Free Republic

Bush did issue an executive order enforcing Beck back in 2001. A union sued to block E.O. 13201, but ultimately the Supremes upheld it. In short, the Beck poster should be hung up in the workplace where workers typically look for information about their workplace rights or communication about their jobs. The Beck poster applies to workers who have been classified under the Railway Labor Act or the National Labor Relations Act and whose employer are federal contractors.

The above link can take one to the DOL's E.O. 13201 guidelines. The Beck poster was displayed where I work for about six months. I think I must have been the only person in the building who noticed it. I believe it was taken down via employer ignorance when the Human Resources office was recently moved. Once the holidays are over, I plan to bring this issue up with my employer.

UPS drivers were on strike Monday and Tuesday of this past week. A tentative agreement has been reached, but if this one is rejected, these guys could be back out on strike in January. Don't know how true these rumors are, but if the drivers strike again, the company plans to shut down the Canadian operation. These Canadian postal workers must have been inspired by their UPS brethren.

Beck applies to non-right to work states because of union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements. If one decides to resign one's membership, one pays for activities which are germane to collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment, i.e. - representational activities. In right to work states, under the National Labor Relations Act, union security is a moot issue and no dues are paid as a condition of employment, if one chooses to be a non-member of the union. I am a Beck objector myself residing in a non-right to work state. For more information check out National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

A heads up to all those who use UPS for Canadian shipments. Just in time for the holiday shopping season. From the Teamsters-Canada website:

Teamsters Canada announced that 3800 employees of UPS across Canada will be on strike Monday, November 22 at 12:00 a.m., Eastern Time.

Subsequent to a postal vote ordered by the Teamsters Union, the 3800 employees of the parcel delivery company, United Parcel Service (UPS), have refused the offers made by the employer in the negotiation of a new collective agreement.

Complementary information will be provided on the Teamsters Canada Website as developments occur.

Linda Chavez also had a book published in June of this year on this very subject. Information on the book can be found at Stop Union Political Abuse.

The Republican-American story thread: Arrest warrant will be served, Husband made up the story, police say

Off the top of my head, I'm not exactly sure who owns the paper, but their editorial board is conservative.

I'm wondering how his wife is handling all this. No doubt, she has her hands full in Iraq, while her wacko husband makes front page news in CT with this bizarre story.

I believe you are right, as I couldn't immediately think of a motive, other than insurance fraud.

This is truly sick. My heart goes out to Sgt. Betsy Valentin.

UPS has bills in the Senate (S.1492) and the House (H. R. 2910) on this matter and seek a Congressional debate. (The text of the bills are the same.) The company wants to "partition" the multi-employer pension funds it contributes to. The assets and liabilities of the multi-employer fund would be partitioned in proportion to the amounts each employer contributes to the fund. So in effect, each contributing employer stands on their own and if they go bankrupt, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation takes over their share, while the remaining contributers remain unaffected. For the most part, UPS is tired of subsidizing the floundering and notorious Central States Pension Fund, which consists of many trucking companies that have gone bankrupt over the years, and it has acted in the past as an ATM machine for corrupt Teamster officials.

Would you know the governor's salary off hand? I was wondering that myself this morning.

Here's the article from the Waterbury paper. It also includes Rowland's statement on the issue.

The CT media is all over this story. Its on the front page of local newspapers and the lead story on the broadcast news. His credibility has taken a huge hit and it will be very difficult for him to govern over the next three years.

Although he was forthright enough to issue his own statement on the matter, it still is hypocritical, especially after suggesting mayors Giordano (R) and Ganin (D) to step down from their posts after their own corruption scandals broke. Additionally, I believe he will get little sympathy from the CT public. Guess that governor's salary isn't enough to pay for that second home on the lake.

Governor's statement lists free services

WORK: Governor issues statement listing free cottage work

Saturday, December 13, 2003

Gov. John G. Rowland's statement Friday:

In 1997, my wife and I purchased a small cottage on Bantam Lake in Litchfield. We began repairs and renovations. This work was done by me and my family, by professional contractors and subcontractors, and by friends.

In the limited, spontaneous remarks I made about the cottage and repairs, I provided information that was incorrect and incomplete. I regret doing this and I am sorry I did it. I apologize to the Capitol press corps, which deserves forthright information. But more importantly, I apologize to the citizens of Connecticut, whose trust and respect I prize above all else. I intend to keep that trust through my continued hard work over the next three years.

By releasing this statement and the attached documents, it is my intention to set the record straight. The information I am providing is based on my knowledge and information gathered by my attorneys at my direction.

Attached are documents that reflect improvements made to the cottage, our payments for that work, and bank loans we obtained to help make those payments.

As reflected in these documents, we paid over $30,000 for improvements to the cottage. On my initiative, I have voluntarily provided all of these documents to the U.S. attorney's office.

In addition to the payments identified in the documents, I did not pay for certain work and services. Specifically:

In 1997 workers affiliated with a company owned by the Delahunty family of Southington helped to install a new ceiling in the cottage. P.J. Delahunty paid these workers.

In 1999 employees of a company owned by members of the Tomasso family performed exterior work at the cottage, including work on the gutters and drainage.

In 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Larry Alibozek and Mr. and Mrs. Peter Ellef paid for the installation of heating improvements and a water heater.

Peter Ellef provided a stepping stone for the front stoop of the cottage.

Other personal friends helped perform and/or coordinate work on the cottage. They are: Jo McKenzie, Vinny DeRosa, Ed Mikenas, and Maurice Fabiani.

In 2001, Christine and Paul Corey gave me a hot tub to use at the cottage as a birthday gift.

None of the people mentioned above received any benefit from my office or the state in exchange for their assistance. Nor did they ask for any such benefit. I am sure they were trying to help my family and did not expect that their assistance might someday embarrass them or me. I am grateful for their kindness, but am sorry for any appearance of impropriety that was created.

I am continuing to cooperate with a review of the matter by the U.S. attorney's office. Therefore, I will have no further public comment on these issues.

Source: Governor's office

Additionally, I believe there is still a RICO suit pending against the Teamsters. I haven't seen any new information to date since this report from Union Corruption Update:

TEAMSTERS (IBT)
Overnite's RICO Suit Rolls On
The U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Tenn. has given a green light to Overnite Trans. Co. to proceed with a federal racketeering suit naming Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters boss James P. Hoffa and other bosses as defendants. In the suit filed last year by the Richmond, Va.-based company, Hoffa, Nat'l Freight Director Philip E. Young and other members of the IBT Exec. Bd. were named as defendants alleging a host of illegal activities, including attempted murder.

Overnite, one the nation's largest predominantly non-union carriers has been the target of an IBT job action since Oct. 1999. Less than 5% of the firm's 13,000 employees have followed IBT's call to strike the firm. The job action, which has been marked by violence, has seen judges in 14 states issue retraining orders to curb union activity.

The 225-page suit, filed in Jan. 2000 under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, alleges a pattern of racketeering activities that includes over 50 "predicate acts" of attempted murder, destroying and vandalizing company and personal property and beating and threatening non-striking Overnite employees. Under RICO, Overnite can recover treble damages and costs for injuries.

The dependents argued they should not be held responsible for the criminal activities because Overnite had failed to link them to the specific predicate acts. On Feb., 2001, the court rejected the argument noting that "RICO defendants are typically complex, hierarchical enterprises, where the offenses are perpetrated by 'underlings' at the direction of distant and removed 'bosses'."

As to Overnite's specific allegations regarding attempted murder, the court found "Firing a gun at a truck driver on the highway may support the conclusion that the person doing the firing acted with an intent to kill. Similarly, dropping a cinder block from an overpass while a truck is passing beneath at highway speed or throwing a brick or rock at a truck's windshield when it is traveling at highway speed may be found to constitute attempted murder ... "

"We will vigorously litigate the 55 attempted murder claims the court has authorized Overnite to pursue," said Overnite spokesman Ira Rosenfeld. In a section of the suit, the court departed from existing precedent under RICO in holding that the alleged criminal activities, short of attempted murder were not, in the strike context, among the racketeering activities prohibited by RICO. "The company remains confident that this limited portion of the court's ruling will be overturned on appeal," said Rosenfeld. [Overnite Trans. Co., Media Release 3/12/01]

What a sick ruling! This decision brazenly violates the U.S. Supreme Court rights established in Abood, Hudson, Beck and Lehnert for starters. This should be appealed ASAP. The assertion that the union has "no fiduciary responsibility" to its members is simply incomprehensible. If an appeal fails, Evergreen should file a suit to eliminate exclusive representation because one's free association rights are lost to the collective. Unions exist via government-granted privileges and do not meet the definition of a free association. If a unions were true voluntary associations, the political agendas would not be an issue to its members. If it is, the member can simply resign and bargain individually.

The union is too strong.

I agree and I've come to the conclusion that compulsory unionism is a lost cause. The so-called "labor peace doctrine" is a hoax. At a minumum, a national right to work law should be passed. Better still, eliminate exclusive representation, which would leave unions as true voluntary associations.

I can understand the peer pressure because I'm a Beck objector myself, even though I work in the private sector. In my case, it was one union corruption scandal too many, which forced my conscience to act. Nobody at work bothers me about this and my co-workers actually respect my position. Even my steward is chummy with me. IMO, resignations serve a a useful check on union power grabs. Having said all that however, resigning may not be the best option for everybody, given individual situations. Others may wish to work within the system to effectuate positive changes.

Yes, my wife is Union, she has to be to work there. But she is not happy about it.

Union membership is not a condition of employment in any state.