt to exercise their rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining.
October 03, 2006
CONTACT:
Sarah Massey
(202) 445-1169
NLRB UNDERMINES WORKERS' RIGHTS
WASHINGTON, DC – In a series of cases widely viewed as among the most important the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will decide this decade, the Board ruled to undermine workers’ rights to union representation. The Bush Board’s new definition of supervisor significantly departs from past interpretations and could have the result of depriving millions of workers the opportunity to choose to unionize because they are classified as a supervisor. It is yet another decision by the current Board that sides with business, directly against the interests of workers, and that explicitly professes to be unconcerned with the far reaching consequences of its interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“This decision continues the Labor Board’s alarming trend of eroding workers’ rights in America,” says Mary Beth Maxwell, Executive Director of American Rights at Work, a workers’ rights advocacy organization. "In the last few years, the Bush-appointed Board has utterly failed to do its job and protect workers’ rights."
In 2001, the Supreme Court rejected the Board’s method of determining supervisory status in the Kentucky River case, forcing the Board to reexamine the issue. In three cases, Oakwood Healthcare, Golden Crest Healthcare, and Croft Metals, the Board tested the determination of who is a supervisor. Under the new test as explained in the Oakwood decision, the assignment of routine tasks is sufficient to confer supervisory status, even if the assignment is a reflection of professional judgment and even if the employee in question has no input into the general allocation of work assignments.
Dissenting Labor Board members aptly expressed their grave concern about the ruling, stating that, “The result could come as a rude shock to nurses and other workers who for decades have been effectively protected by the NLRA, but who now may find themselves treated, for labor-law purposes, as members of management, with no right to pursue collective bargaining or engage in other concerted activity in the workplace.. ..The majority’s decision thus denies the protection of the Act to yet another group of workers, while strengthening the ability of employers to resist the unionization of other employees.”
American Rights at Work strives to inform the public about the NLRB, the federal agency that makes critical decisions affecting workers’ lives and freedoms. Through its website feature, “Workers’ Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB,” the labor policy group monitors and publicizes the insufficiency of U.S. labor law to ensure employees the freedom to exercise their legal rights to organize. With these rulings decided, workers now anticipate similar judgments in the 135 cases pending at the Board.
###
American Rights at Work is a leading labor policy and advocacy organization dedicated to educating the American public about the barriers that workers face when they attempt to exercise their rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Keith Ellison Speaks For Terrorist Organization!
On October 14th Keith Ellison went to Florida to be the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to a FrontPage magazine article this organization has already raised between $15,000-$20,000 for his campaign. In a separate FrontPage article they describe Mr. Ellison's association with CAIR and describes "CAIR’s ties to the terrorist organization Hamas, given the fact that four CAIR representatives have previously been charged by the U.S. government with terrorist activity, and given the fact that CAIR is being sued for its role in the attacks on 9/11."
Powerline also has a great article on CAIR and Mr. Ellison. They report that, "The Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR was founded by three leaders of a front for the terrorist organization Hamas, in June of 1994....and Four of CAIR’s officials have been charged with terrorist activities, in relation to Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Two of those officials are behind bars in the United States; the other two have been deported."
Do not support terror! If you live in the fifth district vote for anyone but him for congress!
Do not support terror! If you live in the fifth district vote for anyone but him for congress!
Saturday, October 14, 2006
When to Talk & When Not to Talk
The nature of our profession requires us to use force and compel inmates to do things they do not want to do: Get booked in, go to court, etc. Many inmates we deal with are drunk, high, or just plain angry. Not to mention the large percentage that are mentally ill. Often they have agendas, such as manufacturing a tale of abuse to collect money.
Good documentation is your best friend. A well written report right after a use of force incident can go far to dispel a false accusation. While most of our facility is under video and audio surveillance, the recording isn't always your friend. Often the camera angels are poor and obstructed by either things in the facility or other people. The audio isn't always great either. In some places it's so good it can pick up a whisper, but in others it sounds garbled. Concrete and steel can make for poor acoustics. In intake by the BAD cells, only the interior of one cell is visible on camera. So an inmate can sound as if he's being "abused" on audio, when in reality nothing wrong is going on, or the sounds are actually coming from another inmate in another cell.
If you get called into a supervisors office to be questioned, ask if this conversation can lead to discipline. If the answer is yes, you have the right to a steward. This is your Weingarten right. The same goes for Internal Affairs (I.A.). Never go without a steward. The steward can provide moral support, act as a witness, and make sure your rights are protected. In internal affairs you will be asked to sign a Garrity warning. The Garrity warning waives your 5th amendment right to remain silent, but in return anything gleaned from your statement can only be used for internal discipline, not criminally against you. You must talk in internal affairs, and you must be truthful.
Outside investigations: You do not have to talk. I advise you never to talk until you have consulted with a Team Legal attorney. All statements made to an outside investigator can be used against you both criminally and internally. Remember too, a detective can legally lie to coerce you to talk. They can say others have said something they have not, they can pretend "this is no big deal, I'm just tying up loose ends." In short they can lie. Often our attorneys recommend not making a statement at all. The burden is on the investigator. You cannot be ordered to talk to an outside investigator. You cannot be punished or harassed for not talking to one.
Know your rights. Know when to talk and when not to. In my experience, the investigator (I.A. or outside) often has a preconceived idea of what happened, and sometimes the administration wants them to find someone to blame. You always have the right to have a steward present if it's an I.A. or a conversation that could lead to discipline, and you always have the right to an attorney and a steward if it's more then a disciplinary hearing. The attorney will protect your legal rights and the steward will protect your contractual rights. Don't be naive. The union has your best interest in mind, an investigator and the administration may not.
Good documentation is your best friend. A well written report right after a use of force incident can go far to dispel a false accusation. While most of our facility is under video and audio surveillance, the recording isn't always your friend. Often the camera angels are poor and obstructed by either things in the facility or other people. The audio isn't always great either. In some places it's so good it can pick up a whisper, but in others it sounds garbled. Concrete and steel can make for poor acoustics. In intake by the BAD cells, only the interior of one cell is visible on camera. So an inmate can sound as if he's being "abused" on audio, when in reality nothing wrong is going on, or the sounds are actually coming from another inmate in another cell.
If you get called into a supervisors office to be questioned, ask if this conversation can lead to discipline. If the answer is yes, you have the right to a steward. This is your Weingarten right. The same goes for Internal Affairs (I.A.). Never go without a steward. The steward can provide moral support, act as a witness, and make sure your rights are protected. In internal affairs you will be asked to sign a Garrity warning. The Garrity warning waives your 5th amendment right to remain silent, but in return anything gleaned from your statement can only be used for internal discipline, not criminally against you. You must talk in internal affairs, and you must be truthful.
Outside investigations: You do not have to talk. I advise you never to talk until you have consulted with a Team Legal attorney. All statements made to an outside investigator can be used against you both criminally and internally. Remember too, a detective can legally lie to coerce you to talk. They can say others have said something they have not, they can pretend "this is no big deal, I'm just tying up loose ends." In short they can lie. Often our attorneys recommend not making a statement at all. The burden is on the investigator. You cannot be ordered to talk to an outside investigator. You cannot be punished or harassed for not talking to one.
Know your rights. Know when to talk and when not to. In my experience, the investigator (I.A. or outside) often has a preconceived idea of what happened, and sometimes the administration wants them to find someone to blame. You always have the right to have a steward present if it's an I.A. or a conversation that could lead to discipline, and you always have the right to an attorney and a steward if it's more then a disciplinary hearing. The attorney will protect your legal rights and the steward will protect your contractual rights. Don't be naive. The union has your best interest in mind, an investigator and the administration may not.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Teamster Scholarship Open
The Harold Yates Scholarship is available now for Teamster members. If you have a high school senior with a B average click here: Scholarship
The scholarship competition begins October 1st of each year, with an application deadline of February 15.
The scholarship competition begins October 1st of each year, with an application deadline of February 15.
Walmart fined for violating labor laws.
Just another reason why union people should avoid Walmart, these are excerpts from a NY Times article:
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, must pay at least $78 million for violating Pennsylvania state labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks and off the clock, a jury said Friday.
''One of Wal-Mart's undisclosed secrets for its profitability is its creation and implementation of a system that encourages off-the-clock work for its hourly employees ...''
Interestingly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. shows a revenue of $312.4 billion so far for 2006! They are a prime example of what business will do if unchecked by organized labor. Trickle down economics don't exist for their employees. Don't reward Walmart by shopping there.
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, must pay at least $78 million for violating Pennsylvania state labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks and off the clock, a jury said Friday.
''One of Wal-Mart's undisclosed secrets for its profitability is its creation and implementation of a system that encourages off-the-clock work for its hourly employees ...''
Interestingly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. shows a revenue of $312.4 billion so far for 2006! They are a prime example of what business will do if unchecked by organized labor. Trickle down economics don't exist for their employees. Don't reward Walmart by shopping there.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
"WTF!"
So let me see, once again we have an inmate lie and make false accusations against some of our members. The inmate recants, but yet our members must still be investigated. The last one, Philander Jenkins, ended up being acquitted of his charge of filing a false report, because apparently that only applies if they complain to the cops, not the "Sheriff's Office" internal affairs. But when an inmate exposes our members to blood and body fluids our impotent county attorney, Amy Klobuchar, can't seem to charge all but a fraction of the inmates, and even then the charge usually gets dropped or plead away or at best the inmate gets only 90 days for a felony 4th degree assault on a correctional officer. Speaking of correctional officers, after one of our members got exposed to an inmate's blood a couple of years ago and the inmate refused to give a blood draw, we, Teamsters Local 320 lobbied for and passed the Blood Borne Pathogens Bill. It took effect July 1st, 2006 and enables our facility commander to order a blood draw if the inmate refuses to voulntarily give one after one of our members has a significant exposure, but of course that hasn't been enforced either because they're not sure the phrase "corrections officer" applies to us. Why would it? We only wrote the bill!
Where is our protection? Why doesn't Amy Klobuchar charge out complaints when our members are assaulted? Why is it that even if you get falsely accused by an inmate you are in deep trouble, but when an inmate assaults you with shit, piss, blood or spit no one knows if the laws apply?
This is not over. It is not part of our job to be assaulted either physicaly or with blood and body fluids. It is not part of our job to be falsely accused of crimes. We are not the criminals. Apparently the powers that be fear violations of inmate's rights, well they better start being afraid of violating our rights or standing idly by and allowing that from inmates. We are working to get these laws enforced. As Chief Steward I advise you, do not give a statement to internal affairs without a union steward present. Do not talk to a supervisor without a steward present if it could result in discipline. These are your legal rights under Weingarten.
Do not talk to an outside investigator without a Team Legal attorney present. A statement to an outside investigator could lead to criminal and civil charges as well as internal discipline. Just say no! This is your 5th Amendment right. Call Team Legal. These are your rights as a union member.
Where is our protection? Why doesn't Amy Klobuchar charge out complaints when our members are assaulted? Why is it that even if you get falsely accused by an inmate you are in deep trouble, but when an inmate assaults you with shit, piss, blood or spit no one knows if the laws apply?
This is not over. It is not part of our job to be assaulted either physicaly or with blood and body fluids. It is not part of our job to be falsely accused of crimes. We are not the criminals. Apparently the powers that be fear violations of inmate's rights, well they better start being afraid of violating our rights or standing idly by and allowing that from inmates. We are working to get these laws enforced. As Chief Steward I advise you, do not give a statement to internal affairs without a union steward present. Do not talk to a supervisor without a steward present if it could result in discipline. These are your legal rights under Weingarten.
Do not talk to an outside investigator without a Team Legal attorney present. A statement to an outside investigator could lead to criminal and civil charges as well as internal discipline. Just say no! This is your 5th Amendment right. Call Team Legal. These are your rights as a union member.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Strikers rehired with backpay!!
Supreme Court sides with Detroit newspaper workers fired in '90s strike
Associated Press
Last update: October 02, 2006 – 11:06 AM
Associated Press
Last update: October 02, 2006 – 11:06 AM
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Support the Hoffa Slate!
When you get your ballot, vote for the Hoffa Slate!
The Hoffa leadership has been good for our bargaining unit. They have been supportive of public employees and the Leadham Slate is not.
Through the Teamsters, we as correctional officers in the Hennepin County Jail have gained:
1. Paid Holidays. Prior to becoming Teamsters in 1999 we not only got straight time for working a holiday, we actually had to pay the employer "payback" hours every year, in other words we worked about 48 hours a year of "free" overtime.
2. The 55 Retirement. This bill was introduced and lobbied by the Teamsters that gave us our own correctional retirement at 55 rather then the PERA 67!
3. The Bloodborne Pathogens Bill. As of July 1st, 2006, an inmate exposing you to blood and body fluids must give a blood sample so you can know if you've been exposed to an infectious disease.
4. They pay lobbyist to pass legislation favorable to increasing our pension and to our profession.
5. They provide Team Legal to protect you from civil and criminal prosecution arising from our profession.
6. National Security. The Teamsters were early to protest the Dubai Port sale and regularly lobby against Mexican trucks entering U.S. soil with poor safety standards and sub par inspections.
7. They are against the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and are against NAFTA.
8. They lobby in Washington to protect workers pensions.
The list goes on and on. This is Hoffa's legacy. I know many people ignore union ballots, but take a minute to educate yourself. Whoever heads the Teamsters affects our locals and our strength. Lets vote Hoffa and keep a good thing going.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Pat Denman's Response
HCSDA President Pat has responsed to my post on September 17th. As promised it is published unedited. Go to the comments section of the posting on the September 17th posting.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
What is this blog?
I've been getting calls at home, emails, stopped in the halls at work, mostly over the last posting on this blog. Take a deep breath and let me clear the air. A blog is an online public forum. It is not an impersonal web page or editorial page that tells you what to think. This is an interactive forum. You have the opportunity to respond, bitch, agree with the post, tell me I'm an asshole, whatever. You don't have to hide in the shadows, or call people you think can control my posts. If you simply click on the comment button your comment will be posted unedited. This blog is not part of our website, this blog is in no way affiliated with Teamsters Local 320 or the IBT. This is the era of text messages, websites, and blogs. Join the 21st century. This is not a newspaper. Got something to say? Join in!
I will not remove the previous post for the following reasons:
1. I stand by every word.
2. The gauntlet was thrown down to Mr. Denman to respond, which at the time of this posting he has not. This being an internet forum, that post has already been emailed around and saved by others and would not simply disappear from the internet, it would only deprive Mr. Denman and anyone else the opportunity to respond, which wouldn't be fair.
3. In the spirit of fairness anytime I mention either candidate in the Hennepin County Sheriff's race I will add a link to their websites. It should be noted that on the Detention Home webpage there is a link to contribute to both Juan Lopez and Rich Stanek's campaigns.
Another point (which I'm really getting tired of explaining), our bargaining unit is not endorsing either candidate. Our members are diverse, and there is no one unified opinion. I am a union steward and do not have the power or authority to endorse, either from the members of my bargaining unit, or the Teamsters. I run the website and this blog as a service to our members and to keep them informed of things that may affect our profession, and hopefully to elicit response.
That being said, the tenor of the previous posts was in direct reaction to what I perceive is a bias in the reporting of the local newspapers and television media and an outright lie by another bargaining group. Blogs are a format to balance that out, that thing commonly referred to as free speech or freedom of the press. I will publish unedited any posts that either candidate in the Hennepin County Sheriff's race send to me. Simply email me using the link on this blog site.
In conclusion. I hope this clears up any misconceptions certain people have been entertaining. I will not publish my opinions on letterheads that pretend to speak as the unified voice of our members. This is my voice, and this is my blog that has replaced the editorial page on our website. This is an improvement because anyone is free to comment on it.
Finally, I invite both candidates to email me and tell me why they are the best candidate for sheriff and I will post it on this site for our members to read unedited.
Click here email me at this contact page.
I will not remove the previous post for the following reasons:
1. I stand by every word.
2. The gauntlet was thrown down to Mr. Denman to respond, which at the time of this posting he has not. This being an internet forum, that post has already been emailed around and saved by others and would not simply disappear from the internet, it would only deprive Mr. Denman and anyone else the opportunity to respond, which wouldn't be fair.
3. In the spirit of fairness anytime I mention either candidate in the Hennepin County Sheriff's race I will add a link to their websites. It should be noted that on the Detention Home webpage there is a link to contribute to both Juan Lopez and Rich Stanek's campaigns.
Another point (which I'm really getting tired of explaining), our bargaining unit is not endorsing either candidate. Our members are diverse, and there is no one unified opinion. I am a union steward and do not have the power or authority to endorse, either from the members of my bargaining unit, or the Teamsters. I run the website and this blog as a service to our members and to keep them informed of things that may affect our profession, and hopefully to elicit response.
That being said, the tenor of the previous posts was in direct reaction to what I perceive is a bias in the reporting of the local newspapers and television media and an outright lie by another bargaining group. Blogs are a format to balance that out, that thing commonly referred to as free speech or freedom of the press. I will publish unedited any posts that either candidate in the Hennepin County Sheriff's race send to me. Simply email me using the link on this blog site.
In conclusion. I hope this clears up any misconceptions certain people have been entertaining. I will not publish my opinions on letterheads that pretend to speak as the unified voice of our members. This is my voice, and this is my blog that has replaced the editorial page on our website. This is an improvement because anyone is free to comment on it.
Finally, I invite both candidates to email me and tell me why they are the best candidate for sheriff and I will post it on this site for our members to read unedited.
Click here email me at this contact page.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
HCSDA wages a campaign of lies!
The Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies Association (HCSDA) has stooped to a level unworthy of those in their profession. While it is within their right to endorse a candidate for sheriff they should not engage in the spread of outright lies against the other candidate.
On September 13th 2006 the HCSDA published a letter stating they "took a vote of no confidence" in Stanek's opponent Juan Lopez. Once again I reiterate that Teamsters Local 320 has not endorsed any candidate for the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, but I will not sit idly by while a friend, former co-worker in the Sheriff's Office of 10 years, and a Teamster is being attacked with lies.
Mr. Denman is the President of the HCSDA and I have a few questions for him I'll pose openly. If he chooses to respond in writing, I will publish those responses here.
Question 1: Your letter states a vote of no confidence was taken. Did that vote pass? What were the numbers? I heard it did not pass which is why your letter only states a vote was taken.
Question 2: Why does your letter lie and state that Juan Lopez is "not a cop and not currently licensed by the Minnesota Peace Officers Standard & Training Board," when he is? Juan Lopez's Post Board number is 16298 and expires 6/30/2008.
Question 3: Your letter states , "Despite Mr. Lopez's claim that he has significant experience in the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office..." This statement is a smear designed to call into question the fact that Juan Lopez has 10 years of experience in the Sheriff's Office while your endorsed candidate has none.
A further point to be made is the laughable quote from Mr. Denman's letter which states, "Has he ever answered a 911 call or walked down an alley as a peace officer...He is simply not qualified to lead the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office."
First of all the Minnesota constitution states the duties of the Sheriff are to keep the jail and patrol the waterways. Juan Lopez has 10 years experience in the jail. Mr. Stanek has none. Walking a beat is not constitutionally Sheriff's work, running the jail is. Patrolling the streets is covered by the many excellent police departments in the cities of Hennepin County. Furthermore most of the licensed sheriff's deputies in Mr. Denman's association will never walk down an alley as a peace officer or answer a 911 call because the majority of them basically work a 9-5 Monday through Friday schedule standing in court as bailiffs, most not even carrying a gun in that capacity, it's a position that doesn't even require a peace officers license in most states. It is the Teamster Detention Deputies that mainly staff and run the jail 24 hours a day, protecting the public 365 days a year of which Mr. Lopez was one. We have higher rates of assault on us and injuries then the licensed peace officers Mr. Denman represents. So this crap of answering 911 calls and images of walking down alleys is something most of them will never do in the course of their duties as sheriff's deputies. Juan Lopez has more experience in the duties of the Sheriff's Office then current Sheriff McGowan had when he took office 12 years ago.
Mr. Denman is assisting a campaign that has been engaging in questionable campaign practices and this "No Confidence" letter seems to be a continuation of those practices. The Stanek campaign has posted signs in illegal places (see pictures in the previous entries) and has even stated on their website that, "This is only the second time in forty (40) years Hennepin County residents have had an opportunity to elect a new sheriff." Not true. When Sheriff Omodt retired, Sheriff McGowan ran against Chief Deputy Laberge and then four years ago Juan Lopez ran against McGowan and received 102,000 votes! Stanek's campaign is trying to pretend this didn't happen. Fact: This is the third time the voters have had a chance to elect a new Sheriff.
I'll end this by saying the Teamsters have endorsed no one in this sheriff's race. I am attempting to keep this site neutral but will publish things that are newsworthy and facts if forwarded to me by our members. This is not an official Teamsters site and I will not remain silent when I see lies being perpetrated in this campaign. Members having facts about either candidate are free to post on this site.
Mr. Denman I welcome your comments in writing and will post them here.
On September 13th 2006 the HCSDA published a letter stating they "took a vote of no confidence" in Stanek's opponent Juan Lopez. Once again I reiterate that Teamsters Local 320 has not endorsed any candidate for the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, but I will not sit idly by while a friend, former co-worker in the Sheriff's Office of 10 years, and a Teamster is being attacked with lies.
Mr. Denman is the President of the HCSDA and I have a few questions for him I'll pose openly. If he chooses to respond in writing, I will publish those responses here.
Question 1: Your letter states a vote of no confidence was taken. Did that vote pass? What were the numbers? I heard it did not pass which is why your letter only states a vote was taken.
Question 2: Why does your letter lie and state that Juan Lopez is "not a cop and not currently licensed by the Minnesota Peace Officers Standard & Training Board," when he is? Juan Lopez's Post Board number is 16298 and expires 6/30/2008.
Question 3: Your letter states , "Despite Mr. Lopez's claim that he has significant experience in the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office..." This statement is a smear designed to call into question the fact that Juan Lopez has 10 years of experience in the Sheriff's Office while your endorsed candidate has none.
A further point to be made is the laughable quote from Mr. Denman's letter which states, "Has he ever answered a 911 call or walked down an alley as a peace officer...He is simply not qualified to lead the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office."
First of all the Minnesota constitution states the duties of the Sheriff are to keep the jail and patrol the waterways. Juan Lopez has 10 years experience in the jail. Mr. Stanek has none. Walking a beat is not constitutionally Sheriff's work, running the jail is. Patrolling the streets is covered by the many excellent police departments in the cities of Hennepin County. Furthermore most of the licensed sheriff's deputies in Mr. Denman's association will never walk down an alley as a peace officer or answer a 911 call because the majority of them basically work a 9-5 Monday through Friday schedule standing in court as bailiffs, most not even carrying a gun in that capacity, it's a position that doesn't even require a peace officers license in most states. It is the Teamster Detention Deputies that mainly staff and run the jail 24 hours a day, protecting the public 365 days a year of which Mr. Lopez was one. We have higher rates of assault on us and injuries then the licensed peace officers Mr. Denman represents. So this crap of answering 911 calls and images of walking down alleys is something most of them will never do in the course of their duties as sheriff's deputies. Juan Lopez has more experience in the duties of the Sheriff's Office then current Sheriff McGowan had when he took office 12 years ago.
Mr. Denman is assisting a campaign that has been engaging in questionable campaign practices and this "No Confidence" letter seems to be a continuation of those practices. The Stanek campaign has posted signs in illegal places (see pictures in the previous entries) and has even stated on their website that, "This is only the second time in forty (40) years Hennepin County residents have had an opportunity to elect a new sheriff." Not true. When Sheriff Omodt retired, Sheriff McGowan ran against Chief Deputy Laberge and then four years ago Juan Lopez ran against McGowan and received 102,000 votes! Stanek's campaign is trying to pretend this didn't happen. Fact: This is the third time the voters have had a chance to elect a new Sheriff.
I'll end this by saying the Teamsters have endorsed no one in this sheriff's race. I am attempting to keep this site neutral but will publish things that are newsworthy and facts if forwarded to me by our members. This is not an official Teamsters site and I will not remain silent when I see lies being perpetrated in this campaign. Members having facts about either candidate are free to post on this site.
Mr. Denman I welcome your comments in writing and will post them here.
Sign placed at polling place!
Within 100 feet of a polling place. On a boulevard. On church property. How many laws does this violate?? Did I mention this picture was taken the day of the Primary Elections?
Stanek Sign at abandoned house
This sign was placed on the lawn of an abandonned house at 6205 Morgan, a house owned by MNDOT and a campaign violation. It was ordered removed.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Primary Results Hennepin County Sheriff's Race
The results of the Sept. 12th Primary have narrowed the field down to Juan Lopez and Rich Stanek.
Here's the Primary Results:
Rich Stanek 41,914 votes
Juan Lopez 23, 479
Linda Lachner 13,560
Bruce Anderson 8,593
Tom Fitzhenry 6,770
Daniel Rusch 2,747
This means Juan Lopez (DFL) and Rich Stanek (Rep) move on to the November Ballot.
Here's the Primary Results:
Rich Stanek 41,914 votes
Juan Lopez 23, 479
Linda Lachner 13,560
Bruce Anderson 8,593
Tom Fitzhenry 6,770
Daniel Rusch 2,747
This means Juan Lopez (DFL) and Rich Stanek (Rep) move on to the November Ballot.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Hard to remain neutral...
I have been trying my damnedest to remain neutral in the Hennepin County Sheriff's race on this site, but the Star Tribune's constant singing the praises of Rich Stanek as if he's the only qualified candidate is trying my patience. They are quick to point out that he " ...has been with the Minneapolis Police Department for 23 years, was a legislator and Minnesota's Public Safety Commissioner..." but are silent about the fact he lost his job as the Public Safety Commissioner and is a captain in a police department that "redlines" (doesn't even investigate) many of the violent crimes commited in Minneapolis.
I'd like to level the playing field and list some of the other candidates who have websites:
Juan Lopez: The Star Tribune lists him as, "Hennepin County juvenile probation division law enforcer Juan B. Lopez..." and goes on to say, "Lopez has received endorsements, including the DFL Party, United Auto Workers and the Ecuadoran Civic Committee..." What they don't mention is that he is a licensed peace officer that has 10 years of experiance with the Hennepin County Sheriff's office both in the Hennepin County Jail and as a recruiter! He's the only candidate who has experiance in the very Sheriff's office he is running to lead. Possibly making him the most qualified candidate for sheriff. They are also silent about the fact that the last time he ran against the then incumbant Pat McGowan, Juan Lopez received 102,000 votes!! He's also a veteran.
Tom Fitzhenry: He's a sergeant in the Richfield Police daprtment and an excerpt from his website gives more insight into yet another candidate marginalized by the Strib. "He was hired by the Richfield Police Department as a Police Officer in 1978. While there he finished a BS degree in Law Enforcement at Mankato State College. He attended graduate school classes at St Thomas College. During his employment at Richfield he worked in many areas to include investigator, crime prevention specialist, emergency management, police reserve coordinator, police explorer advisor and currently as a sergeant in the patrol division."
Bruce L. Anderson: Also running is Orno police officer Anderson. His site lists his experience:
Law Enforcement Degree, Alexandria Technical College 1977
30 years Law Enforcement Experience
28 years with Orono Police Dept.
Current Secretary/Treasurer Fraternal Order of Police Minnesota State Lodge
10 years part time Deputy U.S. Marshal
Past President Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #6 (3 years)
Board of Director's International Association Accident Reconstruction Specialists
20 years experience negotiating labor contracts, labor dispute resolutions'
Past President Hennepin County MADD (3 years)
This candidate doesn't deserve to be marginalized either.
There are two other candidates: Daniel Rusch and Linda Lachner who do not have websites listed that I can find.
On Tuesday the Primary election will narrow this field of 6 down to 2. Do your homework and be sure to vote if you live in Hennepin County and care about this race.
Who will I be voting for? I live in Anoka county and will be voting for Bruce Andersohn for Anoka County Sheriff. I'll leave it to the good people of Hennepin County to choose their Sheriff and our next boss.
I'd like to level the playing field and list some of the other candidates who have websites:
Juan Lopez: The Star Tribune lists him as, "Hennepin County juvenile probation division law enforcer Juan B. Lopez..." and goes on to say, "Lopez has received endorsements, including the DFL Party, United Auto Workers and the Ecuadoran Civic Committee..." What they don't mention is that he is a licensed peace officer that has 10 years of experiance with the Hennepin County Sheriff's office both in the Hennepin County Jail and as a recruiter! He's the only candidate who has experiance in the very Sheriff's office he is running to lead. Possibly making him the most qualified candidate for sheriff. They are also silent about the fact that the last time he ran against the then incumbant Pat McGowan, Juan Lopez received 102,000 votes!! He's also a veteran.
Tom Fitzhenry: He's a sergeant in the Richfield Police daprtment and an excerpt from his website gives more insight into yet another candidate marginalized by the Strib. "He was hired by the Richfield Police Department as a Police Officer in 1978. While there he finished a BS degree in Law Enforcement at Mankato State College. He attended graduate school classes at St Thomas College. During his employment at Richfield he worked in many areas to include investigator, crime prevention specialist, emergency management, police reserve coordinator, police explorer advisor and currently as a sergeant in the patrol division."
Bruce L. Anderson: Also running is Orno police officer Anderson. His site lists his experience:
Law Enforcement Degree, Alexandria Technical College 1977
30 years Law Enforcement Experience
28 years with Orono Police Dept.
Current Secretary/Treasurer Fraternal Order of Police Minnesota State Lodge
10 years part time Deputy U.S. Marshal
Past President Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #6 (3 years)
Board of Director's International Association Accident Reconstruction Specialists
20 years experience negotiating labor contracts, labor dispute resolutions'
Past President Hennepin County MADD (3 years)
This candidate doesn't deserve to be marginalized either.
There are two other candidates: Daniel Rusch and Linda Lachner who do not have websites listed that I can find.
On Tuesday the Primary election will narrow this field of 6 down to 2. Do your homework and be sure to vote if you live in Hennepin County and care about this race.
Who will I be voting for? I live in Anoka county and will be voting for Bruce Andersohn for Anoka County Sheriff. I'll leave it to the good people of Hennepin County to choose their Sheriff and our next boss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)