Harrington Brief, on appeal...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

John Musumeci
Administrator
Thanks Anon: I see the point, its that "arbitrarily and capriciously" issue. To bad, sounds like a lot of bull to me and a very poor decision by the court.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

Ted
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
John - the colorful langauge is all part & parcel to tossing the ideas around and a part of who we all are, but in the end, that aside - airing out disagreements in the manner as we do is a healthy thing & good for the organization & the rank & file. It shows we still have a pulse and a bit of life in us.

None of us are perfect, nor do we have all the answers. In the end, we have to boil these things down to the 'core issues' & focus on those...through RO Walsh where appropriate and outside of his purview where appropriate as well.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

bill lebo
In reply to this post by anon
Brothers what we need to focus on is the facts that, 1. The NYCDCC is not NERCC. 2. We could argue easily that the NYCDCC is in fact not an intermidiate body but in actuality a local union by the merits of it's "functions and powers" as did the Harrington case. We don't have to argue whether the Sect of Labor was arbitrary or caprecious, we have to argue that the NYCDCC does all the functions and has taken all the powers that were traditionally those of the local unions, and has left the local unions meere shells of themselves, and that the locals are in reality just satellite offices of the NYCDCC. This is the plain and simple truth. Trying to argue against the truth can be a daunting task even for a lawyer. Ask the questions; what is a local and what powers and functions did they have in the past? Who has those powers and functions now? Just read Dennis Walsh's 1st interim report he gives most of the answers to you. Who were the elected officers of the locals in the past and what were thier jobs and functions? Business agents used to be officers they are no longer, now they are council employees. Who are they now and what are thier powers and functions. For Gods sake Dennis Walsh handed it to us on a silver platter, but we have to argue the case, it's not his job to do it for us, but he can agree or disagree with us before the Court, and his opinion holds heavy with the Court as did Conboys all those many years ago. For crying out loud you all write an enormous amount of intelligent arguements on this site. Start using this information and intelligence you all have, in a really constructive manner and write it to Judge Berman. I have placed his address on this site and on Jawin many times and begged members to write the Judge. Have any of you listened or taken the initiative to do it. I for one have and I recieved a letter back from the Court thanking me for my perspective. You have to remember Judge Berman is fairly new to this case. Judge Haight had this case before him. Judge Berman needs to know what this membership feels and what has been going on in our union. Take all this energy you have bantering back and forth on this site and use it to educate him. Brothers we need to mobilize now, remember the UBC has multimillion dollar law firms on these issues, if we don't pull together and stop bashing each other they will steam roll right over us, Dennis Walsh or no.  
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
sit down, shut up.....thank you sir may I have another...drink your own KoolAid, your choice, not mine.

Oh by the way, how many lawsuits with your name on it have you won, either pro-se or with counsel? Nary a one wee little man - correct? Do you also bow to the Queen in the motherland or are you beyond that?

anon - also of note, you have yet to post one case, one point of law which would benefit the rank & file.....have to ask why is that? Rather than being constructive, you lie in wait like a coward looking only to attack any & all things on this blog which may benefit the rank & file - irrespective of who the author is; and that my friend says something about your character, not mine or any other person posting items on this site.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

bill lebo
The only reason the Council had rank and file elections in the past is due to me and 2 other carpenters, because we pushed the issue Ted. Like it or not I've done more than you, now stop the childish attacks, grow up, and do something useful, if not stand back and let the real men do it for you, son.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by bill lebo
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

bill lebo
The point that Chao was not arbitrary or caprecious is dead unless as Ted seems to say someone appeals it to the Supreme Court. My point is that 1. we are not NERCC and we have a different situation being that we are also not a multi state council (yet). 2. The case itself, that the council is a local by virtue of it's powers and functions, was never argued in Court so it wouldn't fall under Res Judicata. The fact that Choa wouldn't take the case doesn't stop a member or union body from filing a complaint in Federal Court themselves. The arguement is sound they had the right idea the Secretary was clearly wrong or influenced some how, politics being what they are. But the case doesn't have to be dead by any means it just has to be argued in the judicial arena.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

listman
In reply to this post by anon
Everyone agrees with that dissenting Judge, John.

Because we are carpenters anon. Look to the heart and soul of what McCarron did & most inportantly how he made it happen, -By eviscerating members voice in those sham local meetings via his paid eboard and by creating completely paid positions for his minions when appointed eboards roll into town. Understand this word anon becuause you will rue the day in NY when you'll be forced to abide by its terms of increased work assesments, - " CENTRAL COUNCIL"



COULD WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND THE COMPLETE STORY AS TO WHAT REMOVING THE "FIEFDOMS" WAS ABOUT. Then maybe you'd understand that language served its purpose, - perhaps.  Where was he while those fiefdoms were screwing the members. They ran unchecked while McCarron was in position to do something about it for a decade or more, just like the 5 pro tem positions @ 608.
But no he lies in wait just as he's done all over the country.

I speak to members all over the country and though locals all over have been run by cheats & crooks that give no-shits about your safety in order to supply the comnpany's with what they need to treat us like crap, they're still in power so what is the next fiefdom. THE CENTRAL COUNCILS ARE.

Many, Many men in any number of states feel as though it isn't so much the argument for reorganization as to what we loose and what we don't bargain for and what voice we don't have, ITS HOW HE WENT ABOUT IT TO MAKE ALL IT HAPPEN, WITHOUT OUR INPUT ! anon do you want a UBCEO instead of an EST or President. Your est will be voted in by delegates only. Don't say thats something we'd have to fight, you've already agreed centralizing power at the councils will give us more voice.  Eradicating "local" fiefdoms and not seeking democratic governance ON A LOCAL LEVEL, Makes a council which is paid by him. There will never be democratic function, ask the rest of the country.

anon Disclaimer:  All members I speak to from coast to coast and everywhere in between disagree with a centralized council. They know that Mccarron pulled off what he did with $$ and a promise of power and as soon as each group of pawns were put into place the Union fell further into the cesspool, anon are they all  wrong ?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

Ted
In reply to this post by bill lebo
duly noted brother Lebo, have the address & in the works, re: sending in arguments to Judge Berman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by bill lebo
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by bill lebo
Ask the questions; what is a local and what powers and functions did they have in the past? Who has those powers and functions now?
 
There is one problem with this approach and that is you insist that all locals in the UBC are the same as the NYC Locals. Far from it. Not yet. While we are now under attack the upstate Locals do not share the same servitude as the NYC Locals. Regardless of the BS spewed in this forum we still are a local while the NYC Locals are not.

   We dispatch our members for jobs from our local not the council. The council is now trying to force a central council controlled dispatch system. But we control it still as of this date.We hold trials at the local level and not the council.Our Local Officers still deal directly with the contractors and only in last two months have the rat bastards at the council,with the help of corrupt UBC Officers, made moves to control this as they are now trying to do with everything else.Our stewards are appointed by the Local and not the Council.New members are hired by the Local and not the  council. New apprentices are hired by the Local and not the council. While your Locals are in trusteeship because the NYC Council is we are NOT. We have had our Officers declare for the record and in the meeting minutes that although the Empire Council is in Trusteeship our Locals are NOT.But the NYC Locals are.While you are bound by the Trusteeship we are NOT.And on we go.
   
    Although under threat of losing our charter we are not going to lie down and give ourselves over to some council rat bastards. We are not going to lie down and give ourselves over to a council that is still filed with corruption and scum bags.Our locals are not yet finished off and we are still Labor organizations as defined by the law and not the delusional opinions of an individual trying to push an agenda.The NYC Locals have been slaves to the Council for a long time. We are not.Not yet.It may be inevitable but the assclown that says we are out of jealousy or the UBC agenda is a plain liar.
 You talk about throwing the locals away and spew the glory's of a council system. Where is that council system you speak of that is so much better than the locals. Where is the non corrupt, cleaned up council system you want us to give ourselves to. Is it the Empire Council. Is it the example of the NERCC. It surely isn't the NYC Council .So where??You offer nothing but spew that we should dissolve our locals or let McPussy do it with not fight.. Sure we should give up our locals and submit to the servitude the NY Locals are now a victim of when you cant even get an Officer to sign that he is not connected to the mob. ElLawrecne DeRiccos said we are not a Labor Organization.So what. Who gives a shit what this assclown said.
   Ted, Listman and Brother Lebo. It amazes me that certain unmentioned people on here believe they are even in your league and they the audacity to lecture you on Harrington Chao or anything else.Your called idiots,morons and other Colorful names by those who have the IQ of the dirt on your shoes. I can see you will not let these people deter you.Ted you are right on track with the Harrington case. A straight on attack will overturn it and I do not believe you will need the supreme court to do it.You don't need to overturn it at all.Secretary Chaos SSR for not following the order of the court was pure lies and BS. Well Chao and Bush are not here anymore and McPussy is not flying on Air Force One. Anybody in their right mind who reads the SSR will ask the same questions. Was Elaine Chao an idiot or was she corrupt and pandering to Bush. It would not be difficult to prove one or the other and demand the case be looked at again.It is not dead and over as those who spew UBC propaganda say.By the way. The dues attack is not an original thought and is coming from the AUD and while it may have merit should not sidetrack you from avenues where you will be successful. Than again look at the history. You have the Blue Card and Walsh does nothing. You have imposed assessments and Walsh does nothing. You and we have increased dues and assessments without a vote of either the rank and file or delegates to the Councils in direct violation of the LMRDA and the DOL does nothing.Remember the same people opposed injunctions such as Biello and belittled Kevin Price. Why. Because you might win. Why .Because the UBC rats have lost in both cases and they will lose in others.
     I hope you brothers will keep up the good work and ignore those who should be not even be speaking let alone lecturing you or questioning your intelligence. Do not be deterred by fools.
    I would also like to draw our intention to another event that will decide for you the issue if the Council is a local and should be bound by the rules of the LMRDA as they apply to all Locals. Mr. Walsh and the US Attorney has decided that for you. The US Attorney has declared all NYC Locals and their membership are MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL while the rest of the UBC are affiliated with and NOT members of.Dougy McCarrons own California Council 5500s declare that "the Council have no members" Yet now you  have the US Attorney declare that you(NYC) are not affiliated with but members of. How does that not shoot down Chaos SSR. Does that not put an end to the question of whether your NYC council is Local.File a new case with the exact same demands and reasons as Harrington and your done. As brother Lebo says. You are not the NERCC and now you have the overwhelming evidence to win.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

bill lebo
 Read all the posts before you pick one out, you miss alot of oints when you do, almost makes you sound pro- Mac. You wouldn't want that now would you? For that matter, what makes you think you have all the answers, if you did why is Mac still running rough-shod over all of us? Go back and read the rest of the thread before you jump in and bitch and moan Rich.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

bill lebo
That was points not oints
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by bill lebo
"bitch and moan Rich" I have read the rest of the thread.You lost me completely. What are you attacking me for Brother Lebo. Did I not commend you for your work.How am I pro McCarron.Is it that you think all my comments were directed at you?? Please elaborate where you took offense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

RichardDorrough
"our intention"  your attention
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Bill Lebo..I wrote"You talk about throwing the locals" "You offer nothing but spew" I wrote this wrong .It should be "people talk about" and was not directed at you. I am trying to comment on another post without answering the poster directly as i promised so please excuse me.I will be more careful next time
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

bill lebo
10-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

listman
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Gotta respect him.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...

Pat Nee
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
John could you forward me that email?
123