Reply – Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!
— by RichardDorrough RichardDorrough
"Courts have determined that union participation requirements like those contained in the District Council Bylaws are completely lawful" Sorry Bill but that's complete BS. Show us the court rulings please. The single case the UBC scum bags and their shit bag lawyers are using is the Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423 430 (1969). from 50 years ago. A ruling that would not AND WILL not stand up before a Judge in 2018.Especially with proof of 50 years of UBC corruption since then. Show us the other case law and detail the "established law" you speak of.
 
Notice the one single document in the case the NLRB is not forcing workers to FOIL has the word "fines" redacted. Hmm wonder what NLRB regulation allowed this.Rather odd dont you think.Why would the word "fines" be redacted and at whose request.

 Newly appointed Director Office of Appeals Mark E. Arbesfeld, cancelled the appearance before the ALJ and took a personal interest in the Newell case. Must not have had much going on as the new Director Office of Appeals .

Now when I say NLRB bought and paid for (or suck ass for Union bosses and their lawyers) is that fair.???

VI.
Conclusion
"The NLRB was intended to be a fair and unbiased agency that balances the interests of
employers and unions.  However, as this staff report discussed, the problems and bias at the
NLRB run rampant.  Courts have invalidated its rules, it is reinterpreting labor law with a slant towards unionization, and its leaders apparently believe the rules do not apply to them. Such a
systematic pattern of behavior is the reason the NLRB is becoming known as a rogue agency
 and is no longer viewed as fair and impartial." Oh no not me. This comes from "STAFF REPORT
U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 112TH CONGRESS COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNMENT REFORM DECEMBER  13,2012"  


     The premise is that Union members can leave the Union(why should they have to quit to avoid some UBC punk ass bitches robbing their paychecks) to avoid being extorted by UBC scum bag rat pussies and still work on Union jobs at Union rate and be kept on the dispatch list as Agency Fee payers. ALL AS THE LAW DEMANDS. Further members do not "voluntary leave" the Union to avoid the extortion they are "thrown out" if they refuse to be extorted.Yet had it gone before the Judge, which Arbesfeld so so careful to make sure it did not,evidence would have been presented that THERE ARE NO Agency fee payers in the Northeast Council  AND that when a UBC member refused to pay the extortion they not only took his name off the membership list the UBC shitbags also went to the members employer and DEMANDED the member be fired and removed from the job because he was no longer a member of the Union. ALL ILLEGAL under the NLRA. (Read the ZERO in the number of Agency Fee payers on the (now gone and robbed by Dirty Doug)Northeast Council LM2)ILLEGAL Kind of like when the shitbag Murphy and the NYC scumbags ignored the order of the NLRB and 2nd circuit court and continued to try and force members to switch their books to work in NYC.
So mister bought and paid for NLRB shitbag tell us how these fines(not fecking assessments)are not related to your employment opportunities.
     Sadly for Arbsfeld he thinks the matter is done and he did his job to serve not workers rights but his or perhaps somebody elses agenda.Not so skippy...Oh yes and Feck McGorty.
 

AND!! Are you saying the Federal court has issued a court order forcing  active members to perform at least seven (7) hours of union activity per year or be fined $500 and thrown out of the Union if they refuse to pay. Can you post this...Now that opens a whole new legal angle to pursue. One has to wonder why the shitbag Arbsfeld did not quote this recent case??You said "Paragraph 4 of the Consent Decree mandates that the District Council Bylaws include a provision requiring active members to perform at least seven (7) hours of union activity per year". and " In compliance with that mandate"