Stu Helfer Statement

[Tpost]

(Note: the following statement from former Local 853 Recording-Secretary Stu Helfer, now retired, was forwarded to me in anticipation of disciplinary action - including a possible associational ban - imposed by the IIO/IBT. Todey, the IIO did indeed issue its decision on Helfer and Local 853 Secretary-Treasurer Steve Beck. In short, both received 1-year suspensions, although there are questions about the sentencing. While I don't give a shit about Beck, anybody who has worked with Stu Helfer knows damn well that he never did anything unless it benefitted the members. So, to hell with the IIO and the GEB).

_____________

February 22, 2024

12:20 p.m.

An Open Letter from Stu Helfer

I have become aware that an IIO recommendation from my November 14, 2023 hearing is due February 23, 2024; therefore, as this is being written and transmitted on February 22, 2024, it cannot be considered as any type of prohibited contact regarding the business of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT).

This is being written with the anticipation that I will be “found guilty” of having “prohibited contact” with sanctioned (suspended) individuals and discussing union business with them. Additionally, it is alleged that I (as part of the Local Union Executive Board) dispersed monies without membership authorization; both allegations are inaccurate at best, and a completely fabricated tale.

I am now happily retired and have absolutely no desire or intent to run for office or hold any position again. However, I do wish to be able to answer questions put to me by officials and/or representatives of the Union without causing them any potential disciplinary exposure, thus, allowing them to best represent the membership.

To the point – should I be disciplined in any way, shape or form, it will be due to my attempts at providing the best representation to Teamster members, for which the following FACTS apply.

I have been accused of having “prohibited contact” with a suspended member while attending a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) meeting in Southern California where details were to be discussed for a potential PLA covering work on a rail line from Barstow, California to Las Vegas, Nevada.

For those who are unaware, the most common attendees at such a meeting would include the Prime Contractor (“Prime Contractor” is defined as one that deals directly with the project owner), and representatives of the bargaining parties and of the Local Unions involved. PLAs are usually entered into by a local or statewide Building Trades Council and involve many different craft unions in order to promote labor harmony and to address jurisdictional disputes within the crafts.

In attendance at the Southern California meeting were representatives from the prime Contractor, myself (as Chairman of the Northern California Teamsters Building and Construction Trades), a representative from the California State Building Trades (originally scheduled to be President Robbie Hunter, but replaced at the last moment by Rome Aloise), and representatives from Local 166 and 641. Locals 166 and 641 have construction jurisdiction for the affected areas in Southern California and Southern Nevada.

At the meeting, which I chaired, it was made perfectly clear which entity each attendee was representing; Local 166 for Southern California, Local 631 for Southern Nevada, Rome Aloise for California State Building Trades and a couple of individuals for the Contractor (I believe that it was Skanska, but I’m not completely sure.

While Northern California did not have any jurisdiction over the work in this Project, it had been my experience that matters in Southern California migrated north through the Central Valley and eventually became of statewide concern.

To be clear, most of the concerns were handled by me, with absolutely no input, direction or comments from the California State Building Trades representative.

Specifically, I addressed jurisdictional issues regarding Ready Mix concrete along with water and dump type trucks, as we (Teamsters construction locals) had experienced continued raiding attempts from other construction crafts, such as LIUNA (Laborers) and IUOE) Operating Engineers.

In PLAs, the jurisdictional dispute process REQUIRES that crafts making claims to a work assignment do so properly at a PLA meeting; a kind of “you must be there or you relinquish the jurisdictional claim” concept.

Had I refused to participate in such a meeting, I would have abandoned work traditionally assigned to Teamsters; and I was not going to do so, as it would then create a precedent as “a shared jurisdictional history.” Such a history would impact the future of work for Teamster members, something that I was unwilling to cede.

I feel to this day that fighting for and representing the interest of construction Teamsters was of the utmost importance and is in accordance with the IBT constitution (procuring as much work for Teamsters) and that I would be derelict in my obligation to the membership doing otherwise.

Additional “prohibited” communications I am accused of revolved around, (1) protecting Teamster members doing work at a refinery in Northern California; (2) developing and protecting prevailing wage laws; and (3) negotiating jjurisdictional disputes with the Laborers and Operating Engineers over the same type of equipment.

Construction is unlike any other employment as you are not only battling employers, you are also fighting with other trade unions attempting to steal Teamster work.

So far as alleged unauthorized expenditures, the contribution Local 853 made to the Countywide Central Labor Council’s Labor Awards Dinner was indeed approved by the membership of the local union; this has already been reviewed by a panel and found to have been proper.

At the time of this Labor Awards Dinner, the State of California was in the midst of a battle over Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), which was winding its way through the legislative process and on the way to being submitted to the United States Supreme Court for review and ruling. AB 5 addresses employee versus independent contractor status in many occupations within California and was MAJOR interest to IBT construction in California, as it would open up organizing potential of over a conservative estimate of 20,000 (twenty thousand) misclassified drivers .

While our local had a good size membership, having all of Labor in Alameda County would go a long way to gaining more support for our position.

Additionally, the Countywide Central Labor Council had supported our successful earlier efforts increasing prevailing wage inclusion for offsite hauling public works projects in California. Also, the Central Labor Council had supported our legislation on the inclusion of a prevailing wage determination for our many ready mix concrete drivers (Assembly Bill 219 (AB 219)).

Results - All of these issues - critical and vital to Teamster - passed and became law. AB 5 went through the United States court (in San Diego, Roger Benitez), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, resulting in a victory for our members.

Without the support of the Central Labor Council, I am not sure that we would have had positive results on any of these matters.

Each and every one of these “alleged” violations arose out of my representation of Teamster members, and if there is any punishment for it, it is punishing me for aggressively representing the interests of the Teamsters.

Why does any of this matter to me now that I’m retired?

I’m grateful for what the Union has provided for my family and me over the four decades that I was in the Union.

When being interviewed by IRO investigators, it became abundantly clear to me that those investigators knew absolutely nothing about PLAs or the jurisdictional process in the construction industry. In fact, one glassy-eyed investigator approached me after my PLA testimony and said, “I see that it is complicated”.

I simply want those who are now the “caretakers” of Teamster construction members to be able to draw upon my 23 years of representing construction without fear of sanction, as I think I have unique experience and knowledge of how the gains that were made and legislation passed.

As I said previously, both above and at the hearing – I have zero interest in returning in any type of capacity of representing the membership.

Unfortunately, the IIO’s ‘stretching’ of the definition of ‘consultation’ (answering questions about historical facts) has led to much consternation and speculative interpretation by the powers that be about what can be construed as ‘prohibited’ contact.

To me, it is quite clear that any discipline (which I expect to happen) is nothing more than politics and that the original intent of the IRO process is now completely out of control.

[Mr. Teamster]

The West will never be the same Terry. This was done by design. The Boston boys have never respected or liked the West. Everything we have is superior to them. Some of their members know this. It burns them up. Mark my words the west will be playing catch up for decades over this.

[Koldiww]

Stu Helfer was the best Teamster construction guy in the IBT. He single handidly brought the Teamsters back to prominence in Construction after they had been dead for 20 years. Sat on the State Building Trades Executive Board, and generally was recognized as the unquestionable expert throughout the West. He assisted anyone who asked, played a prominent role politically, and was the most instrumental in gaining prevailing wage for Ready Mix drivers. His case, along with the others who were vilified by the oz/IIO/govt witch hunt is more evidence that facts and proof mean nothing, and that there is no credibility within the Teamsters any longer. Simply, an empty bunch of suits and neckties...

[Faust]

Looking like O'Brien will push to dissolve 853 and split the crafts into locals that are loyal to him.

[Mr. Teamster]

Looking like O'Brien will push to dissolve 853 and split the crafts into locals that are loyal to him.

That isn’t out of the realm of possibility. In order to get ready for the next election he needs to move fast to get rid of the next round of officers and it looks like all signs point to another round of charges. The West will look dramatically different in the next year. In my opinion this can’t be stopped. The only thing that can help us to hold our ground is that the beat members in the Teamsters union to vote in 2026 and send a message that despite what this current IBT administration is doing the West is the best. We are superior and we will take back our Western Region Vice Presidents.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Hopefully remove the whole lot