Follow up: I did call the AUD today and spoke with Kirk, I discussed the points raised about the NLRA Sect 7 : "to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing."
I expressed the membership has no confidence in Supervisor Spencer. We discussed the idea of starting a petition and filing an injunction in Federal Court with Judge Bermen. He was very interested in the proposal and said he will discuss it with Herman Benson and one of their lawyers and get back to me.
There you go with that pro mcCarron crap again. anon I hated tomatoes till I turned 30. I may have been too long in missing something delectable but it was then I decided to keep an open mind about many things. You my friend are missing out on something that members are joining together on, its going to sweep the brotherhood without including you because you started way too early supporting the UBC on this.
Brother Lebo I am not trying to disrespect you. I am clear it was a freedom of speech case but again the content was secondary in importance to the action taken by a federal judge.He reached into the UBC and told them to stick their constitution in their ass. The relevance for us is that the UBC Constitution is not the untouchable holy grail and we can defeat it.I agree with you the free speech case was a given. I have spoke to Chris Grant the attorney for Price so I am clear on that point. Have you?? Are you clear on the actions of the Federal court and would it give you confidence in challenging the UBC in federal Court. Prices case did not teach me about free speech it taught me that I can get an injunction against the UBC. Just so you understand my point.
Anon I dont need to ask Hermann anything. I have had many conversations with him versus your one and am quite clear what he can and will do. Your making BS claims that the "AUD will take your petition to a court if Walsh or Spencer fails to act". I say your full of shit and the AUD has promised you no such thing. Prove me wrong. Post it or shut up.
Richard I absolutely didn't miss the point. Its clearly a freedom of speech case and no court is going to allow anyone to violate that especially when 2 laws are involved. I don't mean to take any kudos away from Kevin. I applaud anyone who stands up for thier rights against tyranny. However you Richard have clearly missed my point. Apples and oranges.
"Prices case did not teach me about free speech it taught me that I can get an injunction against the UBC. Just so you understand my point. " Your point of Apples and Oranges is your OPINION and one which I do not share so we can agree to disagree
Again.For the 3rd or 4th time. I am NOT disputing it was a freedom of speech case.However to downplay or ignore the action of the Federal Judges in telling the UBC to stick their bylaws in their ass is a disservice to the membership. The rank and file need to see that McCarron is not god and the UBC Bylaws are nothing more than poor toilet paper.
We are dealing with a dictator who believes the UBC Bylaws negates any rights you have under state and federal law or even the US Constitution. We have his cronies telling the membership we are bound by the OBLIGATION to the point where it negates our free speech rights. We have a tyrannical douche bag dissolving locals while bypassing the LMRDA and Trusteeship laws in place to protect our locals to do it. He thinks 6a makes him god free and unencumbered by laws meant for mere mortals but not for King Dougy.We have council rats posting that "basically if its in our Constitution they can do anything they want" Bullshit
Thanks to Kevin Price we are going to line up the Injunctions long and deep. That us what he has given us. Since I am sure yo have NOT talked to Chris Grant then you are unaware that he has been called by many rank and file Carpenters around the US. California,Oklahoma,Florida,Boston and New York.Not to discuss Kevin prices free speech but to learn how to file a damn injunction against the UBC and use it as a tool.. Many have asked to retain him not to file free speech cases but to file a injunctions against the UBC such as stopping a retaliatory Trusteeship or forcing Council elections.Price showed us that can and did happen.
You push the apples and oranges cart and I will push the Injunction. Injunction. Whose got the Injunction.Lets move on
As I said Anon. Put it up or shut up. The AUD never told you any such thing or made you any such promise. That makes you a liar. Again.
Start you back peddling as you have always done when called out. Tell us all here how many times you have talked to Mr. Benson or worked with the AUD.Its amazing how many promises you were made or how close you are claiming to be to the AUD after one meeting
You have been asked multiple times to produce one single charge you have filed with any agency. One single letter of protest to the UBC. One grievance against any of your council rats. You refuse. Why. Because you never have. You have the nerve to talk about anybody who procrastinates or is all bluster because you claimed to make a few phone calls. Your a phony and an insult to be here among those truly fighting against the UBC Corruption. You have attacked every person on this blog and others who expose you beloved Spencer. You have the audacity to attack good rank and file members when you could never be the sweat on their balls. Do us all a favor and piss off.
anon -"what is funny is that i have called all of these agencies"
When you walk over that threshold instead of simply calling you can have input on this subject, till then as they won't discuss such things over the phone, ask someone who has filed a case. Or is it your too cowardly anon-ymous to actually think that through before posting.
They actually tell anyone who calls that they can not discuss such things and "intake" weeds out potential ambiguities like you anon.
anon -"i am not impressed with anyone who is all chuffed (delighted ) that they are going to maybe contact someone, pick up the phone and ask questions. stop blathering and start talking."
First: You will be impressed, but for one fact. When all is said and done you won't have your precious consolidation under the councils roof, which you tout as the best thing for us since sliced bread.
Second: There are those of us who DON'T CALL BUT WALK IN AND FILE A CHARGE. Or are you so one sided in talking a big talk. You either are frightened to do so or as I can only deduce wish to remain anon-ymous even to the NLRB. They can't hurt you anon, they may dismiss your case but if YOU filed a charge then you wouldn't be blathering. Others & I did not blather ( anon-"stop blathering and start talking")
when we walked through that door, we started talking a long time ago.l
Third: "chuffed" ????????? Allow me to put this in your own perspective. How could I possibly see things the way you see them, because you've allowed yourself to by writing this nonsense.-- I'd be "delighted
(chuffed) by maybe contacting someone"--------------- Long live anon-the ass !
Ps. Your happy face rhetoric reflects not only the substance of your posts, but your immaturity to hang with the big boys.
Anyone can file an injunction, You can do it pro se. Go to the court clerks office they will give you all the forms and advice you need, or you can get them online. The court will give you leinency when you file pre se because they know your not an attorney. The problem with getting the court to issue an injunction you have to prove that whatever act your asking the court to issue an injuction for will cause irreparible harm, not as easy as it sounds. That was the problem we ran into with Judge Haight so many years ago when we asked him to stop the mergers of all the locals. His theory was that the locals could always be put back the way they were. Our theory was you can't unscramble an egg. We were right. What needs to go in front of the court is a complaint that proves the district council is a local union thereby making the council bound by all the rules that a local union is bound by under the LMRDA. We know for a fact that the councils across the country have taken away all the functions of the local unions and that the locals are nothing more than locals on paper or by name, but we have to prove it to the court and then to an appelate court, and then to the supreme court. A Federal Judge has to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt to find for you because no Federal Judge wants their decision overturned in an appelate court so your case must be air tight.
I spoke to K. Price this morning. He's very much on board with the rest of us throughout the country, but there is something to be concerned with. Not that it has anything to do with him but I';m quite sure you'd be somewhat taken back by the events post victory.
After hearing his story, and I must get his permission before posting it, he himself was greatful for the somewhat no brainer of a victory but it takes somewhat of a convoluted and rather bizzare turn.