Former Clinton Appointee Implies Defamation Lawsuit Against OutsideLansing.

UAW Graft at Golf Course (0.00 / 0)

Chetly:

If only your economic analysis was as strong as your  avowed courage in the face of alleged legal bullying.

I'm sorry you took my reference to the lessons of defamation law as a threat of litigation.  I encourage your free speech  particularly since you continue to crawl further out on this dead limb.  (If i add "before you get chopped off" will you take it out of context again as a physical threat?)  

Defamation, by the way, includes both torts of libel (oral) and slander (written).  But I only meant to make you aware of the legal maxim of  which most layman are unaware -- as long as the identity of the person against whom the wrongful statement is made is easily identifiable,  it does not matter that you avoided  naming them.  As  applied to me,  it is easily ascertainable that  the only county commissioner  for Waverley Township with UAW ties is none other than me -- Leonard Page.

I spent almost 30 years on the legal staff of the UAW (not 20) before I retired in 1999 and was honored by the State Bar with a Distinguished Service Award last year.  That doesn't really mean I'm distinguished but it does suggest that attorneys on both sides of the aisle think  I have some degree of integrity.  Thus my response to the claim that I abused  my county commissioner position to improperly help the UAW in its 2007 assessment dispute with Waverly township.  

Anyway,  I have done no work for the UAW Center during my retirement and I do not maintain any Center books and records, nor did I participate in any way in the township's  2007 tax assessment and the parties' settlement at the state tax tribunal level.  My involvement was limited to setting up a settlement meeting which the township declined. My duties as county commissioner do not include township tax assessment matters.  

My problems with you analysis is that it so transparently wrong as to suggest bad faith..  Anyone with some basic knowledge of accounting and ability to research, presumably that includes you, has to see there is nothing wrong here.  But that doesn't play to the right wing as the comments show.  So you used false and misleading statements like: "unions receiving taxpayer money"..."evading local taxes"..."pension dumping" ..."real tax evasion may be occurring"... " the pension contributions are for someone other than the workers"...as if the resort has 'phantom' employees receiving benefits"...."UAW Graft " ... "extravagance"

You claim to know the difference between book and market value. You correctly say that in the township tax assessment dispute, the question is: "what is the real value of the property" but then follow it with " But here the union has asserted a higher value..."  the only value asserted by the UAW in your article is the $33 million dollar book value. So it is obvious that you are stating that the UAW has deviously asserted different "real" or market values before different governmental entities.  That is untrue and you know it.

You even claim that UAW members' retirement benefits may be at risk by how the UAW finances the  Education Center--even after you note that all Center expenses are paid, not from any independent pension plan trust funds (whose investments are beyond UAW control, as you well know) but from interest earned on the UAW  members' strike fund. Again this assertion is both absurdly false and designed to suggest both UAW wrongdoing and misappropriation of members' pension funds.

The right wing has a long history of attacking the UAW on ideological grounds, and while I can't speak for the UAW, it has historically welcomed that debate.  But the right wing should know better than to  throw such transparently ridiculous corruption charges at the UAW.  In its proud 70 plus year history, that tag has never stuck. No officer of the union has ever been convicted, let alone charged in federal court with union corruption.  

To parrot your challenge --if you have evidence of wrongdoing or corruption on how the UAW has managed its members dues money at the UAW Walter and May Reuther Center at Black Lake, I would urge you to present it to the Secretary of Labor, the appropriate US attorney or even the UAW's own internal watchdog, the UAW Public Review Board.  

And if you think I have personally threatened you, I think our local prosecutor will tell you its just another chetly stretch in a long list of stretches. But be my guest and tell him i suggested that you to call him.  

---

by: lumpy @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 19:08:25 PM CST

Again (0.00 / 0)

Leonard, why you have assumed I didn't name you to "avoid defamation" lawsuits baffles me.  Even if I had named you - a choice made because you weren't important to the story - I didn't connect you (through your title) to any misbehavior. You were a passing reference made to put the story in the context of the other stories that went before it.

The State Bar bestows "distinguished bullcrap" awards on a whole litany of people.  It doesn't mean you are honest - in some cases it means the person has been around for a long time, in others its political, and in others the person has distinguished themselves legitimately. The Bar is a trade association created largely to protect its interests and those of its members.  

There's a difference between "legal" and common-sense.  You're "threats" here are transparently threats to anyone with common-sense, even though they are carefully written in a legalistic way to give you an out (though they may not).  You treat laymen as if they are stupid - but ultimately, it is the lay who are the ultimate judges of this situation and your integrity and the integrity of your profession.  It's why lawyers have such a universally bad reputation - individual lawyers like you give them it.

You're willingness to defy common-sense here belies the rest of your claims, most of which are strawmen arguments you've set up that I did NOT make.

Strawman 1 - I never asserted anywhere that workers pension funds were at risk, although I wouldn't dismiss (nor accept) that idea now that you raise it.  This whole story notes that a group of workers within the UAW have gotten a sort of special treatment over all others in having their pension "over-funded" (relative to the necessary annual rate they are normally funded - you call it "fully-funded" but I do not know that funds are maxed out to a level where they need no new funding, so I won't take that term either).  I never said that these pensions were at risk - I merely asked why they were getting special treatment.  Has UAW dumped this kind of money into every employee's pension?  And the decision was not without cost - although I don't know where the money comes from, you assert it came from a "strike fund" - that means the UAW is paying interest (or lost opportunity cost interest) on the money. The only reason this relates to the property taxes is that since UBE reflects the pension fund investments as part of its overall loss, the bottom-line for the company appears worse, which, in my mind, would depress the market value of the operation.  That said, I can't be sure that factored into UBE's argument for lower taxes.

There has to be some motivation for this unusual accounting decision.  Its not as though UBE, Inc. were investing its extra profits into making the pension fund stronger.  UBE is investing borrowed money for that purpose - which makes no business sense in my mind, unless there's a hidden motivation that makes sense.

Finally, as to your counter-challenge, I invite anyone to read this story, including US Attorneys and the UAW review people you talk about.  But you, as a person so well connected with the UAW by your own admission, should ask them to provide an official response (since you now say you "can't speak for" them), which I offer to reprint in full.  I think that is the next logical step.

---

by: chetly @ Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 22:17:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"uaw graft at black lake golf course" (0.00 / 0)

Why should a little passing reference to this objective analysis of the UAW's operations of the Family and Education Center at Black Lake bother me you ask?

Start with your Analysis headline about "graft" and "pension dumping", then read again you very first paragraph suggesting there may have been wrongdoing on the tax assessment dispute settlement--ending with the comment "although accusations are that a county commissioner with UAW ties might have something to do with it."

Interesting that your initial "defense" to your feigned worries (now proudly proclaimed as evidence of your courageous expose) about a defamation lawsuit was to use "qualified privilege" since I am a public official.  Most innocent or shall i say accurate analytical observers start with "truth" as their primary defense. you are wise not to mention that defense.

If you know anything at all about pension trust funds, you would know the difference between so called taft-hartley plans where the union and the employer appoint the trustees and independently trusted plans where the parties name a third party trustee (usually a bank) to manage the money. UAW pension plans are independently trusted. The UAW has no control over pension investment decisions made by the independent bank trustee.

So now you claim that you never said anything about UAW members pension trust funds possibly being at risk because the UAW may have "dumped" or borrowed money to pay for pensions for some or all of the 145 employees or "phantom employees" of the Center (all of whom are represented by other unions by the way). I have no idea what motivated the UAW to  use its interest earnings from its Strike Fund for employee pensions at the UAW Center--I simply observed the rather obvious option that it could have been a decision to fully fund pension liabilities.  I seem to recall your "brilliant" analysis suggesting that UAW members/pensioners might be upset to learn that their pension funds were now  nothing but golf course grass at the UAW Education Center.

I saw your devasting strawman 1 "rebuttal" but you forgot to list strawman 2 or strawman 3. [don't use a number system if you stop at 1)  Does that mean you now acknowledge that listing a higher book value (so identified) in a Department of Labor filing on the UAW Center has nothing to do with a stale, settled property tax value dispute? So i guess that means you now acknowledge you were pathetically wrong or just stupid to suggest that "real tax evasion may be occurring"
Which is it?

But a little research and the obvious facts will not deter the right wing from doing these types of hatchet jobs--when facts don't work - stretch and suggest corruption -the "ditto head" community will eat it up.

please bundle up all these messages and send them to whomever you want, times are rather depressing thanks to the deregulation of our financial industry, the Bush recession and trickle down economics. outside observers will need a good laugh. and by all means keep crawling out on the dead limb looking for UAW corruption at the Family Education Center at Black Lake. I'm sure it will have some impact on your reputation as a right wing economics expert who would never let ideology interfere with a factual analysis.  keep up this type of work and maybe you can get a job with the Mackinac Center.

   

---

by: lumpy @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 09:07:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice try (0.00 / 0)

I may (or may not) assert all defenses to your allegations of defamation, and waive none of them here either by inclusion or omission.  Assume nothing.  

I did indeed argue truth as one defense (when I noted that I believed I was careful to separate opinions from my precise factual claims, the underlying presumption was that my factual claims were substantially true) - but since we don't even know precisely what part of my claims you are alleging or might allege are defamatory, its impossible for me to lay out anything complete.

Strawman 1 was labeled as such because you have set up many more, and I chose merely to address that one.  A rhetorical choice - perhaps not as clear as it could have been.  If you're going to base a lawsuit on that - go for it.  But I have no obligation, nor the time, to address all of your strawmen arguments.

I find Gillman's point about the two UAW leaders recently convicted to be interesting regarding your own factual accuracy about the human perfection of UAW leadership.  But I'll guess that a walk through time would leave them lonely.

---

by: chetly @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 09:53:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Very interesting (0.00 / 0)

A couple of things..  perhaps in your (prior?) position as an attorney you are used to throwing your weight around and expect "the smarter folks" to back off.  Ultimately some including myself might get "cowed" by abusive legal and other subtle threats, but in this case, is it appropriate?

Zarko is hardly the type to go off spouting facts without a little consideration first.  Further..  But most importantly, If someone were to start even MENTIONING Defamation to me I would assume it is on their minds.  Particularly  along with comments of "chopping" or "chopped off" if that is the case..  what WERE you trying to imply sir?

You say

"But the right wing should know better than to  throw such transparently ridiculous corruption charges at the UAW.  In its proud 70 plus year history, that tag has never stuck. No officer of the union has ever been convicted, let alone charged in federal court with union corruption.  "

 allow me to present a couple of articles which only add to the confusion of your statement...

UAW FUN http://toxictaxation.blogspot....

Take it for what its worth..

---

by: JGillman @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 09:12:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"uaw graft at lavish black lake resort" (0.00 / 0)

if you read my posts, you will see several warnings to chetly that his factually flawed,  ideologically-driven analysis was putting him rather far out on a dead limb that was likely to be chopped off.  most see such references as not involving a physical threat, but if you want to play the courageous victim card, there's not much i can do about it.

i have saved readers from going to the trouble of doing basic research on the UAW and the UAW Black Lake Family Education Center. so far my factual assertions (which establishes the utter absurdity  of this "analysis" of UAW Graft")have not been challenged, so I guess it is time to revert to ad hominem attacks.

As to the UAW's reputation,  most understand that there are two branches of the UAW.  One is the international union at Solidarity House in Detroit headed by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. The International Union in Detroit runs the UAW Black Lake Center and this alleged "analysis" makes numerous references of UAW wrongdoing.

The other UAW branch is the hundreds of local unions in 50 states and Canada where local leadership is elected by local rank and file members/workers. These two branches are separate legal entities but all bound by the same UAW Constitution. The local unions send rank and file members to the UAW Black Lake Center on local union paid "scholarships" -- but the locals have nothing to do with the operations of the Center itself.

This was never a debate over how local unions were run but rather how the Detroit UAW operated the Family Education Center. These attacks were sparked by the false accusation that this same UAW entity allegedly asked for taxpayer dollars, as part of the Big 3 bridge loans, to subsidize its lavish resort used only by UAW big shots.

I claim that no UAW officer of the entity involved in this debate (Detroit, Solidarity House) has ever been charged, let alone convicted of union corruption.  This well deserved reputation for clean, honest union leadership at the highest levels of the UAW has stuck in the craw of the right wing for more than 70 years. It is why George Romney gave Walter Reuther one of his favorite accolades _"the most dangerous man in America". So  now your rebuttal is stories about misconduct at the local union level by a couple of the thousands of local union officials.  once again  nothing but the standard sort of "ditto head analysis"  to be expected from the right wing  -- put it on your resume and send it to the mackinac center with your job application.

---

by: lumpy @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:37:15 AM CST

OK.. I dont pretend to know enough to debate union (0.00 / 0)

setup, and it seems the complicated nature of established local zones (even thought they carry the same name)supports your original claim regarding the past 70 years.  This is why it is important to be specific.

And as to specifics..  one of the "eyebrow raising" issues was that the payroll on the financial statement was eclipsed by the pension contribution. And because I believe you have indicated you no longer represent the UAW or its interests, perhaps you could offer a guess as to the nature of why the contribution number seems so high?

I admit I (personally) have a natural bias against ANY organization which coerces free enterprise in a rent seeking manner through government, but I am not attempting to be inflammatory, or even offering personal attacks.. just trying to clarify for posterity.

---

by: JGillman @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:16:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"uaw graft at lavish black lake resort" (0.00 / 0)

since you response was semi-reasonable i will try to be same.  

It appears the UAW made a rather large contribution to certain pension plans at the Center. all of the following can probably be found out easily on the web:  there are 145  employees and two unions there (steelworkers and operating engineers).  understand that the international union, uaw or more precisely the black lake golf course and the  family educational center is not acting in its capacity as a union when it operates the center and the resort--it is a property owner and indeed as far as the public golf course  for profit business owner.

i haven't seen the pension plan documents or its actuarial reports, but as most know, the accumulated future costs for retirees can be significant.  since the UAW historically has advocated full funding of pension plans whenever possible, this could be another example of the UAW doing what it suggests other employers do.  Chetly neatly recasts my words as "over-funding"!! i don't really know why the UAW put the money in the pension fund but what's the heck is the problem with putting money from the UAW strike fund (membership money which the UAW does control) into a bank trusted pension plan trust fund for center employees which the UAW/employer no longer controls??? i also know that full funding also reduces an employer's annual premiums for pension reinsurance that every employer has to pay to the PBGC.

but to suggest that the UAW "borrowed" money from its members' pension funds (presumably Big 3 retirees whose funds are managed by an independent bank trustee) or has "phantom employees" or is engaged in "pension dumping" is absurd--particularly  after (i repeat) after chetly was on notice (through my postings at other cites) that the source of all center expenses, as repeatedly approved by delegates at UAW conventions for the last upteen years is the UAW Strike Fund -- a fund which is rather healthy at the moment because there have been no serious national strikes against the BIG3 in since 1970. this is all publicly known and available to anyone who cared to do the research.

chetly has been rather quiet lately about his suggestion that the 2007 tax assessment settlement may be "evading local taxes" and I bet his "pension dumping" expose will now fade away too.

It is too late for me to tell you about unions. you have obviously gone over to the dark side.  let me just say that the desire to have a real collective voice in your affairs at the place where you spend most of your waking life - is the very essence of a free democracy. since you disagree with this most basic of rights of a working stiff--why do i bother.

it may have been more interesting to watch how many on the right keep crawling out on this dead limb.

I have chased this "expose" of alleged corruption and lavish spending (falsely reported to be at the taxpayers expense because of the bridge loans) around the web so much i forget if I'm repeating myself but my favorite site has the headline on this Black Lake story with a link to one of the several FOX Noise stories:

"Mad at Auto Execs and their Perks? UAW to Retreat Over holidays to $33M Course THEY OWN!"

I like the emphasis on UAW ownership--how uppidity of workers to own a golf course.  At the time this was posted, the center was closed for the winter, it was -5  on New Year's Eve and we have had almost 5 feet of snow so far this winter.  

By the way Fox Noise is only slightly more careful with their facts:  one interesting twist: Fox shows a picture of a very large, locally famous and beautiful bust of George Washington among other pictures of the "lavish" UAW resort.  Problem is the bust is located where it was done - Moran Iron Works about 5 miles away from the Center.

for some strange reason that site never responded to my posting. so they look dumb to everyone who know better--but something tells me that none of my efforts to clear the air and shed some light will really change minds that go to web sites like this.

since changing minds may be a lost cause, the temptation is to let the union bashers continue to look either dumb or infected with ideological blinders--I'm not sure which is better.
 

---

by: lumpy @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 14:12:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ideological blinders... (0.00 / 0)

Its easy to accuse someone who disagrees with your opinion of having ideological blinders i suppose, just as I might insist that as I am sure most union members, officers, and supporters are equally as ignorant in the cause of private property and personal accountability.  It hardly advances an argument but perhaps makes one feel better.

My own reasons for wanting to fully understand what is going on there has less to do with my dislike for an organization of the type I do not care for, but rather to know what money manipulations might be happening at the same time the very same (or related) organization is begging the government (the taxpayer) largess. As I disagree with the particulars of the current money handling to that end, you will find myself and others pretty sensitive to what might be perceived as shenanigans in the organized labor sector.

As to organizing?  I actually might have a view a little more different than you think.  I am not against unions.  I am against GOVERNMENT involvement in the support or otherwise as relates to unions.  In other words, if there are 50 employable people in town and 40 of them hold hands and insist they will do nothing without the agreement of the 39 others, then more power to them.  If there is one major employer in town who needs a majority of those available persons, it is incumbent upon them to create a relationship with their perceived leadership.  However, if the employer decides the cost benefit of importing labor from outside town is of greater weight, then there is no reason that employer could not do so...  even if it involves FIRING workers who might stand and disrupt by strike or otherwise.

Private property and individual ownership is one of the MAIN reasons this country was formed.  To have an elected body institute a "board" which can FINE or DISRUPT business operations because they are/were not "fair" to previous or current employees is anathema to the very core beliefs which brought us this great republic.

We have hands.  We have minds. We have the ability to change direction, to re-task our selves to productive pursuits.  It is not only unnecessary to have a government punish self serving enterprise for decisions which will in many cases keep it afloat, it is immoral.

Also If you follow this posting you might have a little more insight where I am coming from. http://michigantaxes.com/wordp... It doesn't necessarily demonstrate government ACTION, but it does show that the (original story linked within, you will have to follow through) car hauling company knew it had no choice but to liquidate.  In that case, did it HELP the lowly worker?  of course not.. it was merely an ideological tool as a warning shot across the bow of any other company which might suggest the union give any concessions.

---

by: JGillman @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 17:39:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

like a lawyer (0.00 / 0)

Again, Mr. Page, I never said that was a "physical threat," although I can see how others might interpret your statement that way and particularly how you might since you're the one who wrote the original words.  Another strawman.  

Using the phrase "chopped off" is simply crass, regardless of whatever else it might mean, which I'll leave to the reader.  The title of this entry is "implies" and contains the phrase "hinted at" a "defamation lawsuit".  When I say I don't take "threats" lightly, I was referring to obvious threats of frivolous litigation, which you hinted at, implied, and suggested in numerous ways - not necessarily physical doom.  No reasonable reader would conclude that you weren't suggesting a lawsuit.

As to your other arguments, you should separate the facts and arguments I have presented from the facts and arguments presented by others in the media or public which you seem to intermingle into this discussion as if they were my arguments.

You repeat too many things that aren't my claims for me to have the desire or time to address them all.  But I'll readdress one for you - I claimed that the effect of an artificially higher loss posting caused by pension over-funding might reduce the market value of the property and thereby give the union a mechanism of reducing its local tax assessment.  I admitted in my analysis this was just one possibility.

One other thing - I do not oppose the right of workers to organize, as you suggest. I grew up in a family with almost every member a member of a union, and respect a number of things unions have done.  I also temper that with hearing inside stories of union misbehavior.  They are human organizations with similar organizational interests to corporations - the organizational interests trump the individuals interest.  Indeed, they are bureaucratic entities that, once in motion, tend to remain in motion in the direction of bureaucratic growth (ergo, one could criticize them the same way you do governments). Why someone would yearn for "collective voice," when systems that give them stronger "individual voices" are superior (and I can imagine both union and corporate structures that empower individual voices - ESOP companies being one example, and laws or contract rules that protect individual workers and give them individual recourses they control), baffles me.  You want to talk about helping the little guy - we'll find plenty of common-ground.  But unions will only get you so far down that path, and indeed at some point move in the other direction.

---

by: chetly @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 15:20:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"UAW graft and illegal pension dumping" (0.00 / 0)

chetly your initial headline says it all about your attempts to distinguish facts from opinion.  this was nothing but a poorly done hatchet job based upon half-truths and slipshod analysis.

ah the superiority of individual voices over collective voices at the workplace.  perhaps i should use the famous quote the Supreme Court case in Jones and Laughlin upholding the constitutionality of the NLRA.(look it up)  still quite a claim in a country of "at will" employment-- where absent a written contract or a claim of statutory protection, your day to day employment is at the whim of the employer. the choice is between accepting whatever the employer deigns to provide from day to day or leaving.  quite a  choice or "right" for the individual who may have spent several decades working for that employer.

you tried to make out a case for UAW corruption and utterly failed.  indeed, the "illegal pension dumping" union i was lucky to have worked for, has a Public Review Board composed of outside professors and clergy that have the authority to investigate, challenge and correct any UAW decision appealed to it by a UAW member. How many institutions do you know would subject themselves to such outside review?  I urge you to bundle up your analysis (if you leave out the pejorative terms you no longer recognize it will be must shorter) find a UAW member and ask him or her to take it to the PRB.  I only ask that you publish the entire decision of the PRB.

leonard page

---

by: lumpy @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 16:52:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's look at that headline (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Page, let's look at that headline:

Analysis: UAW Graft at Golf Resort - Illegal "pension-dumping"? Definitely not Par for the Course.

First word.  "Analsyis".  That means I've not advertised this as pure news, or anything other than my analysis.  It also means you're going to get opinion (one (but not all of the possible)defense against libel, BTW).  

I'm not going to break down the whole article word-by-word - if you read it as a whole, you see that I clearly point out that bad things are only one possibility.  I reiterate that several times, and say at the end that perhaps this all can be explained.  I have not "tried to make out a case for UAW corruption", and therefore couldn't have failed in the sense you suggest -- I have tried to make out a case for further examination of an unusual circumstance in certain accounts, and raise the question of whether something deeper is at play.  If the questions were so poorly asked - why not have UAW officially open up all their books.  If UAW is so "open to outside review" - why not voluntarily exceed the weak LM-2 reporting requirements and let everyone look at enough details to prove my concerns are unfounded.  That's the problem with LM-2 and other non-profit disclosure requirements - the aggregate data is so washed at the end that you can never be sure of anything. I acknowledge even that in my analysis. And you know what, I'd agree that even corporations should have similar reporting requirements - that's pretty daring in my world, but shareholder knowledge in a PUBLIC company should be near complete even under the most libertarian of paradigms (privately held companies I'd treat differently).

I also didn't say there wasn't a role for "collective voice" - as a nation, we speak [should] collectively to the world in our foreign policy.  There are other obvious more local examples, including unions, so long as individuals have protections and checks and balances against even it, and the right to choose not to be represented. We also have regulations against corporations, even in "at-will" situations, and having worked "at-will" in the past, I respect what you're saying but don't have a problem with "at-will" as a choice.  There are many corporations "at-will" of high-integrity, and there are few of lower integrity.

Regardless, your merely speaking in circles here.  Chop me off with the one real tool you have - open the books.

---

by: chetly @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 18:50:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Question for Mr. Page re: Review Board (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Page,

Before I get to the question re: the review board... your last comment you implied that Chet failed when attempting to clearly distinguish between facts and opinions in this story's headline (despite the word "analysis" clearly in the title) but in your very next sentence you admit that the piece was, in fact, analysis.  It is MY ANALYSIS that when someone shifts sloppily between arguments from one sentence to the next that intellectual combatant proooobably doesn't have the goods to keep pace.

Just saying.

And yet, being a glutton for punishment, I have to ask... this impartial third party review board you brag about... can you A) provide us the names of the men and women who sit on it so that we can check their bona-fides to ensure they are truly independent / free thinkers and B) tell us which open Right-to-Work advocates have ever or currently sit on the board in question?

Thanks in advance!

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

---

by: Nick @ Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:49:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know (0.00 / 0)

There is something I was missing (not in favor of the union) in this comment orgy by Page.

If this is so easily explained as JUST pension over-funding (relative to the normal amortization) or as Page calls it "fully-funding", then ....

THEN WHY IS HEALTH CARE ALSO OVER-FUNDED relative to wages.  Health care is 80% (est. - from memory) of wages - that's 4 times the biggest package I know of.  It makes the Michigan Education Association's (MEA) MESSA gold-plated packages look like a poor man's insurance program.

That's an even harder rub to explain, Mr. Page.  I await your effort - or better yet, UAW's effort.

---

by: chetly @ Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:28:52 AM CST