Pittsburgh PA - The former head of PAT's union, Joe Hutzler, is defending the deferred retirement he set up for himself while retired but serving as union president as well as sitting on a 4-person pension board.
Hutzler believes that he did no wrong and that the current union president, Pat McMahon, has a vendetta against him.
Joe Hutzler is using the defense that it was wrong to collect a pension while collecting a union paycheck at the same time as well as that McMahon had a vendetta against him over differing views of union leadership. By claiming a vendetta as a big part of his defense, it sets off my alarms that there is much more here than meets the eye and that the vendetta may be in the opposite direction and aimed at McMahon rather than at Hutzler.
Regardless of the defense that Hutzler has offered, there are still some very serious questions regarding the self-crafted pension agreement that Hutzler set up as well as the secrecy surrounding his retirement.
The first point was that he retired from PAT but kept the retirement a secret from his union. Second was that while keeping the retirement a secret from his union, he was negotiating a union contract that ultimately stripped many protective work rules away from the union. Third was that he created the pension plan for himself and that would not have been done for others in the union as there was no such provision for it in the union contract or union rules.
At least to me, it seems as though Mr. Hutzler is trying to deflect the criticism of his bad decision(s) and trying to turn himself into the victim by claiming that the current union president had a vendetta against him. The points I mentioned in the previous paragraph all speak of a questionable act(s) by Hutzler.
While there may have been bad blood between Hutzler and McMahon, the criticism of Hutzler's actions are valid. Even if no quid pro quo occurred between PAT's management and Hutzler during this period, the simple fact that Hutzler crafted a pension deal for himself that no other union member would receive as well as keeping his retirement a secret from the union itself raises many valid questions that need to be answered and Hutzler's defense answers none of them.
While I normally avoid dealing with internal union issues here, this is one that I needed to comment on. I still believe that Pat McMahon was correct in his criticism of the Hutzler pension deal. There are just too many questions regarding it not to be critical.
Hutzler believes that he did no wrong and that the current union president, Pat McMahon, has a vendetta against him.
Joe Hutzler is using the defense that it was wrong to collect a pension while collecting a union paycheck at the same time as well as that McMahon had a vendetta against him over differing views of union leadership. By claiming a vendetta as a big part of his defense, it sets off my alarms that there is much more here than meets the eye and that the vendetta may be in the opposite direction and aimed at McMahon rather than at Hutzler.
Regardless of the defense that Hutzler has offered, there are still some very serious questions regarding the self-crafted pension agreement that Hutzler set up as well as the secrecy surrounding his retirement.
The first point was that he retired from PAT but kept the retirement a secret from his union. Second was that while keeping the retirement a secret from his union, he was negotiating a union contract that ultimately stripped many protective work rules away from the union. Third was that he created the pension plan for himself and that would not have been done for others in the union as there was no such provision for it in the union contract or union rules.
At least to me, it seems as though Mr. Hutzler is trying to deflect the criticism of his bad decision(s) and trying to turn himself into the victim by claiming that the current union president had a vendetta against him. The points I mentioned in the previous paragraph all speak of a questionable act(s) by Hutzler.
While there may have been bad blood between Hutzler and McMahon, the criticism of Hutzler's actions are valid. Even if no quid pro quo occurred between PAT's management and Hutzler during this period, the simple fact that Hutzler crafted a pension deal for himself that no other union member would receive as well as keeping his retirement a secret from the union itself raises many valid questions that need to be answered and Hutzler's defense answers none of them.
While I normally avoid dealing with internal union issues here, this is one that I needed to comment on. I still believe that Pat McMahon was correct in his criticism of the Hutzler pension deal. There are just too many questions regarding it not to be critical.
No comments:
Post a Comment