Victor Uno-A Prop For Union Busting BART Board Of Directors

BART General Manager Grace Crunican in her report to the BART Board of Directors at the BART September 25, 2013 meeting made no report on the training of replacement workers or scabs to run the trains in the event of a strike. Not one member of the BART board of directors asked her what the agency was doing in training replacement workers which threatens the health and safety of the workers and public.
Apparently the entire BART board of directors support the plan to run the trains with newly trained scabs in the event of a strike. BART workers at the meeting in public comment reported that this would be a reckless action and would threaten lives but not one member of the Board is apparently concerned.

Oakland Port blockade set for Monday despite union objections, Occupy leaders say
Uno Opposed Port Shutdown-Uno said. “A port closure makes no sense. What is the point?”
http://oaklandnorth.net/2011/12/09/oakland-port-blockade-set-for-monday-despite-union-objections-occupy-leaders-say/


Protesters climb up a trestle at the Port of Oakland on Nov. 2, when thousands of people marched on the port and shut it down. Photo by Megan Molteni.
By Ryan Phillips
Posted December 9, 2011 11:18 am

Occupy Oakland protesters have planned a blockade of the Port of Oakland on Monday, but this action has not been sanctioned by the longshore workers’ union or the Teamsters Union, which represents port truck drivers.

The blockade is part of a coordinated effort by Occupy groups around the country to shut down business at all West Coast ports. At least 25 Occupy groups have events planned for the day, including shutdowns in coastal cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia. Mike King, a spokesman for the Occupy Oakland Port Blockade Assembly, said it is being organized to support port truck drivers in Oakland and across the country, as well as longshore workers in Longview, Washington who are engaged in a labor dispute with their employer, EGT Development.

“They’re being attacked by the 1 percent,” King said of port workers. “We’re going to shut down Wall Street on the waterfront on December 12.”

But the blockade is not supported by the leaders of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). On Tuesday, ILWU president Robert McEllrath sent a letter to all ILWU affiliates around the country stating that while members of the union share the Occupy protesters’ concerns about the “future of the middle class and corporate abuses,” the labor dispute in Longview should not be taken up by the Occupy groups.

“None of this is sanctioned by the membership of the ILWU or informed by the local and international leadership,” McEllrath wrote. “Simply put, there has been no communication with the leadership and no vote within the ILWU ranks on EGT associated Occupy actions.”

McEllrath and other ILWU officals did not respond to multiple requests to comment.

TJ Michels, the spokesperson for Change to Win, the Teamsters labor federation, also said that Teamsters did not take part in organizing the blockade. Michels said that if the port terminals are blocked, and truckers can’t get cargo in and out of the port, they will lose a day’s pay because they’re paid by the load, not the hour. She said that because of this, many truckers have been attending Occupy teach-ins and meetings to try to inform protesters about their own ongoing labor struggles. “[The truckers] are saying, ‘we understand why you’re coming here, we want you to understand what it’s like for us,” she said, “and would you please pledge your ongoing support, not just on December 12.”

But she also called the Occupy movement inspiring and said she was not surprised the group was taking action at the port. “There’s no greater symbol for the inequality in this country than the ports themselves,” Michels said. “These are economic engines that really only serve the 1 percent.”

The lack of support from union leadership doesn’t mean rank-and-file members won’t support the planned march and blockade, Mike King said. “We’re hearing from the workers that they support what we’re doing,” he said. “and we’re working with union leadership to bridge any differences that are there or are perceived to be there.”

This will be the second attempt to blockade the port in a little more than a month. On November 2, following a general strike and “day of action” in downtown Oakland, thousands of people marched to the Port of Oakland in the evening and shut down operations, which resumed by the next day.

In an effort to keep the port open this time, officials from the Port of Oakland have also stepped up a media campaign this week. On Sunday, a full-page ad appeared in Bay Area newspapers that read: “Shutting down the Port of Oakland is a bad idea. Another shutdown will only make things worse—diverting cargo, tax revenue, and jobs to other communities. It will hurt working people and harm our community.”

Victor Uno, who is a port commissioner as well as the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595 union, said the shutdown is not supported by “anybody who represents people at the port” and will negatively affect the workers at the port.Oakland Port blockade set for Monday despite union objections, Occupy leaders say

Alameda Labor Council-Victor Uno And Josie Camacho
http://stateworker.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/upwa-important-report-from-the-alameda-labor-council-2-6-12/
UPWA Important: Report from the Alameda Labor Council 2-6-12!
Posted on February 10, 2012by Mad Scientist
Rate This

Important: Report from the Alameda Labor Council delegates’ meeting February 6, 2012
Charges having been filed with the ALC President David Connolly on January 23rd against Port Commissioner/ Alameda Labor Council (ALC) Delegate Victor Uno and his wife ALC Executive Secretary Treasurer (EST) Josie Camacho for conflict of interest occurring during the December 5, 2011 ALC Delegates’ meeting, a hearing of the charges took place during the February 6th the ALC Delegates meeting.
It was my duty to be present as the Delegate putting forward the charges on behalf of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 444. For the benefit of interested parties, I will now record my impressions of what took place before and during the ALC Delegates’ meeting on February 6. I repeat these are my impressions and may not be shared by all those attending the meeting.
I arrived ten minutes early for the 7 pm meeting and was “greeted” as I passed through the front door by four or five imposing figures sitting at a table wearing very distinctive black Teamster jackets. I couldn’t help but think these Union brothers were awaiting my arrival. Next I passed through a long hall where 3 or 4 women, members of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APLA), were handing out fliers in support of Victor Uno and Josie Camacho although their two-sided flier never outlined or addressed the charges leveled against them. Passing through another door I entered the meeting room that was attended by one of the largest assemblies of delegates I have witnessed during my two year tenure as a delegate to the ALC.
At the time the meeting was called to order people began passing out the charges against Uno and Camacho but there were not enough to go around. When people asked the chair for more copies the chair responded by saying that there aren’t any more so you’ll have to share. The Chair, President Connolly, then informed the Delegates that he was about to preside over the prescribed procedure as provided for in the ALC Constitution concerning the handling of charges brought against delegates and/or officers of the ALC. He summed up the charges as he saw them and then editorialized on the appropriateness and legality of them. His remarks were clearly meant to diminish the validity and seriousness of the charges. There were no provisions for him to editorialize in this manner. In fact, Article XVI, Sec. 4 states “At the next meeting of the Council the presiding officer shall cause the charges as filed to be read to the Council.”Not only were all the members not provided with copies of the charges but they were not read aloud by the presiding officer. Following this break with procedure President Connolly stated that because of time restraints the Delegates would be allowed one minute to voice their opinion on the charges. As the bringer of the charges I was called to make a statement. As I began to outline the charges I was cut off by the President because I had exceeded my minute. It never occurred to me that I was included in the one minute limit. The end result was that I was unable to make a statement supporting the allegations that Uno and Camacho were guilty of conflicts of interest. After I was cut off the accused made their prepared statements which in no way addressed the charges accept to say that they were absurd and that their dedicated work for Labor over the years spoke to their integrity. What followed was an orchestrated love fest during which member after member attested to Uno’s and Camacho’s dedication, honesty, loyalty, and/or the absurdity of the charges. One woman remarked that this was just another attack on a strong woman. With only one exception none of the speakers addressed the actual charges. The final result seemed pre-ordained by the orchestrated process. The Constitution specifies that a ballot be taken as to whether the question “Shall the charges, as presented, be deemed worthy of trial.” The Constitution’s requirement of a ballot is designed to protect delegates’ privacy and prevent both the reality and the fear of possible future intimidation or reprisals. Disregarding this requirement, the question was presented for a vocal vote. There were only two or possibly three votes in the affirmative. After the decision not to take the charges to a trial was announced there was a large round of applause and 25% of the delegates present left the meeting.

The reader can draw his or her own conclusion as to the fairness of what took place at the Feb. 6, 2012 ALC Delegates’ meeting. My opinion is that it was a miscarriage of democratic procedures resulting in a denial of justice. This is yet another example of why the rank and file shuns Labor organizations. To remain silent is to condone these unjust, un- democratic procedures.
In Solidarity,
Charles T. Smith
AFSCME Local 444 Delegate to the Alameda Labor Council

First of all, I have known Victor Uno, for many years. As a member of IBEW local union 595, I can honestly say, this article is far from accurate. Victor Uno is, and has been on the side of the BART workers. The fact that BART directors were recognized for putting union electricians to work, should be heralded. It by no means, is an indication, however, that we agree with BART management on their refusal to bargain fairly with their workers. I have had personal conversations with Mr. Uno, and I can say with all sincerity, that Victor is on the side of BART workers. Please get your facts straight before posting your unfounded rhetoric. You ought not to push your supporters away with false accusations. Barbara Dees Inside wireman, IBEW Local 595