Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Unions deemed exempt from Identity Theft laws
39 views
Skip to first unread message
BurfordTJustice
Nov 12, 2012, 2:54:28 PM11/12/12
to
As one of 22 Right to Work states in America, North Carolina workers are not
required to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. When 33 workers
at AT&T exercised this right and resigned their membership in the
Communication Workers of America Union in 2007, they were subjected to
workplace harassment. The harassment then got worse as these workers had
their private information made public.
CWA official Judy Brown e-mailed other CWA officials a spreadsheet
containing this personal information (including social security numbers)
with instructions to "forward this information to your affected locals." CWA
Local 3602 union president John Glenn took the harassment one step further
by posting the spreadsheet on a bulletin board outside the AT&T facility in
Burlington, NC. This was in a hallway with public access, meaning that it
would have been possible for anybody to see the information and use it in
any way.
The National Labor Relations Board investigated the incident and, although
they confirmed that this information was posted, their general counsel
refused prosecute the union. To seek justice, employee Jason Fischer and 15
other employees filed a lawsuit in 2008. Represented by attorneys for the
National Right to Work Foundation, the group filed a lawsuit under North
Carolina's Identity Theft Prosecution Act to "strengthen safeguards for
personal information." Unfortunately, the both trial and appeals courts in
North Carolina ruled that unions are exempt from any penalty for their
actions, which would have been a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. They
determined that this breach of privacy was covered by the National Labor
Relations Act, allowing a federal labor law to pre-empt an unrelated state
law.
The National Right to Work Foundation appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme
Court but, earlier this month, they declined to hear the case. This
effectively gives unions carte blanche to access and disseminate private
information about employees, at least in North Carolina. "With today's
announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court has left intact a new type of ugly
union boss retaliation, allowing union officials to target workers for
identity theft even when state law clearly makes such retaliation illegal,"
said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "The Court's decision
not to correct this injustice makes a mockery of state and federal labor
laws, which purport to 'protect' workers but really protects union boss
intimidation, and now will be used to escape from state laws protecting
workers' identities across the country."
With unions losing their stranglehold on American workers, they are becoming
more desperate. Americans must stand up for freedom in the workplace and not
be cowed by intimidation, keeping judges and elected officials accountable
for their actions.
required to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. When 33 workers
at AT&T exercised this right and resigned their membership in the
Communication Workers of America Union in 2007, they were subjected to
workplace harassment. The harassment then got worse as these workers had
their private information made public.
CWA official Judy Brown e-mailed other CWA officials a spreadsheet
containing this personal information (including social security numbers)
with instructions to "forward this information to your affected locals." CWA
Local 3602 union president John Glenn took the harassment one step further
by posting the spreadsheet on a bulletin board outside the AT&T facility in
Burlington, NC. This was in a hallway with public access, meaning that it
would have been possible for anybody to see the information and use it in
any way.
The National Labor Relations Board investigated the incident and, although
they confirmed that this information was posted, their general counsel
refused prosecute the union. To seek justice, employee Jason Fischer and 15
other employees filed a lawsuit in 2008. Represented by attorneys for the
National Right to Work Foundation, the group filed a lawsuit under North
Carolina's Identity Theft Prosecution Act to "strengthen safeguards for
personal information." Unfortunately, the both trial and appeals courts in
North Carolina ruled that unions are exempt from any penalty for their
actions, which would have been a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. They
determined that this breach of privacy was covered by the National Labor
Relations Act, allowing a federal labor law to pre-empt an unrelated state
law.
The National Right to Work Foundation appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme
Court but, earlier this month, they declined to hear the case. This
effectively gives unions carte blanche to access and disseminate private
information about employees, at least in North Carolina. "With today's
announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court has left intact a new type of ugly
union boss retaliation, allowing union officials to target workers for
identity theft even when state law clearly makes such retaliation illegal,"
said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "The Court's decision
not to correct this injustice makes a mockery of state and federal labor
laws, which purport to 'protect' workers but really protects union boss
intimidation, and now will be used to escape from state laws protecting
workers' identities across the country."
With unions losing their stranglehold on American workers, they are becoming
more desperate. Americans must stand up for freedom in the workplace and not
be cowed by intimidation, keeping judges and elected officials accountable
for their actions.
Anonymous
Nov 12, 2012, 3:36:16 PM11/12/12
to
But forcing workers to attend a rally for a presidential candidate and
forfeit their salary for that day is perfectly okay, right?
forfeit their salary for that day is perfectly okay, right?
NotMe
Nov 12, 2012, 8:32:36 PM11/12/12
to
"Anonymous" <anon...@example.com> wrote in message
news:20121112...@example.com...
> But forcing workers to attend a rally for a presidential candidate and
> forfeit their salary for that day is perfectly okay, right?
And your link to this wonderious information is where?
> forfeit their salary for that day is perfectly okay, right?
Anonymous
Nov 12, 2012, 9:52:50 PM11/12/12
to
83LowRider
Nov 12, 2012, 10:38:56 PM11/12/12
to
Anonymous wrote:
> http://grist.org/news/new-romney-ad-features-miners-forced-to-attend-pro-romney-rally-without-pay/
>
> You're welcome.
So, you want to talk about 2-3 anonymous phone calls <likely from
> http://grist.org/news/new-romney-ad-features-miners-forced-to-attend-pro-romney-rally-without-pay/
>
> You're welcome.
disgruntled employees> and yet you want to ignore a signed statement
from 500 workers (of the same company) as well as a couple hundred of
them making a statement on video -- saying it never happened?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZFmHnqGZq0
The owner representative says they weren't forced.
500 employees signed off on that it didn't happen.
A couple hundred got in front of cameras and said the same thing.
But you believe 2 or 3 anonymous call-ins to a radio show?
Unreal.
NotMe
Nov 12, 2012, 10:35:10 PM11/12/12
to
news:20121113...@example.com...
> http://grist.org/news/new-romney-ad-features-miners-forced-to-attend-pro-romney-rally-without-pay/
>
> You're welcome.
Old (not) news ...
>
> You're welcome.
Ferd Berfle
Nov 13, 2012, 7:58:27 AM11/13/12
to
"83LowRider" <83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote in message
news:k7sfcn$vo5$1...@dont-email.me...
BurfordTJustice
Nov 13, 2012, 7:59:22 AM11/13/12
to
news:20121112...@example.com...
Unions deemed exempt from Identity Theft laws is the subject.
You must be a Union thug.
But forcing workers to attend a rally for a presidential candidate and
forfeit their salary for that day is perfectly okay, right?
--
forfeit their salary for that day is perfectly okay, right?
Unions deemed exempt from Identity Theft laws is the subject.
You must be a Union thug.
Anonymous
Nov 13, 2012, 9:46:34 AM11/13/12
to
Yes, we're all ganging up on you, using HAARP to look at your every move, and
we'll take away your guns and make you abort your babies with an Obama phone!
OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
we'll take away your guns and make you abort your babies with an Obama phone!
OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
BurfordTJustice
Nov 13, 2012, 10:30:29 AM11/13/12
to
news:20121113...@example.com...
--
You, are not nearly man enough to do that to Pig Squeel
let along real men...
You, are not nearly man enough to do that to Pig Squeel
let along real men...
NotMe
Nov 13, 2012, 11:35:16 AM11/13/12
to
pragmatic people sing the company song?
§ñühwö£f
Nov 13, 2012, 12:33:04 PM11/13/12
to
<nods>
--
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Message has been deleted
83LowRider
Nov 13, 2012, 4:36:07 PM11/13/12
to
NotMe wrote:
>> But you believe 2 or 3 anonymous call-ins to a radio show?
>> Unreal.
>
> It's the only employment for miles around and you're surprised when
> pragmatic people sing the company song?
So, from your statement above, we are to believe 2 or 3
>> But you believe 2 or 3 anonymous call-ins to a radio show?
>> Unreal.
>
> It's the only employment for miles around and you're surprised when
> pragmatic people sing the company song?
anonymous people over that of the company itself as
well as 500 workers? Even Judge Judy <spit> would
laugh you outta the courtroom.
Anonymous
Nov 13, 2012, 6:48:06 PM11/13/12
to
News flash: corporations lie.
§ñühwö£f
Nov 14, 2012, 11:50:42 AM11/14/12
to
Robert James wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2012; I imposed a declaration in opposition to §??hw?£f's
> motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS
> MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
> Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
> news:k7u0b3$pvp$4...@dont-email.me:
> Canadian snow birds, running past the border guards to get some L.A. beach
> and titties!
>
> <pops a snus>
>
Well...they hadda do somthin with all those FEMA trailers...
> On 13 Nov 2012; I imposed a declaration in opposition to §??hw?£f's
> motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS
> MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
> Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
> news:k7u0b3$pvp$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Anonymous wrote:
>>> Yes, we're all ganging up on you, using HAARP to look at your every
>>> move, and we'll take away your guns and make you abort your babies
>>> with an Obama phone!
>>>
>>> OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
>> Dewd! U forgot the sekrit FEMA internment camps!
>>
>> <nods>
>>
>
> Wolf! These REX-84 camps are just a way to house all them God damn illegal
>> Anonymous wrote:
>>> Yes, we're all ganging up on you, using HAARP to look at your every
>>> move, and we'll take away your guns and make you abort your babies
>>> with an Obama phone!
>>>
>>> OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
>> Dewd! U forgot the sekrit FEMA internment camps!
>>
>> <nods>
>>
>
> Canadian snow birds, running past the border guards to get some L.A. beach
> and titties!
>
> <pops a snus>
>
Well...they hadda do somthin with all those FEMA trailers...
Message has been deleted
§ñühwö£f
Nov 16, 2012, 12:15:49 PM11/16/12
to
Robert James wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2012; I imposed a declaration in opposition to §ñühwö£f's
> Kanadian varments be buying up all the good real estate; wut with the
> high Kanadian colourback dollar and 'em a loan crises!
>
I'd suggest not turning all your arable farm land into housing wot with
the GLOBAL WARMING thingy & all. As Uhmurikuh becomes hotter that "bread
basket" is gonna shift north and Canaduh will need to take up the slack.
<nods>
> On 14 Nov 2012; I imposed a declaration in opposition to §ñühwö£f's
> motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS
> MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
> Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
> news:k80i7l$v2i$3...@dont-email.me:
> MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
> Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
>
>> Robert James wrote:
>>> On 13 Nov 2012; I imposed a declaration in opposition to §??hw?£f's
>>> motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS
>>> MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
>>> Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
>>> news:k7u0b3$pvp$4...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we're all ganging up on you, using HAARP to look at your every
>>>>> move, and we'll take away your guns and make you abort your babies
>>>>> with an Obama phone!
>>>>>
>>>>> OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
>>>> Dewd! U forgot the sekrit FEMA internment camps!
>>>>
>>>> <nods>
>>>>
>>> Wolf! These REX-84 camps are just a way to house all them God damn
>>> illegal Canadian snow birds, running past the border guards to get
>>> some L.A. beach and titties!
>>>
>>> <pops a snus>
>>>
>> Well...they hadda do somthin with all those FEMA trailers...
>
> 'Em aint no trailers, boi. 'Em there are redneck homes! Those gwd dang
>> Robert James wrote:
>>> On 13 Nov 2012; I imposed a declaration in opposition to §??hw?£f's
>>> motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS
>>> MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
>>> Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
>>> news:k7u0b3$pvp$4...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we're all ganging up on you, using HAARP to look at your every
>>>>> move, and we'll take away your guns and make you abort your babies
>>>>> with an Obama phone!
>>>>>
>>>>> OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
>>>> Dewd! U forgot the sekrit FEMA internment camps!
>>>>
>>>> <nods>
>>>>
>>> Wolf! These REX-84 camps are just a way to house all them God damn
>>> illegal Canadian snow birds, running past the border guards to get
>>> some L.A. beach and titties!
>>>
>>> <pops a snus>
>>>
>> Well...they hadda do somthin with all those FEMA trailers...
>
> Kanadian varments be buying up all the good real estate; wut with the
> high Kanadian colourback dollar and 'em a loan crises!
>
I'd suggest not turning all your arable farm land into housing wot with
the GLOBAL WARMING thingy & all. As Uhmurikuh becomes hotter that "bread
basket" is gonna shift north and Canaduh will need to take up the slack.
<nods>
0 new messages