tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post995096283156529684..comments2024-03-28T03:17:03.641-04:00Comments on Local 157 blogspot: Bound By DutyJohn Musumecihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779087011271278329noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-4867392014867654922009-10-31T17:05:26.000-04:002009-10-31T17:05:26.000-04:00The author of that article is a Heritage Foundatio...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. <br /><br /><br /><br />This article turns into an attack piece against ACORN oddly enough. <br /><br /><br /><br />Then it goes on to attack EFCA.<br /><br /><br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-52617922220503860982009-10-31T12:01:32.000-04:002009-10-31T12:01:32.000-04:00Review the following Story titled:
"Union du...<b>Review the following Story titled: </b><br />"Union dues: It's your money. Isn't it?"<br /><br /><br /><b>See URL:</b><br /><br />http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-200910300806mctnewsservbc-unions-heritage-mct1,0,3190893.story<br /><br /><b>We Should do the same!</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-66778755218190821452009-10-31T09:06:03.000-04:002009-10-31T09:06:03.000-04:00Great information, thanks for that!Great information, thanks for that!Joelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-61995312447799831782009-10-31T07:56:02.000-04:002009-10-31T07:56:02.000-04:00Your "non disclosure agreement" argument...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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />From the AUD:<br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />The Legality of "Speaking Out" is more important today than ever. <br /><br />Unions have a great fear of the internet because it is a medium to that which they fear the most. Transparency. <br />We have recent attempts to silence free speech and close members web sites to the control of a Union.<br /><br />"What matters is that we do speak out" True. What matters more is that you are not persecuted if you do.<br /><br />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.Richard Dorroughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-61945004410192553572009-10-30T17:35:15.000-04:002009-10-30T17:35:15.000-04:00Fight on Brothers, Fight on!
Steward UndergroundFight on Brothers, Fight on!<br /><br /><a href="http://steward-underground-broadcasts.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20The%20Steward%20Underground" rel="nofollow">Steward Underground</a>Underground Membernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-54755009054778939762009-10-30T09:15:42.862-04:002009-10-30T09:15:42.862-04:00"corporate employees do not" With except..."corporate employees do not" With exceptions???RichardDorroughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-24011473424961377012009-10-30T09:08:06.976-04:002009-10-30T09:08:06.976-04:00Your "non disclosure agreement" argument...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.<br /><br />From the AUD:<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.RichardDorroughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-50305465405075191342009-10-29T23:27:42.000-04:002009-10-29T23:27:42.000-04:00I agree with everything you are saying save this f...I agree with everything you are saying save this first bit,<br /><br /><br /> "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!"<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Joelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-35257040119736142392009-10-29T17:25:31.000-04:002009-10-29T17:25:31.000-04:00very well written dicky boy!very well written dicky boy!carpenter in neednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-59334190975213176772009-10-29T16:54:04.000-04:002009-10-29T16:54:04.000-04:00I want to thank Brother Richard Dorrough for his e...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!<br /><br />And I want to thank all of you that comment and support this blog.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-27511041185642014972009-10-29T15:35:21.000-04:002009-10-29T15:35:21.000-04:00"What we are bound by is duty... That duty is..."What we are bound by is duty... That duty is to support the rank and file" (<strong>Richard Dorrough</strong>). We fully agree. An exemplary retort. Thank you for writing this Mr. Dorrough, and thank you Mr. Musumeci for posting it.1 of Many Undergroundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-54783080703577914032009-10-29T09:32:41.000-04:002009-10-29T09:32:41.000-04:00Bravo, Richard, Bravo! Like all corruption, it sta...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!retireenoreply@blogger.com