Thursday, October 29, 2009

Bound By Duty

This is in response to the post "Never Reveal By Word Or Deed"

By Richard Dorrough--Carpenters Local 370, Albany NY

Usually when the pro closet Union members talk about the oath, they leave out the "Unless legally authorized to do so." They stay away from that part because it shoots their attempt to silence members in the ass.

Lets discuss what the Law says your are “Legally Authorized” to do.

The UBC, in its usual pompous arrogance, had the audacity to write such a restriction because in their feeble little minds they see themselves above the US Constitution and free speech. Thanks to Fat Cat elitist International Union Officers, attempting to silence free speech in their ranks, we have court precedent already in place that holds such tripe as the UBC Oath in the same esteem as say dogs%*t!

Thank god we have judges who have laughed in the face of pompous arrogant wind bags who write such tripe. We do have the occasional local judge who is either paid for by the Unions or ran unopposed for office and went from box boy to judge who try to pander to these Union Carpetbaggers.

That is why we have the Supreme Court. They see to it that no individual little despot such as McCarron is allowed to impose regulations on any citizens that deny their rights under the US Constitution. So as a rule of thumb, as long as your speech does not compromise a specific action, you can talk about what ever the hell you want. For instance you cannot divulge the specifics of a contract in the middle of a negotiation, that would compromise that negotiation.

That’s it. End of story.

Disservice to the members. Now that’s a good one. Would you not agree that people like Forde who has been indicted, tested positive for drugs and who was in collusion with the rest of the council done a disservice to the Union.

Would you not say Mr. Spencer who has allowed this to happen as Eastern District Rep. has done a disservice to the members?

Would you not say people like Patrick Morin and his Empire Council cronies who have lost at least $33 million to Madoff and then taken substantial raises have done a disservice to the members?

New Jersey Carpenters BA Shawn Clark justified his use of a union charge card at strip clubs as business expenses. Is that a disservice to members?

Would you not say that Walter Ralph Mabry, who was the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund accepting kickbacks was a disservice to the members?

On and on and on we could go. Many UBC members are suffering under McCarron's repressive regime and self serving rules and policies. McCarron and his cronies only interest is to line their pockets with the funds of hard working rank and file members and the quest for power.

McCarron and his cronies, like Regional Director Frank Spencer, conspire to destroy the democratic rights of rank and file members and support Council puppet regimes who have again been indicted for bribery, fraud and now drugs such as Forde.

They support the destruction of working Locals by allowing Regional Councils to raid their funds and seize control of all aspects of their existence so that a duly elected Local President can be locked out of his own Union Hall at the whim of some Council crackpot and McCarron cronies.

Locals that fight to retain their autonomy are crushed as they did with Carpenters Local 229 in Glens Falls NY in 2003.

McCarron and his council puppets destroyed the local, ruined its Pension Fund and robbed its Welfare fund. They tossed members into the street to send a message to all those that opposed his council appointed cronies.

This is how the UBC and McCarron “serves the needs of its rank and file members.”

Douglas McCarron is not only blight on Unionism but an arrogant and deceitful would be dictator who has destroyed the future and prosperity of the rank and file UBC member for the sake of power and money.

HIS Power and money for HIS cronies which they bleed from the hard work and sweat of the UBC membership. Is this a disservice to the members?? If you’re so worried about the UBCs laundry perhaps it should not be so dirty.

These so called Union Brothers have gotten away with these actions for so many years and the corruption is so deep because the rank and file has failed to do its DUTY to act in the best interest of the membership.

We each have a duty to expose this corruption. We each have a duty to expose theses rats to the thing they fear the most. Publicity.

By playing the three monkeys who never hear, see or say anything the membership has failed itself. These common criminals have entrenched themselves deep in the pockets of the membership.

Our internal system has failed to police itself, as is evident by an International who has supported these criminals, refused to answer to the membership, have acted in a pompous arrogant manner towards the rank and file rights and have fleeced the paycheck of the rank and file to line their own pockets.

Is this the system you would depend on to police itself?

It has already proven itself to be such a blatant dismal failure that one can only assume it is part of the corruption.

We have a demand called “Exhaust all internal remedies.”

When thousands of members letters go unanswered, when demands for clarification on the UBC Constitution and members rights are ignored, as they were in the 157 fiasco by Spencer and the International legal beagle. When blatant attempts to steal from the membership, such as the “Blue Card” scam, are ignored by the leeches who suck per capita tax out of each and every local and when the UBC Elected Officers ignore the demands of the rank and file who they work for than we have exhausted enough.

By providing a public forum that details this corruption, John and members like him serve the membership.

This public forum provides the membership access to financial records denied them by the UBC corrupt elements even though access to the documents is a legal right.

Here in this public forum, we see the lavish lifestyle the rank and file provides to these McCarron hand picked carpetbaggers.

We see outrageous salaries and pension contributions.

We see weeks in Hollywood Florida with golf sessions and $500 a night rooms.

All this while thousands of good Union members are out of work and many more have no health care.

In this public forum, we see the nepotism that has allowed the wives, cousin’s brothers, sisters and girlfriends of these corrupt individuals in the door of the UBC to get their cut of the rank and file dollar.

We see lavish gifts and payments made to connected lawyers and accountants who bleed millions from the rank and file pay checks.

Tell me, If it were not for these so called radical members utilizing this tool called the internet WHERE would they get access to the records needed to expose this corruption?

Can they expect to follow procedure and get the information from the likes of Frank Spencer and the UBC International who has repeatedly refused to comply?

You would rather support and work to perpetuate this corruption rather than let the non Union sector have a field day with the TRUTH.

You would have the rape of membership continue rather than have the non Union sector have a field day with the TRUTH.

You however would be the first to put a blow up rat outside of a job site if a contractor defies attempts to force them and their employees to become a part of this corruption by extortion actions.

We have misguided cretins making wanted posters of non Union contractors who refuse to pay kickbacks to the Carpenters Union when the actions of Forde, McCarron and Spencer makes them look like boy scouts.

We have organizers whose new motto is “Organize or Lie” because if they had to tell the TRUTH of the realities of UBC membership they would get laughed out of the game.
        
It is sad that as a rank and file members there are those that would rather allow corruption to remain in power rather than be embarrassed by the truth.

We have elected officers who work diligently to hide the truth and run interference for common UBC criminals rather than be embarrassed by the truth.

Members have a duty to act in the best interest of the membership and expose by any means possible the corruption that is the UBC.

The message that this and other sites like it sends to the non Union sector is that we the rank and File do NOT support the corrupt elements in the UBC and are working to expose and rid ourselves of the rat bastards.

In the middle of the negative publicity that McCarrons would be dictatorship, Spencers complicity, Fordes indictment, Mabry’s kickbacks and Patrirck Morins ignorance has generated, the non Union sector and public in general can see that the working men and woman of the UBC are standing up to this corruption.

They can see that the Union rank and file are a victim of and not part of this corruption.

They can see that the rank and file is as disgusted and embarrassed by this corruption as everyone else.

That message must be sent. The world needs to look in and see for itself that the rank and file which is the true essence of Unionism is being victimized by the same criminal element in the UBC that the public has found reprehensible.

To say nothing to avoid the embarrassing TRUTH makes us a willing part of the corruption.

The oath was written as a symbol of loyalty to a brotherhood and as a symbol of allegiance to that ideal which Unionism is meant to represent.

Since that oath has been commandeered by some California pimp like Douglas McCarron who systematically has reduced the UBC to his delusional version of Unionism we are no longer bound by that oath.

Since that oath has been commandeered by arrogant pompous wind bags such as Frank Spencer who has the audacity and delusion to insist that we work for him and are here to serve at his pleasure we are no longer bound by that oath.

Since that oath has been commandeered by the likes of Patrick Morin who has destroyed the future of rank and file Pensions, Annuities and Health funds while taking raises and bonuses for himself and his fellow cub scouts we are no longer bound by that oath.

Since common criminals such as Forde and the others indicted with him, Mabry, Clark and other examples of the UBCs brightest have commandeered that oath to try to silence those that would expose them we are no longer bound by that oath.

What we are bound by is duty. That duty is not to would be dictators such as McCarron. That duty is not to pompous arrogant windbags such as Spencer. That duty is not to common criminals such as Forde and the rest. That duty is to each other. That duty is to support the rank and file. By exposing these carpetbaggers and providing a source for all members to access information, John is fulfilling that duty. Perhaps instead of chastising him you might ask how you can help.

12 comments:

  1. Bravo, Richard, Bravo! Like all corruption, it starts, or ends at the top. We need to bring all this to the public. There needs to be a light on a hill to shine for all to see. Go to the news, televise all that is wrong, and bring honor and respect to a pick-pocket organization!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1 of Many UndergroundOctober 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM

    "What we are bound by is duty... That duty is to support the rank and file" (Richard Dorrough). We fully agree. An exemplary retort. Thank you for writing this Mr. Dorrough, and thank you Mr. Musumeci for posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I want to thank Brother Richard Dorrough for his excellent commentary, I could not have said it better. I second the Bravo...Bravo Richard, Bravo!

    And I want to thank all of you that comment and support this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. very well written dicky boy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with everything you are saying save this first bit,


    "The UBC, in its usual pompous arrogance, had the audacity to write such a restriction because in their feeble little minds they see themselves above the US Constitution and free speech. Thanks to Fat Cat elitist International Union Officers, attempting to silence free speech in their ranks, we have court precedent already in place that holds such tripe as the UBC Oath in the same esteem as say dogs%*t!"

    I am curious to see the legal brief you mentioned.  I dont think the constitution protects speech in this instance.  I am almost certain that this agreement is akin to a corporate non disclosure agreement, something that does limit speech and damn sure holds up in court. 

    Besides, does it matter if its protected or not?  We know that we are doing the right thing by disseminating information.  I don't think the legality of speaking out matters, really it doesn't.  What does matter is that we do speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your "non disclosure agreement" argument would bear the same scrutiny in a legal forum. The degree of liability of the employee would be determined by the information disclosed. Even with a "non disclosure agreement" a competent judge would severely limit the ability of a corporation to force a US Citizen to sign away his rights under the US constitution as a condition of employment. Let us remember that the legal system has the same attitude towards us that Spencer and McCarron do. That attitude being we are to stupid to think for ourselves. Secondly. Despite the pimps reorganization of the UBC we are NOT a private corporation. We are a democratic body and are not liable under the same guidelines as a corporation. That is why we have the additional protection of the LMRDA and corporate employees do not.. An oath is not a non disclosure agreement. The courts do not care if you took the oath as the Grand Poo Bah of the Royal Order of the Water Buffalo's. If you tell someone about the secret handshake and the holy jockstrap the courts could care less.

    From the AUD:
    In the United States, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) protects union member's free speech very explicitly. Title I of the LMRDA protects members' free speech rights, including speech that is slanderous and even speech the member knows to be false. This includes almost any facts or information, whether obtained at a union meeting or from an LM-2 financial report. While the person on the receiving end of such speech is entitled to retain legal counsel and file a lawsuit(Defamation, Libel), the union disciplinary process is simply off-limits and may not be utilized to punish the speaker. Court decisions have extended Title I's protections to cover speech "outside the union," not just member-to-member speech, but also to protect the right of members to speak to the press, for example.

    According to union democracy attorney and AUD Board member Arthur Fox, "given that most member websites may be accessed by anyone with a computer, including employers, this protection is absolutely critical." Fox points out that Title I of the LMRDA would permit a union to adopt a very narrow or specific rule forbidding members, for example, from revealing a contract negotiation strategy to an employer that might undermine the union's collective bargaining position.
    Union democracy rights in the U.S. overlap with the protections provided by the Communications Decency Act and other internet-specific law which protects the owner of an open forum from liability for comments made by users.

    The Legality of "Speaking Out"is more important today than ever. Unions have a great fear of the internet because it is a medium to that which they fear the most. Transparency. We have recent attempts to silence free speech and close members web sites to the control of a Union."What matters is that we do speak out" True. What matters more is that you are not persecuted if you do.


    As far as listing specific court cases I will say that we will let Frankie and Dougy do their own homework. Lets at least make them work for it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "corporate employees do not" With exceptions???

    ReplyDelete
  8. Underground MemberOctober 30, 2009 at 5:35 PM

    Fight on Brothers, Fight on!

    Steward Underground

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your "non disclosure agreement" argument would bear the same scrutiny in a legal forum. The degree of liability of the employee would be determined by the information disclosed.

    Even with a "non disclosure agreement" a competent judge would severely limit the ability of a corporation to force a US Citizen to sign away his rights under the US constitution as a condition of employment.

    Let us remember that the legal system has the same attitude towards us that Spencer and McCarron do. That attitude being we are to stupid to think for ourselves.

    Secondly. Despite the pimps reorganization of the UBC we are NOT a private corporation. We are a democratic body and are not liable under the same guidelines as a corporation. That is why we have the additional protection of the LMRDA and corporate employees do not.

    An oath is not a non disclosure agreement. The courts do not care if you took the oath as the Grand Poo Bah of the Royal Order of the Water Buffalo's. If you tell someone about the secret handshake and the holy jockstrap the courts could care less.

    From the AUD:
    In the United States, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) protects union member's free speech very explicitly. Title I of the LMRDA protects members' free speech rights, including speech that is slanderous and even speech the member knows to be false.

    This includes almost any facts or information, whether obtained at a union meeting or from an LM-2 financial report. While the person on the receiving end of such speech is entitled to retain legal counsel and file a lawsuit(Defamation, Libel), the union disciplinary process is simply off-limits and may not be utilized to punish the speaker. Court decisions have extended Title I's protections to cover speech "outside the union," not just member-to-member speech, but also to protect the right of members to speak to the press, for example.

    According to union democracy attorney and AUD Board member Arthur Fox, "given that most member websites may be accessed by anyone with a computer, including employers, this protection is absolutely critical."

    Fox points out that Title I of the LMRDA would permit a union to adopt a very narrow or specific rule forbidding members, for example, from revealing a contract negotiation strategy to an employer that might undermine the union's collective bargaining position. 
    Union democracy rights in the U.S. overlap with the protections provided by the Communications Decency Act and other internet-specific law which protects the owner of an open forum from liability for comments made by users.

    The Legality of "Speaking Out" is more important today than ever.

    Unions have a great fear of the internet because it is a medium to that which they fear the most. Transparency.
    We have recent attempts to silence free speech and close members web sites to the control of a Union.

    "What matters is that we do speak out" True. What matters more is that you are not persecuted if you do.

    As far as listing specific court cases I will say that we will let Frankie and Dougy do their own homework. Lets at least make them work for it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great information, thanks for that!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Review the following Story titled:
    "Union dues: It's your money. Isn't it?"


    See URL:

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-200910300806mctnewsservbc-unions-heritage-mct1,0,3190893.story

    We Should do the same!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The author of that article is a Heritage Foundation employee.  Heritage is a partisan group responsible for getting Reagan elected and we see where that got us.  



    This article turns into an attack piece against ACORN oddly enough. 



    Then it goes on to attack EFCA.



    The article is written by a partisan from an anti union organization.  Anyway, I agree that there should be transparency, but this article isnt about transparency for our benefit.

    ReplyDelete

I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.