|
      |
| Blown Out of Proportion.............My Opinion |
|
|
|
| Written by Ron Walton | |
|
On Thursday, a staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation sent a letter to Commonwealth Attorney General Bob McDonnell to conduct a "state level review of the ethical and professional breaches that appear to have occurred among law enforcement officials during the strike". In his letter, Derek Poteet, makes several claims against local law enforcement in Pulaski as well as UAW strikers on the picket lines. After reviewing the letter, it is clear to this writer that things have been blown way out of proportion.
First, let's look at the letter from Poteet (click here). Poteet should know that the Attorney General has no jurisdiction in this matter. My understanding of this case is that any investigation would have to begin at the local level and if it became evident that local authorities did not investigate any claims with merit, then the matter would fall to Federal authorities to investigate. Surely Mr. Poteet learned this in law school somewhere.
Second, Mr. Poteet makes these claims sound like they are fact and not an allegation. I have to believe that if confronted with several of these allegations, Mr. Poteet would be found basing much of his claims on hearsay and rumor. Yes, some things did go on that require some investigation, such as nails in the driveway, sugar poured into gas tanks and many people on the picket line were out of order. But, I am betting that there is no "smoking gun" with respect to the allegations being made against the local law enforcement and I'll explain why.
On March 1st and 2nd, we were told by many workers who had crossed the line that their property had been vandalized and they had been harassed. We followed up with the local law enforcement as well as state officers. Nobody in law enforcement denied that these things had happened and they explained how they were treating the matters. (See EverythingNRV Story by clicking here) If there were some big cover-up, why would law enforcement be so cooperative in telling us what they were doing about the matters? Doesn't add up, does it? So, what really happened?
With respect to law enforcement personnel "lecturing" an individual about crossing the picket line, what if this is how the officer might have worded it? "We've had many complaints so far and they seem to be targeted towards people who have crossed the line. We're doing all we can on this but you should be aware that this is going on." What if the officer was simply warning the individual that they needed to be cautious as they would do with anyone in this situation? Could that be mistaken as a lecture? You betcha it could and would. I don't know this is the way it went down, but I'd put money on the officer simply doing the job and offering advice, not with regard to crossing the picket line, but simply advising the individual(s) to be careful.
Who's really to blame in this matter? In my opinion, the Union shares in this a great deal. In his letter, Poteet alleges that that non-Union workers were subjected to harassment in the form of property damage and some fairly wild picket scene actions. Hey, don't look now but those things actually happened. I'll repeat that I think much of Peteet's letter is genuine BS, but his assertions that his clients were subjected to things that should not have happened is accurate. And it is my true belief that these things were investigated by law enforcement. I also believe the Union leadership should have taken a role as well.
I think we could all believe that the Union leadership really did not "condone these activities" as they said if they had taken an active role in calming the harassment. I expected to see notices posted, calls made and rewards offered if someone provided the information that saw this "bad element of Union" charged and prosecuted. In short, I expected Union management to take a more active roll in discouraging this behavior.
This is where the Unions don't get it. By not taking action, Union Management always opens the door for these type of violations to be investigated. Take for instance, the coffins on the picket line. While I believe that Union members did this in jest, a case could be made that this indeed was a threat............and that is illegal. So are many of the things that Union members yelled to non-Union people coming to work. Simply put, they are threats.
Would a Commonwealth Attorney take on a case such as these - probably not. And not because the "fix is in" but because they are filled with hearsay and false claims mixed in with what is real. Just as I believe this letter from Poteet is.............some real facts tied in with some other allegations where there is no smoking gun other than hearsay allegations. The fact is that if the Commonwealth Attorney were to take all of these hearsay allegations to court, half the county population would be suspects because so many people are being accused. Separating fact from fiction is almost impossible in these instances.
I also question, with all of the law enforcement agencies who had a role in investigating these claims, why is it that only the Pulaski Police Department being targeted. It just seems to me that there is more here than anyone of us, including Mr. Poteet, know about these instances. In the 10+ years of living here and overseeing news departments, this is the first time I have ever heard of issues in the Pulaski Police Department. In that time I have heard plenty about other departments in the area, but not Pulaski. By my witness, I am not saying that someone in the department did not do what is claimed, I am simply saying that I would be shocked if they did.
So, what's next? First of all, it is not too late for the Union to get involved and put forth a real intent to find out who the "criminal element" in their ranks are and punish them. This would say something to the non-Union workers and to the community. Second, the Commonwealth Attorney needs to put pressure on the Union to take a proactive roll. The fact in this is that some illegal acts were committed and they can not go unpunished. And finally, Mr. Poteet and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation should stick to what they can actually prove and not cloud the investigation with allegations backed only by hearsay.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (2)
  written by dra, March 15, 2008
Hey if some one had cought some one doing something in the act and you could say the person was in the 2069 you would have something . Everyone know there are a lot of people out there besides the scabs that hate the union . Who is to say some one not in the union did it of another scab did it to make the UAW 2069 look bad . Hey if some one went acroos that line they hate our union and would make us look bad any way they could . Hey these is the good old U.S.A and this is my view
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Traffic Land Video |
|---|
|
|
| Blacksburg's First Wednesday's Celebration 5-07-08 |
|---|
|
|
Photos by David Grimes |
|
 |
 |
 |
| Today's Birthday | |
|---|---|
|
Sir James Matthew Barrie was a Scottish novelist and dramatist best known for creating the character Peter Pan, whom he based on his friends, the Llewelyn Davies boys. Educated at Dumfries Academy and Edinburgh University, he became a journalist and, later, a celebrated novelist who counted Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Thomas Hardy amongst his friends and acquaintances. Why was Barrie disappointed with the statue of Peter Pan erected in Kensington Gardens, London?
