Breaking: CWA Staffer Accuses National Of Retaliation, Strong-Arming Members

Just More Retaliation??? (4.00 / 1)

Thanks Huntsu!  I wasn't aware of Katz's existing lawsuit against the CWA management.

The following is a linked quote from a recent (2 months) politicker story.

The suit charges that the leaders violated the Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 by trying to punish Katz through retaliatory investigations and "offensive comments.""The leadership of the union retaliated against Carla because she fought against the ratification of a contract that she believed hurt CWA members," said Katz's lawyer, Paul Fishman, in a press release.  "This pattern of retaliatory conduct left Carla with no choice but to file this suit."

At the risk of being accused of "jumping to conclusions" let me say that the pattern here is painfully obvious.

It seems clear that Katz is, very likely, the victim of an unfair and vindictive national "leadership" that is abusing it's powers in a desperate attempt to cover it's own collective ass.

There is no action that Katz can take to quickly fix/resolve this matter.  (Again, assuming that she is being treated unjustly.) So it's somewhat understandable that she would choose to remain publicly silent while allowing the legal processes to grind on.

On the other hand; in the (kangaroo) court of public opinion, she looks guilty as sin...especially given the whole e-mail controversy and the past personal relationship with the governor.

From a PR perspective, so far, the CWA head honchos are winning big.

It is my hope that Ms Katz make the decision to go public with a comprehensive press release/news conference in which she aggressively makes her case against her ostensible oppressors.    Of course that tactic only works in the context of a larger strategy to defend an innocent victim.

Such a tactic would lend encouragement and informational enlightenment to the broader CWA membership and it would "set the record straight" in the public eye.

Who knows?  Maybe there are no "good guys" in this mess?  Maybe everyone involved is  guilty of everything their opponents are accusing them of?   If that's the case; then this should end with the "mutually assured destruction" of Katz and the CWA national "leadership".

Here's a quote from a CWA reformist local's site called   TakeBackOurLocal.org

CAROLYN WADE IS NAMED PERSONALLY IN A LAWSUIT, THEN  ASKS LOCAL 1040'S EXECUTIVE BOARD FOR MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY BUT MISLEADS THEM BY TELLING THEM LOCAL 1040  WAS NAMED IN IT!!

SOUNDS LIKE A CHARGEABLE OFFENSE TO US... MISAPPROPRIATION OF UNION FUNDS!

Carla Katz, President of CWA Local 1034 has named Local 1040, Carolyn Wade PERSONALLY, and several other Locals' Presidents and the International union in a lawsuit.  While the specifics were not told to the Executive Board (Wade wanted them to give her a blank check to pay for her own defense), we have learned that the law suit has to do with Carolyn Wade's alleged unprofessional comments made about Carla Katz in newspaper interviews and in correspondence sent to CWA members during, and since, the contract negotiations.

Can we REALLY afford 3 more years of Carolyn Wade??

Ms Wade was recently re-elected to the CWA Executive Board, http://www.cwa-union.org/news/... so the reformist ambitions of the folks quoted above failed this time out.

My head tells me to stay "neutral" since I'm not in this union and I have zero direct access to any of the parties or the evidence....on the other hand, my gut tells me that there is something really fishy/ugly going on here.

The NJ journalistic community really should be doing a MUCH better job of digging into all of this shit.  That's their job!!!   Then (if a preponderant consensus of what is likely true is reached)  the editorial departments should be "taking sides" and giving the public a sense of what's really going on.... that's their job!!!

It seems that our commercial/corporate media (with rare exceptions) only report the barest and most superficial aspects of "the story".....and that's a shame.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 14:59:57 PM UTC

Don't let the facts get in the way! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 15:13:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wade up for election (0.00 / 0)

Just to clear up a point. I have been told that CWA 1040 President Wade is running for reelection of CWA 1040 against a reform candidate by the name of  Tom Bruno in the fall. Bruno is a former CWA 1040 employee who was recently elected to the statewide post of PERS Board of Trustee. Like everyone else he has a website www.tombruno.org

The election you mentioned in your post was for a National Union position. Wade was one of the prime sponsors  of the anti-Katz allegations at the National Union. She was given her E-Board seat by Chris Shelton.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 22:25:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So we post completely unsourced self-interested stuff on the front page now??? (0.00 / 0)

If events occurred the way the staffer alleges, then everyone at the office knows who "he" is.  Why wouldn't he simply give his name?

Now we understand what the problem was with the Booker contribution.  Union locals don't usually give (especially significant amounts) to candidates outside of their operating area.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 15:24:03 PM UTC

The "Facts" Are Obvious....and Few (0.00 / 0)

Most of this conflict is about extreme allegations and complete denials.

Someone is lying here.  Surely that much is clear to all.

Obviously, the staffer knows that the CWA office knows who he/she is.  They are choosing, at this point, to maintain their public privacy...that's a separate issue.   And it's 100% legitimate for Huntsu to respect that wish at this point.

Surely you must agree with me when I say, ".....there is something really fishy/ugly going on here."  

As I've said, my interest is in having the whole truth come out asap.   If that truth leads to unpleasant consequences for  Katz or the CWA leadership or BOTH; then that's the cost of obtaining a just outcome for the CWA membership and the citizens of NJ who are all affected by these corrupt shenanigans.

Now, if there's any part of that last paragraph anyone disagrees with; please make your case.

Thanks!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 17:06:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CWA region will respond (0.00 / 0)

And, yes, we do post accusations of wrongdoing on the front page.  The accusation themselves are news.

And the CWA was given two hours to respond before this was posted, and have said they will have a response.

The Booker contribution was reported back in May, so it's not news.  

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 17:40:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, (0.00 / 0)

if I said that you like sheep, that is news????  Of course not!  You would say that I should prove it before printing it.  That is the reason there are laws regarding defamation, libel and slander in this country.  You can't just say anything you want.  

Unsubstantiated self-serving anonymous bullcrap is how we wound up in Iraq.  I don't think you want to be the next Judith Miller, do you???

If the national office people said that they would have a response, then why not hold the "article" until there is actually a response or at least not have a headline that implies that there is "breaking news."  Or will the response from the national get a NEW front page diary with a similar headline???

Without knowing that there was a territorial issue, it was difficult to know what the problem was with the Booker contribution.  Now that is understood, the problem makes a lot more sense.  Katz' argument that this is simply "past practice" wouldn't hold up for a second if it was someone you didn't like.

If the "staffer" felt that the 50/50 was such a big issue, then why didn't he file a complaint in Nevada?  Firstamend07 said that the national office should have gone to Chris Christie with their concerns regardless of whether it is breaking the law or simply union rules.  There isn't a whole lot of consistency to this other than Katz creates a big mess and then acts shocked.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 18:57:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, (4.00 / 1)

A staff member alleging that they were placed on paid leave, barred from a meeting explaining why that action an others were taken, and that they suspected it was in retaliation for whistle-blowing is news.  They are a person with direct knowledge and direct experience with what they are talking about.  Remember, we know who the person is and can use that to gauge how much weight to give their story.

A person with direct experience with a situation alleging a specific retaliatory act is a little different from you alleging I am a sheep-fucker.  Even so, should you allege I am a sheep-fucker then you would be committing slander (if spoken) or libel (if written) but Blue Jersey reporting that you allege I have been fucking sheep would simply be reporting and they would be held harmless.

As for the national office, the story was held for a couple hours while awaiting their initial response.  They were told when it would run, and they did not respond.  They only told us they would respond after the time period they were given and the piece had already run.

And I will note again that the Booker contribution and all issues surrounding it were made public back in May or even earlier.  You keep saying "now" when some of us have known about it for months.  We've had that context already.

And as for Katz, whatever she is or isn't has no bearing on whether the region or national is acting improperly.  It is possible that two sides are wrong in this.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 20:12:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The diary was admittedly written without all the facts. (0.00 / 0)

What was so urgent about the "two hour deadline?"  Would it make any difference if the whole diary was written tomorrow?  No, obviously not.

I realize we live in a 24-hour news cycle, but a lot of what is reported isn't really "news." It may be "information" or "data," but it isn't news and it may not even be factual.  An anonymous staffer making allegations that he was being kept on full pay, but told that he didn't need to come in since his loyalties were obviously with the previous occupant of the office isn't "breaking news."  It is spin and PR, but it isn't news.  Heck, the fact that he wasn't just fired may be a point for the national office.  Considering the other actions that Katz' regime has taken, it is highly doubtful that she would have acted the same way.  :-)

Checking out whether anyone has been prosecuted in Nevada in the last decade for an "unlicensed" 50/50 might yield some information for context.  But, now it can be said that a front page diary on BH alleges that criminal activity has occurred from the national office.  But, you are much too savvy to be used in that way. (snark)

Earlier comments (earlier as in the last 24 hours, not May) pooh-poohed the Booker contribution as no big deal.  It may still not be.  But, the fact that the locals do have territories and 1034's didn't include Newark is certainly interesting.  It is also interesting that Katz's "defense" is that "everyone does it."  

If you truly believe that all "right" in this situation does not reside with Carla Katz and company, then again why rush the PR spin from the anonymous guy out as "breaking news" when it obviously wasn't???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:04:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing is 100% (0.00 / 0)

Posting bits and pieces and drawing conclusions from various sources will often time give us a better idea of the big picture.

I personally have heard things in the last 36 hours that are now validated by the posting of HUNTSU.

There are also other sites that have reported on this situation that might be causing some people to take a second look at what really happened.

I myself have concluded that this was indeed a coup done for political and " ego" reasons.

You might be drawing a different conclusion.

I , for one, am very happy that HUNTSU went with the staffers story.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:12:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I , for one, am very happy that HUNTSU went with the staffers story." (0.00 / 0)

That is about as shocking as telling me the sun came up this morning. :-D

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:18:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ouch! (0.00 / 0)

Am I that predictable?

I hope I have some credibility since I have been stating the obvious for almost two months.

CWA is a dysfunctional , ego driven union that has lost its ability to be a player in State politics. They have been in the midst of a civil war  and under the leadership of the current regime are nothing more than a paper tiger in Trenton.

The lasting effect of all of this is that the Masters/Shelton/ Wade team continues to lose every battle they enter and only Katz had any credibility. But instead of working with her their egos tell them to get rid of her!

CWA is the " banana republic" of unions.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

predictable: you have repeated the "banana republic" meme how many times? (0.00 / 0)

You think Katz is wonderful.  That is your right.  But, the terrible contract was approved rather handily.  She has enmeshed herself in a lot of controversy.  If anyone else had been in her lengthy list of conflicts would they have stayed as long as she has?  I sincerely doubt it.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:46:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Wonderful (0.00 / 0)

Katz has taken chances. All Union leaders take chances . She is no angel, but the taking over of her Union was not justified even by CWA standards.

It was an act of intimidation and it was a publicity stunt done by a group who never thought they would be under the microscope.

As to your question as to how long she can stay, well according to democratic principles she can stay as long as her membership says it is ok.

Elections are better then Coups.

Coups only occur in ( here I go again!) Banana Republics!

---

by: firstamend07 @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unjustified? (0.00 / 0)

If you read the union's constitution instead of making things up it states: "The Executive Board may appoint a temporary administrator to temporarily conduct the affairs
of a Local after receiving a request from the Officers or membership of a Local for such action."  The union claims that they received such request so what do you see as not being justified?  If i were a member of that local I would want my dues money protected from any further alleged unauthorized usage.  You seem to be a big Katz fan, that is fine but what about the membership, who should protect them?

---

by: unionguynj @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 22:03:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Due Process (0.00 / 0)

Please read the whole CWA Constitution. The " may appoint" is based on the Article in the Constitution" that removal of any officer occurs only after clear proof of fraud or dishonestyafter SWORN CHARGES have been made and AFTER a fair trial and opportunity for appeal."( article IX, Section 4 Paragraph( b))

All organizations have a " removal " clause. But democratic organizations due so only after a defined process.

If Katz is guilty then follow the procedures. CWA has not done so and they have decided to try to discredit her in the court of public opinion, not in the CWA Court.

This is why the whole takeover is unjustified. It is simply a coup.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:26:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Removed! (4.00 / 1)

Exactly, however Katz was NOT removed.  Katz has been officially relieved of her duties pending the July 22 fair trial.  Go to the local website cwa1034.org, the union posted the trustee letter but notice who is listed as the President, Carla Katz.  I have a jar filled with cookies, would I tell you stay away because I will be back in ten days to take it away?  

---

by: unionguynj @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:43:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reality not semantics (0.00 / 0)

Call CWA 1034 today and ask to speak to Katz. Guess what you will find. She no longer works there!

She is no longer acting in her capacity as CWA 1034 President.

She has been removed from her duties.

You can't violate someones rights and CWA knows that. This is why they are once again diverting attention by leaking one sided documents to the Star Ledger.

We all deserve to be treated fairly.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:57:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, these "paid leaves" are really traumatic! :-) n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 14:36:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Remember, we know who the person is" (0.00 / 0)

Who the heck are you?  The anonymous person telling us to trust another anonymous person because "she" trusts "him."  You don't buy that from "Terry Malloy" and you shouldn't.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:08:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Katz is (4.00 / 1)

and always will be a self serving narcissistic person.  She "vehemently" opposses everything, but try opposing her  and she cuts you off @ the knees.  She is what gives unions a bad name.  Take your ill gotten money and leave!  As far as this unknown staffer, GROW A SET!!!

---

by: unionguynj @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 15:25:51 PM UTC

And Who Are You? (0.00 / 0)

And what are the specific events that lead you to those attacking "conclusions"?

Now, of course, you have the right to remain 100% anonymous; and you have the right to make vague unspecific attacks....this is the nature of this forum and of most of the web.

But others have the right to take your snipes as self serving nonsense.

As for "growing a set" (of balls, presumably) I suggest that you, at the very least, contact Huntsu and make the specific fact patterns that lead you to your conclusions known to Huntsu, give Huntsu your name and contact info and request anonynimity.....if you can do at least that much; then you will have the same size "balls" as the person you are urging to "grow a set".

At the very least, the person you chastize had the guts to reveal their name to Huntsu, and knows that the "office" knows who they are.   That's not total anonymity.   But you seem to think they should be held to a higher standard of "going public'.

And if you really want to impress us with your own courage (i.e. display that you truly have the larger "set" in relation to the person you're chastizing); then just come out and tell who you are and what specific incidents you are referring to that support your conclusions about Katz.  

Meanwhile, you're just another voice sniping from the gutter of total anonymity.....and a hypocrite to boot.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 17:19:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But, Nick, you believe the "staffer" and not "unionguynj" (0.00 / 0)

"Unionguynj" is not a Katz fan.  "Firstamend07," who could even be our anonymous staffer for all we know, is a big Katz fan.  I assume you are not a CWA member.  I am not, nor is any of my family.  We can only go with what we are given to work with.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 19:00:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From the "gutter" (0.00 / 0)

My usage of "grow a set" was not meant the way you interpreted it.  Perhaps I should have used "grow up" instead as that is what I was inferring.  If you have a serious issue about the way you were treated there are avenues to take.  Posting your story for commentary or editorializing is not the way to handle that, in my opinion of course.  My reference to her narcissism comes from a friend who dated her and found it extremely painful dealing with such a borderline personality.

---

by: unionguynj @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 22:38:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whatever Katz is or is not ... (0.00 / 0)

it doesn't change the allegations by the staffer.  I'm not a big fan of Katz, but much of what the staffer alleges is out of bounds, as well.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 17:44:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IF it is true, which you have NO idea about at all! (0.00 / 0)

And even if there was an unregulated 50/50 in LAS VEGAS, is that even a "crime."  Much less one that anyone is prosecuted for???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 19:02:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good lord (0.00 / 0)

Who called for prosecution?  This is about an employee who alleges he has been retaliated against for complaining about something he thought was wrong.

The 50/50 could be completely legal, the strongarming a complete fiction and the retaliation would be completely wrong.

The staffer alleges retaliation by the employer.  That's a story.  

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 20:18:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so did Paula Jones (0.00 / 0)

who got pay raises and promotions while being "retaliated against."

If you are just trying to stir stuff up and continue to do so even after you are informed of the error of your "presumptions," then what should happen?  Just give him a pat on the back???

Instead of the sack, he gets paid leave.  Wow, that is really vicious!

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:14:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When was I informed of an error? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:55:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not you. Reiner. (0.00 / 0)

Regarding your journalistic errors, I have tried to illuminate them to you but you seem to have hardened instead.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:48:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This was a Coup! (0.00 / 0)

I have had a lot to say about CWA in the past but let me clear this up, I have never worked for CWA or Katz.

Believe the staffer. This very public takeover was a stunt to discredit Katz. This is all about who is going to control the political face of CWA. The allegations, if they were true, are actually federal vioaltions. If they were true you could have bet that the CWA leadership group would have turned over everything to Chris Christie!

Katz has been CWA for years. Legislators talk to her not the two members of the coup, Shelton and Masters , and that plus the fact that the wounds never healed from the contract negotiation rift made it necessary for this coup to occur in the eyes of Shelton/Masters / and CWA 1040 President Wade.

CWA is a weak , dysfunctional union that has become weaker with this coup. Shelton and Masters got humilated when  the Pension reform bills passed easily. They along with Wade of 1040 personally and professionally do not like Katz.

Time will show that this coup was a big mistake for CWA in New Jersey. The union now has a reputation of being a " banana republic" union.

       

---

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:00:15 PM UTC

The "two hours" started when? (0.00 / 0)

7:45 AM today???

Of course, the national office people were just twiddling their thumbs waiting for your email?  phone call?

Kinda hard to say one is even-handed when you do that.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 21:11:51 PM UTC