Actually, the union could have protested the firing of the teamster but it could have been done. Depending on the value of the signs, it may have been a felony. He was also found to have a suspended license at the time if memory serves and no union can save him from that. In other words, he was protected by the same nepotism you condemn.
Your comments about Viessman's relative are interesting. You mentioned Mrs. Hawkins lying under oath and she apparently did. However, if the relative altered the Viesman petitions, she too lied under oath so one can assume you would not have a problem firing her under a new administration.
What would you expect the Pontoon board to do to Hawkins? They have no jurisdiction over her.