Greetings LOCAL 47 Colleagues!,<\/p>\n
On Friday March 3,2006 a meeting took place in President
\nEspinosa\u2019s office concerning the firing of Barbara Markay.<\/p>\n
Below is a report by Lisa Haley from that meeting. Local 47
\nmembers Charles Fernandez and former Vice-president David
\nSchubach were also in attendance along with other members of
\nthe FMA.<\/p>\n
Following her report, we will have observations from another
\nattendee.<\/p>\n
Thank you for reading and BE AT THE APRIL 24th MEETING!<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE<\/p>\n
\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022<\/p>\n
Dear esteemed fellow Union members:<\/p>\n
At the Friday, March 3, 2006 meeting between Freelance Musicians
\nAssn-L.A. members and Local #47 officers, the following letter
\nwas put forward by the FMA:<\/p>\n
LETTER OF REQUEST:
\n– a letter of request was presented to President Hal, Vince
\nTrombetta, and board member Leslie Lashinsky, asking the
\nfollowing:<\/p>\n
– Barbara Markay and Errol Henry to be reinstated with back
\npay, pending an inquiry as to whether our Local followed its own
\npolicies on the dismissals.
\n – our Promotions Dept to be given a bona-fide office, and
\nrestored to its former activities
\n – our Network Referral office to be left in its present location
\n – all future issues regarding Promotions Dept or Network
\nReferral to be put to a vote by a quorum at a general membership meeting.
\n – our officers to make a report setting forth evidence of what
\nsurveys were done to support the need for re-structure of the
\nPromotions Dept.
\n – our officers to present evidence of what duties Barbara
\nMarkay was unable or unwilling to do when asked, and where
\nher \u201cskill-set\u201d was lacking, which allegedly was the basis for her
\ndismissal. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
President Hal agreed to answer our requests in one (1) week.
\nThat week ended Friday, March 10.
\n– The FMA has received no response from Hal or any officer. <\/p>\n
=================================<\/p>\n
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY OUR LOCAL #47 OFFICERS AT THE
\nMEETING: <\/p>\n
The following (numbered) points were put forth by President Hal at our meeting:<\/p>\n
1.) The Special meeting on 6.28.04 (with a quorum) at which the
\nNetwork office was voted to be restored to its original location,
\nwas, in the eyes of the officers, “not valid”. They “allowed” the
\nNetwork to be restored to appease those attending, but our vote
\nwas not “official”. (This was news to us all.)<\/p>\n
FMA QUESTION: If that vote was not official, why was that fact
\nnot made public immediately, so that at the next General
\nMeeting we could have called in all members to vote on the issue
\nofficially? Why wait until now? <\/p>\n
The officers had NO ANSWER. <\/p>\n
2.) Promotions Dept employee Barbara Markay could not be allowed
\nto continue giving valuable career advice, even with her ‘air-tight’
\ndisclaimer that she was not offering legal counsel, because our
\nLocal “could get sued”. <\/p>\n
FMA QUESTION: how long had Barbara been giving this excellent
\ncareer advice?<\/p>\n
Officers ANSWER: eight years.<\/p>\n
FMA QUESTION: How many times has our Local been informed by
\nany member, in any way, of any dissatisfaction during that time?
\nHad the Local ever been served with any lawsuit as a result?<\/p>\n
Officers ANSWER: Never. The officers conceded that the chances
\nof a lawsuit were negligible, and the point moot.<\/p>\n
3.) Local #47 officers could not state one way or the other whether
\nBarbara Markay was in fact still a Business Rep when she was
\nfired. (#47 Bylaws require that Business Reps be given a hearing. No hearing was ever held.)<\/p>\n
FMA QUESTION: Is this not a direct violation of Local #47 Bylaws?
\nWho was responsible for researching Barbara’s status, duties,
\nefficiency, and value to our union?<\/p>\n
Officers ANSWER: “General Manager” Doug Caine.<\/p>\n
FMA QUESTION:
\n– On 2.23.06, Doug claimed in a written statement delivered to
\nthe FMA that he committed “months of examining every
\nparameter I could find, including tangibles and intangibles. I
\nmeasured everything I could.” and that he was bent on
\n“improving the services we were trying to deliver but which
\nBarbara could not or would not.”<\/p>\n
– Why did he not uncover the fact that Barbara was a Business
\nRep? (It is plainly printed near the front of several of our
\nMembership Directories, indicated in the scan of the 2002
\nDirectory which has been emailed to several members.)<\/p>\n
– Why was NOT ONE Local #47 member, benefiting from our
\nPromotions Dept, questioned during this extensive “examination”
\nregarding Barbara’s value? (please see our previous email titled
\n“Barbara Markay Testimonials” for examples of the response
\nDoug would have received had he been at all diligent.)<\/p>\n
– Why did no one do a productivity review, an efficiency study, or
\ncontact Barbara in any way, requesting info or reports on the
\nresources she provides., etc?<\/p>\n
– What were the services Barbara “could not or would not” do?<\/p>\n
The officers had NO ANSWER.<\/p>\n
4.) Local #47 officers stated that Network Referral Rep Errol
\n“refused” to carry out two directives given him by Doug Caine,
\nand was immediately fired by President Hal.<\/p>\n
FMA QUESTION: What were the directives?<\/p>\n
The officers had NO ANSWER.<\/p>\n
(However, the FMA later received Errol’s answer:<\/p>\n
– Doug instructed him to mail out (at Union expense) the yearly
\nreminders to members to resubmit their information for the
\nNetwork office. <\/p>\n
– Errol pointed out that, in past mailings, only a very small
\npercentage of members replied to mailings; the majority
\nresponded to phone calls and email by Errol. He did not refuse
\nto do mailings, but only proposed that the Local save postage
\nand utilize these alternatives first. <\/p>\n
– Doug stated that the (yet unseen) new website would create an
\n“avalanche” of work for members.<\/p>\n
– Errol pointed out that our FMA website, www.gopro.com ,
\nestablished in 2004, already serves this purpose, but has not
\nresulted in much increase in jobs for members. On the other
\nhand, the Network Referral Office had a record year for 2005,
\nand had indeed increased jobs for its members every year.
\nAs Errol is not in charge of this future Local #47 website, he was
\nnot ‘refusing’ it; only stating an obvious fact. <\/p>\n
In neither case did Errol refuse to comply; only to suggest a
\nbetter use of Union funds based on past evidence. For this he
\nwas fired.<\/p>\n
================================================<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS THE FMA WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANSWERED NOW:<\/p>\n
– Was Barbara Markay indeed a Business Rep when she was fired?
\nIf so, Local #47 Bylaws have been violated. What should be done?<\/p>\n
– When Errol was hired, the criterion for employee of the Network
\nReferral Office was that the employee NOT be a member of Local
\n#47, or a musician, in order to avoid temptation to show favoritism. Since this job has now gone to a #47 Union member, were the previous restrictions illegal? Should OCHA and EEOC be notified of discrimination in hiring practices?<\/p>\n
– Is there not a protocol to be followed to create a new official
\noffice such as a “General Manager” position within a Local? Was
\nthis protocol followed?<\/p>\n
– It was alluded in the above meeting that the specialized services
\nafforded Freelance Musicians by the Promotions Dept are no
\nlonger a valid use of Union monies because the ratio of expense
\nto return via dues is currently lower than that of Recording and
\nSymphonic contracts. As a result, a higher-paid, specialized
\nemployee has been fired, and those services have now been
\nturned over to an existing, inexperienced employee. However,
\ntestimonials show the value of this employee, our Network
\nReferral Office had a record year, and membership of Freelance
\nMusicians is on the increase. Does this not go against the
\npremise of Union Brotherhood?<\/p>\n
– With the disintegration of the most valued services of our Local,
\nmany FMA members are now considering leaving the Union. What
\nreasons can we give them to stay?<\/p>\n
Regards,<\/p>\n
Lisa Haley
\nFMA member <\/p>\n
\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s a note from Charles Fernandez, who was also at the meeting.<\/p>\n
Concerning the June special meeting vote about the location of Referral
\nservice office being called \u201cnot-valid\u201d, the only one making that argument
\nwas Doug Caine. His reasoning was that, because the \u201cdescription\u201d of the
\nmeeting was for discussion and not VOTING, no vote at that meeting was
\nvalid. The President then admitted himself that he allowed the meeting, a
\nlegit meeting. No parliamentarian or lawyer familiar with labor law I talked
\nto thought that the reasoning for the vote being invalid was anything but
\nridiculous. They found it absurd that such an argument would even be
\nattempted.<\/p>\n
The fact is the Officers of the Local plainly broke the By-laws of the Local by going against a specific \u201cvoted on\u201d mandate of the membership. Did the board know? At least some of the board was kept in the dark about Barbara\u2019s firing till after the fact, were they kept in the dark here as well??<\/p>\n
Fraternally
\nCharles Fernandez<\/p>\n
\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022<\/p>\n
Fellow Local 47 Colleagues,<\/p>\n
Yesterday, most of those who registered with the referral service got an
\nE-MAIL asking them to update their info and offering FREE HEAD SHOTS.
\nOne of the reasons Errol was fired was because he was supposedly insubordinate in disagreeing with Doug Caine. Doug Caine wanted to do a mailing. Errol
\ndared to tell him mailings don’t work, e-mails and phone calls
\nwork and are far, far more cost effective. <\/p>\n
They partly fired Errol Henry for daring to tell Doug Caine his mailing idea makes
\nno sense and that e-mails were better. Then after firing him,
\nTHEY FOLLOW ERROL’S ADVICE AND DO EXACTLY WHAT HE RECOMMENDED.
\nSo then, why was he fired? <\/p>\n
We’ve also learned that another idea being pushed for the referral
\nservice was a website. The GOPRO website was set up for just
\nthat reason and hasn’t to this point been very effective.<\/p>\n
Still, Errol was included on NONE of those website meetings.
\nThe HEAD of the department not informed or included? Why?<\/p>\n
If nothing else, this should be a great argument for a Local not being
\nable to go two years without a general membership meeting,
\nconsidering what has been done to our local and the services to
\nour live and freelance members in the two years they\u2019ve been unaccountable.<\/p>\n
PLEASE BE AT THE APRIL 24th MEETING!<\/p>\n
Till next time,<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Greetings LOCAL 47 Colleagues!, On Friday March 3,2006 a meeting took place in President Espinosa\u2019s office concerning the firing of Barbara Markay. Below is a report by Lisa Haley from that meeting. Local 47 members Charles Fernandez and former Vice-president David Schubach were also in attendance along with other members of the FMA. Following her […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-committee-newsletters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=78"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=78"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=78"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=78"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}