STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
After investigating a complaint that the NERCC violated the LMRDA's election rules requiring a local union to conduct officer elections by direct vote of its members every three years, the Secretary concluded that the NERCC did not violate the LMRDA because it is an "intermediate" labor organization entitled to conduct elections of its officers every four years by a vote of delegates from its member locals. The questions presented are:
Whether the Secretary's supplemental statement of reasons announcing and explaining the decision not to sue the NERCC to conduct a local union election was arbitrary and capricious.
Assuming arguendo that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the district court erred as a matter of law in requiring the Secretary to "take appropriate action" prior to exhausting her appeal rights.
bullshit - The SSR's were the back Door run around the base question, the Right To VOTE.
Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao who was part of the Bush-McCarron, Tutor-Blum-Feinstein team of destruction/corruption - di the proverbial legal dance around the base issue which was, is & remains the right to vote - period.
Her SSR's in the final analysis, last appeal were predicated upon the SOL's (Chao's) right to preserve & protect her Agencies Right to exhaust any & all avenues of Appeal....not on the issues in the case mind you, rather, upon her right to appeal the decision on DOL's alleged Constitutional Rights.
This is where everyone gets lost on this subject, because it was a false proposition,dogma & basis for her defense.
Moreover, it failed to address the "core issues", the "central themes" embodied within the preamble to the NLRA....the right of the Worker, the Employee, the everyman or working stiff should you prefer to organize for the purpposes of collectivve bargaining for wages, benefits and other working conditions.
Nowhere within the NLRA or the Legislative History did Congress distinguish a right of the "Ruling Class" to vote in place of the worker, the employee. Nowhere did they state that there such a thing as "Representative Democracy".
The fact of the matter is, in 1935, before TV, the Internet etc people, inclusive of the working class were better educated, read more, knew more and the language used then was understood by all in the plain & clear reading as written - to inure the working stiff with the right to Vote - Zero explanation required.
In this day & age, where kids are encoruaged to spell shit wrong & all the books, dictionaries etc have been "dumbed down" for the crowd that can't break a dollar change in their head - no wonder there is mass confusion amongst the illiterate. Still though, it does not change or alter what was written or what it means. That never changed.
"to bargain with individuals of their own choosing" is exactly how the Act reads i both the preamble & Sec. 7 Rights.
Representative is defined by the act as the "INDIVIDUAL" -period, and the preamble "QUALIFIES" the read there as "BY WORKERS" whereas Section 7 "QUALIFIES" the reading to "EMPLOYEES".
One bought & paid for Ruling by the UBC International in one Appellate Court (the first Circuit) does not a Supreme Court Landmark decision make...................
NYC is in the SECOND CIRCUIT, accordingly, under R.O. Walsh & your Consent Decree, he needs to prepare the Legal Challenge to Harrington v. Chao and have it overturned there, on your home court..........
When R.O. Walsh & his legal beagles do this, then it will be a ripe issue for the U.S. Supreme Court and he can move to fastrack it there for binding precedent.
By the way anon, those NLRA/NLRB protections which protect against injustices such as those listed by Ted, under ANY Council operations, whether or not you imagine we have more voice under consolidation or otherwise with appointed eboards, - have been extorted from you.
Without them at your disposal you might as well hand him the keys to the moat !
I have emailed Review Officer Dennis Walsh, asking him if he has been following the discussion on Harrington v. Chao. At the February 8, Court hearing Conboy indicated that the UBC believes delegates should elect council officers. I asked Walsh if Harrington v. Chao, would be something he would challenge and show the Court that the Councils have become the Locals and are thus subject to the provisions of the LMRDA & OLMS.
This is his reply to me:
"I mentioned my interest in Harrington v. Chao at the RO Forum on February 23rd. When the LMRDA was passed in 1959, local unions performed the functions now performed by the District Council. As I said in my first report, local unions have been fiefdoms for corruption and serve no purpose in the context of the full-service District Council. They collect dues and purport to inform the members by delegates reporting back at local meetings, but do not engage in collective bargaining, handle grievances, refer members to work or employ personnel who engage in these functions. I will be interested to see the theory underpinning any argument that the District Council still functions as an intermediate body as originally contemplated by Congress. I will of course review any proposal objectively, but must take the foregoing into consideration."
I will be interested to see the theory underpinning any argument that the District Council still functions as an intermediate body as originally contemplated by Congress.
Of Course it doesn't.
Only reason a council no longer acts as an intermediary is that crooked delegates all over the country were unleashed as paid employees to sneak the constitutional & by law changes & ramrod this down
un-informed throats. Thats what I have trouble with. How was that accomplished by keeping you in the dark anon, and your ready to surrender.
Its not so much that we've got to live with the results of Chao argument, but that by hook OR CROOK as was ther case here the US Gov't's rebuttal was bought & paid for.
Let that go unaddressed you've already lost the war !
If your ready for this global market condition / McCarron full service council necessity, then your ready for a completely mobile exclusive hiring hall for all sorts of carpenter specialty status also ie. = all trades.
Tell me thats not where he's going.
On Derrrico sustaining locals don't have power
--He wants this for McCarron so don't cite anything he says.
I have also corresponded with him on Conboys submissons to the courts and have forwarded Herman Bensons article on locals and their lack of any powers.
--Because people agree McCarron has "devisively stripped" them of power doesn't mean its acceptable or right.
it was in essence a case which revolved around whether or not the courts could intervene
---Wrong it was a case bought & paid for w/lobbying $$
I simply state this as in all matters I believe that you should be aware of what it is that you are using to bolster an argument.
--I am aware of the clout involved in permitting the constant return of the issue via multiple SSr's. No one gets three bites at the apple, unless...........
What is very encouraging is that Mr. Walsh seems to be of the opinion that the locals do not meet the criteria needed to be considered as labor organizations
---Not encouraging at all anon, that he agrees with McCarrons bought & paid for fiefdom vision.
Give McCarron what he wants now, he'll raise your working dues assesments, cut your pay, sacrifice your work rules further eroding your collective bargaining rights. And finally you will not have a representive democracy when appointed delegates alone vote for council positions
anon - do you know what stare-decisis is? Do you comporehend that when a bad decision is handed down by a Court, in this instance one very Liberal Court wherein the 2 Justices voting in the majority were fairly confused as to why they ruled that way?
The only justice who stated things correctly, as per the laws of the land happened to be the dissenting judge.
The SSR's & the std. of 'arbirtrary & capricious' was nothing more than semanitcs. classic lawyering used to end run the real issue presented in the case....the right to vote in direct elections of officers - period.
As I stated time & again, one case, in one circuit (especially with bought & paid for justices....yes anon, it happens in America, people, politicians & judges can be corrupted and are corrupt, as is McCarron, Tutor, Blum Feinstein & oh so many others).
The United States Supreme Court when it gets such a case, one wherein bad rulings were used for 10, 20, 30 50 years - they love tearing this shit up, same as they do when the corrupt forces at the DOL & NLRB Board issue moronic decisions & orders outside their area of expertise in the law to review/decide.
That you readily ignore many such cases by the Supreme Court shows a lack of comprehension of U.S. jurisprudence and a disrespect for the Supreme Court. Harrington v. Chao is one such case that follows the typical stare-decisis mold. Many ignorany himans though the world flat for millenia....and everyone knows its an ellipse...thats a joke kid.
All Chao did was replace one fiefdom crew (Locals) with a larger fiefdom (Councils) via consolidation(s) and illegally garnered trusteeships or hostile takeovers of you will. What is at the core of both? Simple, the core issue which started the fiasco, the NLRA, the Act - and the right of the workers, the employees to vote in direct elections as Congress intended and in fact wrote into law, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else put into this chain of cases was pure emotional rhetoric, legal gamesmanship, semantics, excuses & bold face fabrications of fact & law. Once you seperate the wheat from the chaffe, the rest is easy.
The Supreme Court is adept at getting to the heart of these matters, the core issues and even though you refuse to read the definitions of words & phrases used in the actual text of the NLRA, its Amendments and its entire Legislative History - the Supreme court will, and they leave no stone unturned.
If Walsh won't make the case for us, we will have to do it ourselves. That will require people who can remove themsleves from the 'emotional arguments' and review the cases with this mindset. It will have to be reverse engineered from the Supreme Court backwrds through the system and it will require the review of both parties arguments. In the end - examination of 500-1000 case will be required. It's months of work - do you have the stomach for it or are you with the UBC, McCarron & the Jack Welch hostile takeover philosophy?
I want to thank all of you for sharing your views in this free and open exchange of information, ideas and opinions. I know sometimes the language can get colorful, but I find the discussion fascinating and very interesting.
I added this forum to the blog in the beginning of the year so we can have a place to be heard and empower ourselves. All of you are contributing great content to this site and making it very popular.
Of course I am not a lawyer, but following the discussion and reading the decision by the Court, I am of the opinion that the Court made a bad decision and find myself in agreement with Ted and the dissenting judge.
If and when, (they may never) The United States Supreme Court ever gets involved with this case I believe they would overturn the appellate Courts decision.
I also agree with Anon that where New York City is concerned, Dennis Walsh "has all the powers of the Secretary of Labor in regards to whether we should have democratic elections and whether or not the Council is an intermediate body with respect to the LMRDA."
As Walsh said in his first report, "local unions have been fiefdoms for corruption and serve no purpose in the context of the full-service District Council." He said he will be "interested to see the theory underpinning any argument that the District Council still functions as an intermediate body as originally contemplated by Congress."
Again thank you and keep up the great conversation.