lie detector tests
lyn...@webtv.net
the test? why would you not take the test? what would be the
repercussions for refusing?
thank you,
cathy
Long Gone
news:769-396...@storefull-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> can a postal inspector force you to take the test? why would
you take
> the test? why would you not take the test? what would be the
> repercussions for refusing?
No, an employee cannot be forced to take a polygraph test.
Although the PI will certainly try to convince you that it is in
your best interest to do so. The tests are not admissible as
evidence in any criminal proceeding. However, in the eyes of the
PIs the tests are infallible and should you take one and fail
they will be convinced you are guilty.
You should not take the test. Period. There is no reason to
take one even if you are innocent. Innocent people can and do
fail the test for a variety of reasons. Guilty people can and do
pass the test. Pathological liars can pass the test because they
do not provide the reactions necessary for the test to record
them as telling an untruth.
There are no repercussions for refusing other than continued
interrogation by the PI. If you are being interviewed by the PI
you should say nothing except to ask for union representation.
The PI will not tell you that you are entitled to have your
steward present. You must demand this representation.
If you are under suspicion the PIs must read you your Miranda
rights. This is where you know that you are in trouble. You
should consider the use of a lawyer in addition to having your
union representation.
If you are simply being interviewed by the PIs as a witness then
you should still ask for union representation. However, when the
PIs do not read you the Miranda warning you have an indication
that you are not the one under suspicion. All employees (other
than the accused) must cooperate with the PIs in their
investigation. But, be smart. Do it with your union
representative present.
mail...@webtv.net
to take one, ask to speak to a lawyer or at least a union rep, before
you say anything else.
Ed the Mailman
Check out my web site:
http://www.mailman15.com
Long Gone
news:5219-396...@storefull-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> You can't be forced to take a lie detector test. But if you
were asked
> to take one, ask to speak to a lawyer or at least a union rep,
before
> you say anything else.
If asked to take a polygraph you need both but most importantly
the attorney. You will only be asked to take one if you are a
suspect. Never agree to take one and get a lawyer immediately.
The union steward will not be able to advise you on legal matters
or represent you in court.
Bryce Haning
any type. It would have to be a hat type drawing to be
legally random. That's why "random" testing is extremely
rare. Even though you have "signed this right away" and are
supposedly subject to "random testing," it was under some
type of coercion - either to become gainfully employed or
after the fact to retain your livelihood. [This was the
gist from a lawyer I consulted about just this sort of
thing] So unless they are going to test an entire non
distinct group of people, YOU ARE BEING SINGLED OUT.
--Beside asking who else is being tested;
--You have the right to know the general reason you are
being asked to take the lie detector test. [missing
equipment, etc.] You can not be tested or asked questions
in the test in any other regard - but that's really
unimportant as your attending lawyer will see to that.
--Are you currently under investigation for the incident.
Obviously you are! But this allows you the right to seek
legal consul. THEREFORE, Always refuse the test BECAUSE you
have decided to obtain legal consul and representation. BE
VERY CLEAR ON THE REPRESENTATION ASPECT and DO NOT FLATLY
REFUSE TO TAKE THE TEST - you can be fired on the spot.
SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE and that's to ANYONE!!! Get to
a lawyer, NOW! Your fellow employees, your Steward, or
anyone at you work can no longer help you AND they can be
subpoenaed against you! You have been advised you are under
investigation and even though you have not been ARRESTED,
what you say CAN be used against you. When you are
arrested, you will hear your Maranda rights.
---BE ADVISED--- When you take a Lie detector test, you
will be asked if you want legal consul or are aware legal
consul is possible or whatever. This is basic Maranda
rights and MUST BE DONE for the test results to be
admissible as evidence. Fact is, if you EVER hear some one
advise you that you may retain a lawyer for ANY PROCEEDING,
this is basic Maranda rights and YOUR CLUE TO GET A
LAWYER!!!!!!!!!!!
LAST but NOT LEAST: Lie detector tests are used SOLELY in
PROSECUTING YOU and are not helpful in your defense, even if
you pass. The court will assume you are just a very good
liar. Note that many innocent people have failed lie
detector tests mostly due to excessive nervousness, or poor
testing interpreters and procedures or misunderstanding the
queries. Also, any failure of a lie detector test will
follow you FOREVER as it was a legal proceeding and will be
permanent record!
Guilty or innocent, lie detector tests are very, very
dangerous. Good luck!
lyn...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> can a postal inspector force you to take the test? why would you take
> the test? why would you not take the test? what would be the
> repercussions for refusing?
> thank you,
> cathy
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Long Gone
news:396942E3...@firstva.com...
> There is no such thing as random testing in the workplace of
> any type. It would have to be a hat type drawing to be
> legally random. That's why "random" testing is extremely
> rare. Even though you have "signed this right away" and are
> supposedly subject to "random testing," it was under some
> type of coercion - either to become gainfully employed or
> after the fact to retain your livelihood. [This was the
> gist from a lawyer I consulted about just this sort of
> thing] So unless they are going to test an entire non
> distinct group of people, YOU ARE BEING SINGLED OUT.
Haven't we jumped to conclusions not even suggested by the
question? Also, you will have to explain when and where I signed
anything that permits them to give me a random test of any sort.
I must consent to a polygraph before they can administer it. I
must consent to a blood alcohol test before they can administer
it. I must consent to a drug test (after I am an employee)
before they can take it. If I drive a vehicle for the company I
am subject to state laws concerning testing should it be
considered a factor in an accident.
> --Beside asking who else is being tested;
> --You have the right to know the general reason you are
> being asked to take the lie detector test. [missing
> equipment, etc.] You can not be tested or asked questions
> in the test in any other regard - but that's really
> unimportant as your attending lawyer will see to that.
> --Are you currently under investigation for the incident.
> Obviously you are! But this allows you the right to seek
> legal consul. THEREFORE, Always refuse the test BECAUSE you
> have decided to obtain legal consul and representation. BE
> VERY CLEAR ON THE REPRESENTATION ASPECT and DO NOT FLATLY
> REFUSE TO TAKE THE TEST - you can be fired on the spot.
Excuse me but an employee can absolutely refuse to take the
polygraph with or without the advice of a lawyer. Should they
refuse they will not fire me. At least not for refusing it.
Should the PIs be able to prove an offense without the polygraph
they can attempt to do whatever they decide is appropriate. The
employee can and should grieve any adverse action.
> SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE and that's to ANYONE!!! Get to
> a lawyer, NOW! Your fellow employees, your Steward, or
> anyone at you work can no longer help you AND they can be
> subpoenaed against you! You have been advised you are under
> investigation and even though you have not been ARRESTED,
> what you say CAN be used against you. When you are
> arrested, you will hear your Miranda rights.
Sorry but they are obligated to read your Miranda rights to you
prior to asking any questions. You do not have to be under
arrest. The mere suspicion and asking questions obligates them
to give the warning.
> ---BE ADVISED--- When you take a Lie detector test, you
> will be asked if you want legal consul or are aware legal
> consul is possible or whatever. This is basic Miranda
> rights and MUST BE DONE for the test results to be
> admissible as evidence.
Polygraph tests are inadmissible as evidence without regard to
Miranda.
(clip)
mycr...@my-deja.com
lyn...@webtv.net wrote:
> can a postal inspector force you to take the test? why would you take
> the test? why would you not take the test? what would be the
> repercussions for refusing?
I am not really answering your question but there is no such thing as a
lie detector test. You are probably referring to a polygraph test
which is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific gizmo being foisted on
an unsophisticated populace by a group who has a vested interest in
selling the machine, their services in administering the "test", and
the lie that the results can magically be interpreted by a "highly
trained technician". I would sooner be dunked in a well as a test of
my veracity, or submit to an E-Meter evaluation by a Scientologist
auditor to identify my engrams, than to place the well-being of myself
and my family at the whim of some buffoon who actually has fallen for
this crap, or who has a sufficiently low level of integrity as to know
it for the nonsense it is but still testify to its validity. No one
should submit to this nonsense, ever, under any circumstances.
And that's no lie.
Mike
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
RugRat
mycr...@my-deja.com wrote:
What Mike is trying to say is, "NO" . . .
Inspectors can't force anyone to take a lie detector (polygraph) test . . .
Take his advice, never volunteer for one . . .
:-)
Dee
"RugRat" <rbel...@texhoma.net> wrote in message
news:396BC58D...@texhoma.net...
Or sign a LCA....just had to do that!
§:-)
mail...@webtv.net
And that's no lie. " Mike
Would you say this under a lie detector test? :)
bi...@my-deja.com
long as I know I'm innocent, I would gladly take the polygraph. If the
results say I"m guilty, they can't be used anyway and there is a 90%+
chance it will show my innocence and end the nonsense.
bring it on.......DDEATH
Long Gone
news:8kjo46$qud$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Good answer Mike, but I disagree as far as submitting to a
test. As
> long as I know I'm innocent, I would gladly take the polygraph.
If the
> results say I"m guilty, they can't be used anyway and there is
a 90%+
> chance it will show my innocence and end the nonsense.
> bring it on.......DDEATH
Which makes me ask if you have ever been interviewed by the PIs
as a suspect. Or served as a steward during such an interview.
You take the polygraph and fail it I will guarantee you endless
misery unless and until they find the person or persons
responsible. Taking a polygraph is pointless. Don't do it.
mycr...@my-deja.com
bi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Good answer Mike, but I disagree as far as submitting to a test. As
> long as I know I'm innocent, I would gladly take the polygraph. If
the
> results say I"m guilty, they can't be used anyway and there is a 90%+
> chance it will show my innocence and end the nonsense.
> bring it on.......DDEATH
The way I view it is the innocent person is the one who should object
most to submitting to this, or other types, of "tests". The false
positive polygraph or drug scan has ruined countless lives yet the
testing goes on unabated fueled by clueless bureaucrats with no regard
for the human toll being exacted. An example is the polygraph testing
currently going on at the Department of Energy. Secretary Richardson
ordered it to go forward with full knowlege that some number of
innocent lives would be ruined. He believed that the need for security
was more important than the numbers...uh, I mean people...who have
dedicated their lives to working for the American people. I mean, so
what if a couple dozen loyal civil servants are falsely accused and
their lives ruined; they are all peasants anyway, right?
I did gain a great deal of satisfaction when several high-ranking
Congresspersons demanded Richardson's resignation over the security
debacle at Los Alamos. Richardson sat there refusing to take
responsibility for his own ineptitude and claiming that the security
breaches were not his fault, thereby proving that he is not only
incompetant and a hypocrite but a coward as well. The man refused to
accept the level of responsibility he demands of his subordinates.
The guilty have nothing to lose in taking polygraph or random drug
scans as the worst that can happen to them is they be required to take
responsibilty for their actions, which everyone should do anyway. The
innocent have everything to lose because they risk being forced to take
responsibility for acts they have not committed.
I say again, never submit to one of the tests, whether you are guilty
or innocent - especially if you are innocent.
Mike
Long Gone
news:8kksk7$mkq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
(clip)
> The guilty have nothing to lose in taking polygraph or random
drug
> scans as the worst that can happen to them is they be required
to take
anyway. The
> innocent have everything to lose because they risk being forced
to take
> responsibility for acts they have not committed.
>
> I say again, never submit to one of the tests, whether you are
guilty
> or innocent - especially if you are innocent.
When you are right you are right!
Brook...@webtv.net
Dee
<Brook...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8645-396...@storefull-248.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
every time someone submits to a lie detector test they give away a right
that has been won for them. if you say it will show my innocence so why
hide, but in the same breath say if it shows i'm guilty they can't use it.
then you are really saying it's a piece of crap any way. so why use it? you
might as well let a gypsy look in a crystal ball and tell them if you're
innocent or guilty. was this alright adam k. bottom post below: Group:
alt.snail-
Bb
Adam Rule #2...turn off the HTML. You're getting there, though.
I'd never take one, on principle alone. I'm innocent until proven guilty.
I don't have to prove my innocence. Therefore, if you think I'm guilty,
knock yourself out trying to prove it. Otherwise, take a hike and leave me
alone.
Dee
bi...@my-deja.com
> as a suspect. Or served as a steward during such an interview.
> You take the polygraph and fail it I will guarantee you endless
> misery unless and until they find the person or persons
> responsible. Taking a polygraph is pointless. Don't do it.
DD RE:
Never been interviewed as a suspect by the PI's or Police. I still say
if I'm innocent, I welcome a polygraph.......DDEATH
Silverdahl
> > long as I know I'm innocent, I would gladly take the polygraph. If
> the
> > results say I"m guilty, they can't be used anyway and there is a 90%+
> > chance it will show my innocence and end the nonsense.
> > bring it on.......DDEATH
>
> most to submitting to this, or other types, of "tests". The false
> positive polygraph or drug scan has ruined countless lives yet the
> testing goes on unabated fueled by clueless bureaucrats with no regard
> for the human toll being exacted. An example is the polygraph testing
> currently going on at the Department of Energy. Secretary Richardson
> ordered it to go forward with full knowlege that some number of
> innocent lives would be ruined. He believed that the need for security
> was more important than the numbers...uh, I mean people...who have
> dedicated their lives to working for the American people. I mean, so
> what if a couple dozen loyal civil servants are falsely accused and
> their lives ruined; they are all peasants anyway, right?
>
> I did gain a great deal of satisfaction when several high-ranking
> Congresspersons demanded Richardson's resignation over the security
> debacle at Los Alamos. Richardson sat there refusing to take
> responsibility for his own ineptitude and claiming that the security
> breaches were not his fault, thereby proving that he is not only
> incompetant and a hypocrite but a coward as well. The man refused to
> accept the level of responsibility he demands of his subordinates.
>
> scans as the worst that can happen to them is they be required to take
> innocent have everything to lose because they risk being forced to take
> responsibility for acts they have not committed.
>
> I say again, never submit to one of the tests, whether you are guilty
> or innocent - especially if you are innocent.
It was better in the old days when all they did was tie your hands and feet
and toss you into the river.
If you sank you were innocent and not the witch you had been accused of
being.
mycr...@my-deja.com
"Silverdahl" <glsilv...@hot.mail.com> wrote:
> It was better in the old days when all they did was tie your hands
and feet
> and toss you into the river.
> If you sank you were innocent and not the witch you had been accused
of
> being.
See my earlier post where I stated my preference for being dunked in a
well as a test of my veracity over allowing some idiot who has never
even heard of a Wheatstone bridge circuit flexing his arcane training
muscles and making the outlandish claim that he can "tell" whether or
not I am telling the truth.
Of course it keeps getting even better. These assholes are now
attempting to add the cachet of high technology to their alchemistic
folderol. They have written programs that detect variations in blood
pressure, respiration, pulse rate, and galvanic skin response too
subtle to be noticed even by their "highly trained" polygraphers. Yes,
they analyze the wavy lines by computer now and claim there is more
validity to their scientifically and logically unfounded conclusions
due to the appliance of these, albeit questionable, assumptions simply
because they have been written into computer code! I can't wait for L.
Ron Hubbard to be awarded the patent posthumously.
Trust me when I tell you that the people who actively further this
foolishness do not enjoy the intellectual capability of dispassionate
review of their own fundamental premises; or, to paraphrase a former
high ranking official of the American Polygraph Association, if it
didn't work we wouldn't be using it.
Word up to everyone: don't take one of these tests, ever. Better to
help put this sordid chapter of ignorance and mis-applied technology
behind us once and for all. Be a part of the solution rather than a
part of the problem. An alternative would be to learn how to beat the
tests. Several training courses are available online, but they are
generally being sold by guys who used to be polygraphers and decided
there is more money in selling the rebuttal than the lie. Personally,
I wouldn't give any of them one red cent either.
Mike
Bryce Haning
Long Gone wrote:
>
> Bryce Haning <blha...@firstva.com> wrote in message
> news:396942E3...@firstva.com...
> > There is no such thing as random testing in the workplace of
> > any type. It would have to be a hat type drawing to be
> > legally random. That's why "random" testing is extremely
> > rare. Even though you have "signed this right away" and are
> > supposedly subject to "random testing," it was under some
> > type of coercion - either to become gainfully employed or
> > after the fact to retain your livelihood. [This was the
> > gist from a lawyer I consulted about just this sort of
> > thing] So unless they are going to test an entire non
> > distinct group of people, YOU ARE BEING SINGLED OUT.
>
> Haven't we jumped to conclusions not even suggested by the
> question? Also, you will have to explain when and where I signed
> anything that permits them to give me a random test of any sort.
> I must consent to a polygraph before they can administer it. I
> must consent to a blood alcohol test before they can administer
> it. I must consent to a drug test (after I am an employee)
> before they can take it. If I drive a vehicle for the company I
> am subject to state laws concerning testing should it be
> considered a factor in an accident.
Policies ARE incorporated into the USPS without your
approval or consent. They are worded such that you choice
of continuation of your employment means you have consented
to follow established USPS policies. Drug Screening,
testing, etc. are policy. Additionally, means to discover
criminal activity (lie detectors tests, search and seizure,
etc.) is policy. I was given the same non-choice in the
commercial world and was given the advice I passed along
from the lawyer I consulted.
> > --Beside asking who else is being tested;
> > --You have the right to know the general reason you are
> > being asked to take the lie detector test. [missing
> > equipment, etc.] You can not be tested or asked questions
> > in the test in any other regard - but that's really
> > unimportant as your attending lawyer will see to that.
> > --Are you currently under investigation for the incident.
> > Obviously you are! But this allows you the right to seek
> > legal consul. THEREFORE, Always refuse the test BECAUSE you
> > have decided to obtain legal consul and representation. BE
> > VERY CLEAR ON THE REPRESENTATION ASPECT and DO NOT FLATLY
> > REFUSE TO TAKE THE TEST - you can be fired on the spot.
>
> Excuse me but an employee can absolutely refuse to take the
> polygraph with or without the advice of a lawyer. Should they
> refuse they will not fire me. At least not for refusing it.
> Should the PIs be able to prove an offense without the polygraph
> they can attempt to do whatever they decide is appropriate. The
> employee can and should grieve any adverse action.
Here in VA, the State passed "right to work" laws which in
essence translate to "right to fire." Flat out refusal
(without reason) is insubordination and insinuation of
possible guilt. In the real world (Va) you could be fired
and in the USPS, it could initiate 'proceedings' against
you.
> > SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE and that's to ANYONE!!! Get to
> > a lawyer, NOW! Your fellow employees, your Steward, or
> > anyone at you work can no longer help you AND they can be
> > subpoenaed against you! You have been advised you are under
> > investigation and even though you have not been ARRESTED,
> > what you say CAN be used against you. When you are
> > arrested, you will hear your Miranda rights.
>
> Sorry but they are obligated to read your Miranda rights to you
> prior to asking any questions. You do not have to be under
> arrest. The mere suspicion and asking questions obligates them
> to give the warning.
Not true. Questions used to establish probable cause or
determine facts are asked before you are read any rights.
Conversations surrounding the questioning are also used
against you in court. Watch "Cops" and see if they read
people their rights until AFTER the arrest.
> > ---BE ADVISED--- When you take a Lie detector test, you
> > will be asked if you want legal consul or are aware legal
> > consul is possible or whatever. This is basic Miranda
> > rights and MUST BE DONE for the test results to be
> > admissible as evidence.
>
> Polygraph tests are inadmissible as evidence without regard to
> Miranda.
Failed polygraph tests are still submitted as evidence
against you if you're stupid enough to consent to one.
Passing a poly test is stated as "inconclusive" and in
court, that statement does you no favors.
I think everyone is on the same wave length and the people
posting here appear to be very wise, including yourself. I
was trying to explain exactly what a poly test does and
doesn't do for you in court. I also gave people a smart way
to answer a request for a Poly test that forces the
requester to tip their hand that you are a suspect for XX
crime. This also enforces the maranda right scenario and
the right to obtain a lawyer before you answer anymore
questions. Additionally, the statements protect you from
accusations of insubordination or flat refusal of company
policy.
Long Gone
> Long Gone wrote:
> >
> > Bryce Haning <blha...@firstva.com> wrote in message
> > news:396942E3...@firstva.com...
> > > Even though you have "signed this right away" and are
> > > supposedly subject to "random testing," it was under some
> > > type of coercion - either to become gainfully employed or
> > > after the fact to retain your livelihood
> > Haven't we jumped to conclusions not even suggested by the
> > question? Also, you will have to explain when and where I
signed
> > anything that permits them to give me a random test of any
sort.
> > I must consent to a polygraph before they can administer it.
I
> > must consent to a blood alcohol test before they can
administer
> > it. I must consent to a drug test (after I am an employee)
> > before they can take it.
> Policies ARE incorporated into the USPS without your
> approval or consent. They are worded such that you choice
> of continuation of your employment means you have consented
> to follow established USPS policies. Drug Screening,
> testing, etc. are policy. Additionally, means to discover
> criminal activity (lie detectors tests, search and seizure,
> etc.) is policy. I was given the same non-choice in the
> commercial world and was given the advice I passed along
> from the lawyer I consulted.
Indeed policies are established without my specific approval or
consent. However, they are not established in a vacuum.
Anything that changes conditions of employment, and certainly the
type testing you describe fits that category, must be coordinated
with and through the union. They are not simply implemented at
random or without protest. I think that you are mixing the
postal world with the jobs held by others in the civilian market.
The screenings you describe are common in the civilian world on
an ongoing basis. That is not true in the Postal Service. A
routine search of your locker (and all others at the same time)
is permitted in the Postal Service with a union steward present.
Obviously a criminal situation is treated differently but then
they would have to a reasonable cause for suspicion.
(clip)
> > > --Are you currently under investigation for the incident.
> > > Obviously you are! But this allows you the right to seek
> > > legal consul. THEREFORE, Always refuse the test BECAUSE
you
> > > have decided to obtain legal consul and representation. BE
> > > VERY CLEAR ON THE REPRESENTATION ASPECT and DO NOT FLATLY
> > > REFUSE TO TAKE THE TEST - you can be fired on the spot.
You will not be fired for simple refusal with or without counsel.
OTOH, if they are suggesting a polygraph you would be wise to
have counsel because they are pursuing you as a suspect.
(clip)
> Here in VA, the State passed "right to work" laws which in
> essence translate to "right to fire." Flat out refusal
> (without reason) is insubordination and insinuation of
> possible guilt. In the real world (Va) you could be fired
> and in the USPS, it could initiate 'proceedings' against
> you.
Many states have "right to work" laws. In truth that does not
equate to a "right to fire" although many people accept it as
such. Even so, a state with such laws does not give the Postal
Service the right or the ability to dismiss you except for just
cause. Which does not mean they fire you just cause they want to
do so. The national contract takes precedence over state laws in
this regard. Refusal to take a polygraph in the USPS
means nothing since the test is voluntary. You can't be forced
to take it and proceedings over not taking it will not prevail.
They will have to prove something else to take any disciplinary
action.
> > > SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE and that's to ANYONE!!! Get to
> > > a lawyer, NOW! Your fellow employees, your Steward, or
> > > anyone at you work can no longer help you AND they can be
> > > subpoenaed against you! You have been advised you are
under
> > > investigation and even though you have not been ARRESTED,
> > > what you say CAN be used against you. When you are
> > > arrested, you will hear your Miranda rights.
It is excellent advice for the employee to say nothing to anyone.
What you tell co-workers is not privileged information and they
can be subpoenaed to testify. Likewise you have no privileged
relationship with your union steward should it go to court.
There is a privileged relationship in arbitration. The only
absolute privileged relationship is with an attorney.
> > Sorry but they are obligated to read your Miranda rights to
you
> > prior to asking any questions. You do not have to be under
> > arrest. The mere suspicion and asking questions obligates
them
> > to give the warning.
>
> Not true. Questions used to establish probable cause or
> determine facts are asked before you are read any rights.
> Conversations surrounding the questioning are also used
> against you in court. Watch "Cops" and see if they read
> people their rights until AFTER the arrest.
You are mixing up where questions are asked and the intent of the
questions. Certainly if the investigator does not have a suspect
they can and do ask questions of many people. The comments I
made are based on the premise that they have singled out an
individual as their suspect. Prior to asking any questions
relating to the "event" under investigation they will give the
Miranda warning or risk losing everything in court. I certainly
hope that you are not basing your education on melodramatic
episodes presented on TV. Even the "factual" shows have a
disclaimer of editing for entertainment purposes.
(clip)
> Failed polygraph tests are still submitted as evidence
> against you if you're stupid enough to consent to one.
> Passing a poly test is stated as "inconclusive" and in
> court, that statement does you no favors.
Evidence of a polygraph (failed or passed) are not evidence. I
doubt there is a lawyer in the country that would allow evidence
of a polygraph to be entered into evidence against their client.
> I think everyone is on the same wave length and the people
> posting here appear to be very wise, including yourself. I
> was trying to explain exactly what a poly test does and
> doesn't do for you in court. I also gave people a smart way
> to answer a request for a Poly test that forces the
> requester to tip their hand that you are a suspect for XX
> crime. This also enforces the Miranda right scenario and
> the right to obtain a lawyer before you answer anymore
> questions. Additionally, the statements protect you from
> accusations of insubordination or flat refusal of company
> policy.
Following your approach would work. Unfortunately, most people
involved in an investigative situation do not the ability to
recall everything necessary to follow it. But everyone has the
ability to say "NO" when asked to submit to the polygraph. All
they need to know is that one word and that the refusal can't be
used against them as being insubordinate. To ease your mind on
the insubordination issue, the PIs do not demand that you take a
polygraph. They simply ask you to do it and continue to "advise"
you that it is a way for you to clear yourself. They never order
you to do it. I have been a party (representative, not suspect -
LOL) to more PI investigations (one is too many) than I care to
have experienced. They don't beat anybody with a rubber hose.
They are far more sophisticated than that. Finally, I will tell
you that each and every time they brought the suspect in the
first thing they did is read them their Miranda rights before
asking the first question. Nice guys that they are they even now
and then have asked the individual if they wanted the union
present but that doesn't happen all the time.
Bryce Haning
You are absolutely correct in all your statements.
Sometimes I forget I was just a contractor and many things I
held as truths are slightly different to those of you who
have the union voice. Of course there are many Postal
Contractors out there too! I especially like your
statement, "They simply ask you to do it and continue to
"advise" you that it is a way for you to clear yourself.
They never order you to do it." That's truly a 'golden
rule' statement and should be emphasized that the test
results simply DO NOT clear you!!!
Adam H. Kerman
>Bryce Haning <blha...@firstva.com> wrote:
>>Here in VA, the State passed "right to work" laws which in essence translate
>>to "right to fire." Flat out refusal (without reason) is insubordination
>>and insinuation of possible guilt. In the real world (Va) you could be
>>fired and in the USPS, it could initiate 'proceedings' against you.
>Many states have "right to work" laws. In truth that does not equate to a
>"right to fire" although many people accept it as such.
Long is correct. Bryce, you are confusing two different concepts. You are
thinking of "employment at will". Illinois is such a state. It means that an
employee has no recourse from being fired for an arbitrary reason unless he can
demonstrate that his rights in a personal service contract, a union contract,
or as defined in specific state or federal law were violated.
"Right to work" is a euphemism in the constitutions of several states (mainly
in the South) that prohibit employees from collectively bargaining for closed
or union shops. They can only form a union in an open shop environment.
>Even so, a state with such laws does not give the Postal Service the right
>or the ability to dismiss you except for just cause.
This is because states may not regulate the terms of federal employment in
any way at all. In fact, the states cannot even give the post office the
"right" to fire a worker for just cause or any reason at all.
Long Gone
news:EK3e5.70612$dF.26...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
(clip)
> Long is correct. Bryce, you are confusing two different
concepts. You are
> thinking of "employment at will". Illinois is such a state. It
means that an
> employee has no recourse from being fired for an arbitrary
reason unless he can
> demonstrate that his rights in a personal service contract, a
union contract,
> or as defined in specific state or federal law were violated.
>
> "Right to work" is a euphemism in the constitutions of several
states (mainly
> in the South) that prohibit employees from collectively
bargaining for closed
> or union shops. They can only form a union in an open shop
environment.
Am I ever impressed. After all this lengthy absence you finally
surface. Where you been and why so long? Thanks for the add on.
Interestingly from what I have heard, there is more unionism in
open shop states than there is in closed shop states. Don't know
if the reason is because it might be harder to get a union shop
going when everyone knows they will have to join or not. But for
sure there are many union members in open shop states.
Robert DeSavage
<not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>news:DKqe5.73509$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
>(clip)
>> I've been here, but lurking as I haven't had much to contribute
>to many of the
>> active threads. If I'm absent from the group, I have to notify
>you, but not if
>> I'm lurking. I fell a little behind reading News.
>
>I think you have established a loop hole that must be closed. In
>my initial post on the topic months ago, I accused you of being
>AWOP. Lurking and absence are essentially one and the same. I
>see no difference between the two. So in the future you must
>request to be absent or post a notice of intent to lurk. ~g~
>
Hate to say, but we don't have enough bodies to spare. Too many on
vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face
suspension.
-
Hell was the brainchild of Dee's toaster
Adam H. Kerman
>After all this lengthy absence you finally surface.
I've been here, but lurking as I haven't had much to contribute to many of the
active threads. If I'm absent from the group, I have to notify you, but not if
I'm lurking. I fell a little behind reading News.
>Interestingly from what I have heard, there is more unionism in
>open shop states than there is in closed shop states.
I read that if not for the outbreak of WWII, union organizers would have next
targeted the southern states. But in the immediate post-war era, constitutions
of southern states were amended and, of course, Congress passed Taft-Hartley
which weakened the NLRB, among other things.
Long Gone
news:DKqe5.73509$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
(clip)
to many of the
> active threads. If I'm absent from the group, I have to notify
you, but not if
> I'm lurking. I fell a little behind reading News.
I think you have established a loop hole that must be closed. In
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>I've been here, but lurking as I haven't had much to contribute to many
>>of the active threads. If I'm absent from the group, I have to notify you,
>>but not if I'm lurking.
>I think you have established a loop hole that must be closed. In
>my initial post on the topic months ago, I accused you of being
>AWOP. Lurking and absence are essentially one and the same. I
>see no difference between the two. So in the future you must
>request to be absent or post a notice of intent to lurk. ~g~
Grievance filed.
wharfrat
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:v7re5.73516$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
And denied. Long's addition of notice of intent to lurk is an excellent
rule. Otherwise, you could be gone for whatever time frame you wanted and
then come back with "I was lurking". Won't fly. LOL
Long Gone
Robert DeSavage <alle...@rcn.moc> wrote in message
news:65mkns4kolloi5vk8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:33:25 GMT, "Long Gone"
>
> >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
> >news:DKqe5.73509$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> >(clip)
contribute
> >to many of the
> >> active threads. If I'm absent from the group, I have to
notify
> >you, but not if
> >
In
> >my initial post on the topic months ago, I accused you of
being
> >AWOP. Lurking and absence are essentially one and the same.
I
> >see no difference between the two. So in the future you must
> >request to be absent or post a notice of intent to lurk. ~g~
> >
on
> vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face
> suspension.
The arbitrators, being teetotalers (never drink Clorox), have
spoken. There will be no suspensions. Posting is mandatory
without prior approved absences. No LCA concerning this matter.
~g~
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Long Gone wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>I've been here, but lurking as I haven't had much to contribute to many
>>>>of the active threads. If I'm absent from the group, I have to notify you,
>>>>but not if I'm lurking.
>>>I think you have established a loop hole that must be closed. In my initial
>>>post on the topic months ago, I accused you of being AWOP. Lurking and
>>>absence are essentially one and the same. I see no difference between
>>>the two. So in the future you must request to be absent or post a notice
>>>of intent to lurk. ~g~
>>Grievance filed.
>And denied. Long's addition of notice of intent to lurk is an excellent
>rule. Otherwise, you could be gone for whatever time frame you wanted and
>then come back with "I was lurking". Won't fly. LOL
I'm taking it to Step 2, and I must insist on representation. I want
Ed the Mailman; as a New Yorker, he won't mince words.
There's a principal involved. I don't post "keep alive" messages. Hell,
El Lippo says I'm long winded when I have something to say. Think how much I
could post if I had NOTHING to say.
Lurking on News is logged, anyway, whether I post or not. I could prove it
if need be.
Adam H. Kerman
>Hate to say, but we don't have enough bodies to spare. Too many on
>vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face suspension.
Sorry; that's been arbitrated. Can't be forced to remain on News beyond the
Penalty Overtime period.
We are just going to have to increase the number of participants in this
newsgroup or enjoyment will suffer.
Robert DeSavage
That's OK Adam. Somehow, despite all the words, you manage to make
sense.
>
>Lurking on News is logged, anyway, whether I post or not. I could prove it
>if need be.
Adam, this is NOT the USPS. Here we take things at face value. All we
need is your word, a handshake, and a lot of groveling to be granted
time off.
Long Gone
news:HYte5.73589$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
I thought that was "during" the Penalty Overtime period.
Otherwise you are correct about the participants. We need new
blood but we could use some of the old blood to return. ~g~
wharfrat
Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote in message
news:hECe5.4889$AC2.6...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
huge volume of mail on their lists and the groups at Delphi, MSN, etc. they
don't have the time.
But there are probably a lot more lurkers here than we think. Ran into one
about a month ago. Post by one of the regulars on the A's NG had a link to
her web site. Went there, page is hysterical but at the bottom is a link to
us. Emailed her about it. Said she lurked, as she gets a lot of info she
needs from us about postal regs. that she needs. Said she didn't know a lot
about the USPS or postal regs but did know that the only thing hotter than
hell was Dee's toaster. Flat out cracked me up!
Dee
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:HYte5.73589$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> Robert DeSavage <alle...@rcn.moc> wrote:
>
> >Hate to say, but we don't have enough bodies to spare. Too many on
> >vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face
suspension.
>
> Sorry; that's been arbitrated. Can't be forced to remain on News beyond
the
> Penalty Overtime period.
>
> We are just going to have to increase the number of participants in this
> newsgroup or enjoyment will suffer.
If you are a regular then any absence must be recorded and approved. That
way we can alert the part-timers so they can fill in during your absence.
Additionally, unscheduled absences puts more pressure on those in
attendance, and the quality of posting goes down. The work force here can
always use more bodies, but that doesn't excuse you from your obligations to
your fellow workers who depend upon you. Your grievance at Step 2 and 3 has
been denied. Would you like to go into arbitration against Toasterwoman?
Dee
"wharfrat" <whar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:m2He5.36108$V34.3...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote in message
> news:hECe5.4889$AC2.6...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > news:HYte5.73589$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > > Robert DeSavage <alle...@rcn.moc> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hate to say, but we don't have enough bodies to spare. Too
> > many on
> > > >vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face
> > suspension.
> > >
> > > Sorry; that's been arbitrated. Can't be forced to remain on
> > News beyond the
> > > Penalty Overtime period.
> > >
> > > We are just going to have to increase the number of
> > participants in this
> > > newsgroup or enjoyment will suffer.
> >
> > Otherwise you are correct about the participants. We need new
> > blood but we could use some of the old blood to return. ~g~
> >
> I've been trying to recruit, get a few rurals over here but think with the
> huge volume of mail on their lists and the groups at Delphi, MSN, etc.
they
> don't have the time.
>
> But there are probably a lot more lurkers here than we think. Ran into one
> about a month ago. Post by one of the regulars on the A's NG had a link to
> her web site. Went there, page is hysterical but at the bottom is a link
to
> us. Emailed her about it. Said she lurked, as she gets a lot of info she
> needs from us about postal regs. that she needs. Said she didn't know a
lot
> about the USPS or postal regs but did know that the only thing hotter than
> hell was Dee's toaster. Flat out cracked me up!
>
Long Gone
> Said she lurked, as she gets a lot of info she
> needs from us about postal regs. that she needs. Said she
didn't know a lot
> about the USPS or postal regs but did know that the only thing
hotter than
> hell was Dee's toaster. Flat out cracked me up!
Sounds as if she is as qualified as most to post here. Knowledge
of how we operate and the regulations we are required to follow
is not a pre-requisite. LOL ~g~
wharfrat
anything is a requirement.
wharfrat
Dee <ddwe...@cybercomm.net> wrote in message
news:8lghkr$tmh$4...@ostrich.cybercomm.net...
>
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
> news:HYte5.73589$dF.27...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > Robert DeSavage <alle...@rcn.moc> wrote:
> >
> > >Hate to say, but we don't have enough bodies to spare. Too many on
> > >vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face
> suspension.
> >
> > Sorry; that's been arbitrated. Can't be forced to remain on News beyond
> the
> > Penalty Overtime period.
> >
> > We are just going to have to increase the number of participants in this
> > newsgroup or enjoyment will suffer.
>
> way we can alert the part-timers so they can fill in during your absence.
> Additionally, unscheduled absences puts more pressure on those in
> attendance, and the quality of posting goes down. The work force here can
> always use more bodies, but that doesn't excuse you from your obligations
to
> your fellow workers who depend upon you. Your grievance at Step 2 and 3
has
> been denied. Would you like to go into arbitration against Toasterwoman?
>
Long Gone
(clip)
> With the some of the stuff we see here, I don't know if
knowledge of
> anything is a requirement.
The ability to type (even if only with one finger) and knowing to
never top post. Other than that, you got it. ~g~
Adam H. Kerman
>Dee <dwe...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>>>>Hate to say, but we don't have enough bodies to spare. Too many on
>>>>vacation and out sick. Adam must do mandatory posting or face suspension.
>>>Sorry; that's been arbitrated. Can't be forced to remain on News beyond the
>>>Penalty Overtime period.
>>>We are just going to have to increase the number of participants in this
>>>newsgroup or enjoyment will suffer.
>>If you are a regular then any absence must be recorded and approved. That
>>way we can alert the part-timers so they can fill in during your absence.
>>Additionally, unscheduled absences puts more pressure on those in
>>attendance, and the quality of posting goes down. The work force here can
>>always use more bodies, but that doesn't excuse you from your obligations to
>>your fellow workers who depend upon you. Your grievance at Step 2 and 3 has
>>been denied. Would you like to go into arbitration against Toasterwoman?
>With Long and me on the board, he doesn't have a chance.
I am writing up each of the regulars on this newsgroup; there has been an
unauthorized fall off in posting! I know you haven't been lurking, as there's
been nothing to read!
Robert DeSavage
<a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
Now Adam ... retirees are not subject to the same rules. If you need
something to read, go down to the store and buy an X rated postal
manual. I hear there is a sexy LCA this month.
-
Dee's toaster was the master plan for Hell
Long Gone
news:wTji5.131279$dF.36...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
(clip)
> I am writing up each of the regulars on this newsgroup; there
has been an
> unauthorized fall off in posting! I know you haven't been
lurking, as there's
> been nothing to read!
but as you point out there isn't much here for past few days. I
notice that RR posted once upon return from convention. Suspect
that some of the regulars are at the NALC convention. But don't
believe El Presidente. I have yet to see a postal manual with a
centerfold. Lot of fold outs though. ~g~
Adam H. Kerman
>I notice that RR posted once upon return from convention. Suspect that
>some of the regulars are at the NALC convention.
They had better come back and post some good gossip! Not to mention full
details of the new representation of rural carriers!
Don't you clerks ever go to a convention?
wharfrat
Convention that RR just came back from was the APWU convention. I went to 2,
the one if Vegas and the one in SF. As far as the NALC and the rurls go, the
NALC passed a resolution tonite that basically said that if the NLRCA
doesn't democratize and vote to join the NALC, that the NALC would work to
decertify them:
The delegates to the 62nd Biennial NALC National Convention in Chicago,
Illinois have taken the following action on the General Resolutions 1 thru
18:
1. Withdrawn
2. Withdrawn
3. NRLCA: NALC to assist in decertification
Resolved: That if all NRLCA members fail to democratize their
union at their summer 2000 national convention and ask to join the NALC,
the NALC on the branch, state and national level assist in whatever way
possible the process of decertification of the NRLCA in favor of the NALC
to represent rural carriers. APPROVED
NLRCA convention is next week. Be very interesting to see what occurs. One
thing that we may all learn is how much the net is integrated into society
at the present. At times, I think we overestimate it. The rural delegates
who are online are virtually unamimous in voting out Steve Smith as Prez, in
fact I haven't seen one come out for him. If he survives, which I think is a
good poosibility, we have a better idea of how much influence we onliners
have at the moment. I bring this up since the online rurals were about 80-20
against the contract extension and it passed in spite of their vigerous
campaigning.
Adam, I make up in quality what I lack in quantity. LOL
Adam H. Kerman
>>>I notice that RR posted once upon return from convention. Suspect that
>>>some of the regulars are at the NALC convention.
>>They had better come back and post some good gossip! Not to mention full
>>details of the new representation of rural carriers!
>>Don't you clerks ever go to a convention?
>Convention that RR just came back from was the APWU convention.
Aargh! Rug, I owe you a huge apology for implying you were a carrier.
>3. NRLCA: NALC to assist in decertification
> Resolved: That if all NRLCA members fail to democratize their
>union at their summer 2000 national convention and ask to join the NALC,
>the NALC on the branch, state and national level assist in whatever way
>possible the process of decertification of the NRLCA in favor of the NALC
>to represent rural carriers. APPROVED
That's very interesting. Too lazy to look it up in the Taft-Hartley Act, but
how long must rural carriers wait after decertification and voting in new
representation?
Will the rural union still exist for the purpose of handling grievances after
decertification and until the city carrier's union negotiates the first
contract on behalf of the rurals? Else, what do the rural carriers do in the
interim?
>NLRCA convention is next week. Be very interesting to see what occurs. One
>thing that we may all learn is how much the net is integrated into society
>at the present. At times, I think we overestimate it. The rural delegates
>who are online are virtually unamimous in voting out Steve Smith as Prez, in
>fact I haven't seen one come out for him. If he survives, which I think is a
>good poosibility, we have a better idea of how much influence we onliners
>have at the moment. I bring this up since the online rurals were about 80-20
>against the contract extension and it passed in spite of their vigerous
>campaigning.
That's an interesting point. What with state-of-the-art telephone switches
in a great many small towns, rural carriers haven't been isolated from the
Internet. As their union is unresponsive, they may be motivated enough to
reach out to each other through mailing lists.
So, you are guessing that if Smith survives, he'd favor decertification?
Would the networked rural carriers prefer true union democracy over
decertification?
>Adam, I make up in quality what I lack in quantity. LOL
This was quite an interesting post.
Long Gone
news:0Eri5.131839$dF.37...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> Long Gone wrote:
>
> >I notice that RR posted once upon return from convention.
Suspect that
> >some of the regulars are at the NALC convention.
>
> They had better come back and post some good gossip! Not to
mention full
> details of the new representation of rural carriers!
>
> Don't you clerks ever go to a convention?
Obviously you did a poor job of lurking last week. Clerks were
in convention last week. I posted that the RR leadership was
discussing merger with the APWU. Suppose they could also discuss
it with NALC but I haven't heard that as happening at this point.
~g~
Long Gone
(clip)
> Convention that RR just came back from was the APWU convention.
> the one if Vegas and the one in SF. As far as the NALC and the
rurls go, the
> NALC passed a resolution tonite that basically said that if the
NLRCA
> doesn't democratize and vote to join the NALC, that the NALC
would work to
> decertify them:
You had to love the one in San Francisco. Much to do and easy to
navigate around the city on the trolley. Vegas is always a
party.
I think the Rural Carrier issue is going to be a major issue for
all postal unions. I worry that the resolution they passed is
self serving and not in the interests of all parties. That the
rurals have problems is a known fact. But for one union to pass
an agenda that attacks another union is pretty sad. It is
reminiscent of the arbitration hearings where the NALC played on
the back of the APWU to gain their victory. We are all in this
together and should be working together not against each other.
Robert DeSavage
<not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>news:wTji5.131279$dF.36...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
>(clip)
>> I am writing up each of the regulars on this newsgroup; there
>has been an
>> unauthorized fall off in posting! I know you haven't been
>lurking, as there's
>> been nothing to read!
>I noticed the lack of activity myself. Still I have been lurking
>but as you point out there isn't much here for past few days. I
>notice that RR posted once upon return from convention. Suspect
>that some of the regulars are at the NALC convention. But don't
>believe El Presidente. I have yet to see a postal manual with a
>centerfold. Lot of fold outs though. ~g~
>
You're looking in the wrong place LG. They're kept under the counter
next to the Loony Tunes Neckties and USPS condoms (available in two
strengths - Express and Bulk Rate). 8-|
wharfrat
> whar...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >3. NRLCA: NALC to assist in decertification
> > Resolved: That if all NRLCA members fail to democratize their
> >union at their summer 2000 national convention and ask to join the NALC,
> >the NALC on the branch, state and national level assist in whatever way
> >possible the process of decertification of the NRLCA in favor of the NALC
> >to represent rural carriers. APPROVED
>
> That's very interesting. Too lazy to look it up in the Taft-Hartley Act,
but
> how long must rural carriers wait after decertification and voting in new
> representation?
If there is a straight decertification vote and it passes, rural will be
without a union for a year, cannot have another vote until then. However,
they could combine the decertification vote, with options-merge with NALC,
merge with APWU, or form another union. Similiar to what the baseball
umpires did last year when they deciertified their union and formed another
one,
>
> Will the rural union still exist for the purpose of handling grievances
after
> decertification and until the city carrier's union negotiates the first
> contract on behalf of the rurals? Else, what do the rural carriers do in
the
> interim?
Good question. From what I've read if there is a straight decerfication
vote, rurals will be totally at the discretion of the USPS until a new unio
is certified. There contract, like the APWU and the Mail Handlers, expires
on November 20th.
>
> >NLRCA convention is next week. Be very interesting to see what occurs.
One
> >thing that we may all learn is how much the net is integrated into
society
> >at the present. At times, I think we overestimate it. The rural delegates
> >who are online are virtually unamimous in voting out Steve Smith as Prez,
in
> >fact I haven't seen one come out for him. If he survives, which I think
is a
> >good poosibility, we have a better idea of how much influence we onliners
> >have at the moment. I bring this up since the online rurals were about
80-20
> >against the contract extension and it passed in spite of their vigerous
> >campaigning.
>
> That's an interesting point. What with state-of-the-art telephone switches
> in a great many small towns, rural carriers haven't been isolated from the
> Internet. As their union is unresponsive, they may be motivated enough to
> reach out to each other through mailing lists.
>
> So, you are guessing that if Smith survives, he'd favor decertification?
Hell no. Stevie wants what he has now, his own little feudal kingdom. If
they decertify, he's gone. Think about how bad it would have to be for a
union to decertify and go without representation for a year. Not going to
happen. Merger with APWU is the smokescreen he's using to keep his position.
>
> Would the networked rural carriers prefer true union democracy over
> decertification?
Absolutely! Their major empasis is on One member, One vote. Unfortunately
national doesn't support this, and it can only be changed by a 2/3 vote at
the convention-not by a vote of the entire membership. The online carriers
want OM/OV and their own distinct union.
>
> >Adam, I make up in quality what I lack in quantity. LOL
>
> This was quite an interesting post.
Is my LOW rescinded? LMAO!
Dee
> Long Gone wrote:
>
> >I notice that RR posted once upon return from convention. Suspect that
> >some of the regulars are at the NALC convention.
>
> details of the new representation of rural carriers!
>
> Don't you clerks ever go to a convention?
If we went, things would really fall apart here. Someone has to stay behind
and look after things.
§:-)
Robert DeSavage
<not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>news:gSKi5.133488$dF.37...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
>> whar...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Is my LOW rescinded? LMAO!
>>
>> Sure; what the hell. I've got three from Long, and one from Ed.
>
>Now you are sounding just like El Presidente. You have a long
>way to go before you can wallpaper the house. ~g~
>
I'll have you know that I had my very own LOW file on the office
computer (which is now on exhibit in the Postal Museum in Washington).
All they had to do was fill in the date(s) that I banged in, and hit
the print button. Instead of it being placed in an envelope, it was
handed to me rolled up. They dissed me though when I requested that
the letter be washable vinyl and the back pre-pasted. Spoil sports!
wharfrat
> wharfrat <whar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Wcti5.72853$V34.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> (clip)
> > Convention that RR just came back from was the APWU convention.
> I went to 2,
> > the one if Vegas and the one in SF. As far as the NALC and the
> rurls go, the
> > NALC passed a resolution tonite that basically said that if the
> NLRCA
> > doesn't democratize and vote to join the NALC, that the NALC
> would work to
> > decertify them:
>
> You had to love the one in San Francisco. Much to do and easy to
> navigate around the city on the trolley. Vegas is always a
> party.
The one in SF was great. Could take BART and be in my own bed every night.
Vegas in the summer was just too damn hot. Went out one night to get some
fresh air at 2 AM, was still 102 degrees.
> I think the Rural Carrier issue is going to be a major issue for
> all postal unions. I worry that the resolution they passed is
> self serving and not in the interests of all parties. That the
> rurals have problems is a known fact. But for one union to pass
> an agenda that attacks another union is pretty sad. It is
> reminiscent of the arbitration hearings where the NALC played on
> the back of the APWU to gain their victory. We are all in this
> together and should be working together not against each other.
>
I think the NALC wants the rural territory for themselves. Merger,
decertification issues aside, I think that it is imperative that the 3
unions whose contracts expire in November negotiate together. We know
barring some unforseen happening that APWU will be going to arbitration.If
either of the other 2 unions agree to a contract, odds are is that is what
the arbitrator will award.
Adam H. Kerman
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Don't you clerks ever go to a convention?
>If we went, things would really fall apart here. Someone has to stay behind
>and look after things.
Heh.
Long Gone
(clip)
> Hell no. Stevie wants what he has now, his own little feudal
kingdom. If
> they decertify, he's gone. Think about how bad it would have to
be for a
> union to decertify and go without representation for a year.
Not going to
> happen. Merger with APWU is the smokescreen he's using to keep
his position.
Smokescreen or not, there really are only two viable options for
them. One would be to pass language at the convention making it
one person, one vote. That could be done if everyone bands
together. The leadership can't have that much control if enough
interest is generated. The other would be to merge with another
union. Logically that is the APWU or NALC either of which
provide a far more democratic process. Eventually all the unions
need to consider merging into one union if we are to survive into
the future.
Long Gone
news:gSKi5.133488$dF.37...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> whar...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >Is my LOW rescinded? LMAO!
>
> Sure; what the hell. I've got three from Long, and one from Ed.
Now you are sounding just like El Presidente. You have a long
Long Gone
(clip)
> I think the NALC wants the rural territory for themselves.
Merger,
> decertification issues aside, I think that it is imperative
that the 3
> unions whose contracts expire in November negotiate together.
We know
> barring some unforseen happening that APWU will be going to
arbitration.If
> either of the other 2 unions agree to a contract, odds are is
that is what
> the arbitrator will award.
102 at 2 in the morning in Vegas is normal. But 99 at midnight
in Chicago is not.
Anyway, let us hope that the leadership in all the unions
recognizes the inherent pitfalls this year. I was under the
impression that the NALC contract didn't expire this year. At
any rate, we have had far too many "me too" contracts and the
arbitrators do look at what the other unions are willing to
settle for.
Long Gone
(clip)
> If we went, things would really fall apart here. Someone has
to stay behind
> and look after things.
True and looking before things ain't bad either. ~g~
Adam H. Kerman
>102 at 2 in the morning in Vegas is normal. But 99 at midnight
>in Chicago is not.
Where are you getting your weather forcasts? The summer has been unusually
cool, most nights in the 60's, and several in the 50's. We haven't yet had
a single high above 90. Highs in the high 70s has been very common.
You city carriers all had Al Gore kissing up yesterday. Didn't that make it
all worthwhile?
Long Gone
> Long Gone wrote:
>
> >102 at 2 in the morning in Vegas is normal. But 99 at
midnight
> >in Chicago is not.
>
been unusually
> cool, most nights in the 60's, and several in the 50's. We
haven't yet had
> a single high above 90. Highs in the high 70s has been very
common.
>
> You city carriers all had Al Gore kissing up yesterday. Didn't
that make it
> all worthwhile?
Sorry, I forgot to make the time reference. Wharf and I were
exchanging memories of past conventions. I think the APWU
convention in Chicago was like back in 1990. Not sure of the
exact year. Just remember that it was hotter than Hell (think
that is in Michigan) the year I was there. ~g~
Dee
> Sorry, I forgot to make the time reference. Wharf and I were
> exchanging memories of past conventions. I think the APWU
> convention in Chicago was like back in 1990. Not sure of the
> exact year. Just remember that it was hotter than Hell (think
> that is in Michigan) the year I was there. ~g~
>
Dee
Dee
offered it was turned down. It's important to some, but not all. I agree
about the one onion, but do you think the likes of Vinnie would give up his
seat of power or even want to share it? I think the problem of banding
together would face greater opposition from our officers than the members.
What doest thou thinkist?
§:-)
Long Gone
(clip)
> They never seem to go for the one person, one vote deal. When
it was
> offered it was turned down. It's important to some, but not
all. I agree
> about the one onion, but do you think the likes of Vinnie would
give up his
> seat of power or even want to share it? I think the problem of
banding
> together would face greater opposition from our officers than
the members.
> What doest thou thinkist?
There will never be one union as long as the old school remains
in power. The APWU gets rid of Moe this year. Maybe the NALC
sheds Vinnie in the near future. Then there can be real
constructive talks of one union. IMHO, the demise of the Joint
Bargaining Committee was the result of the super ego of one or
both of them. The split of bargaining capability has been
destructive ever since.
I don't think opposition to one union will be that great in the
near term. However, should the APWU or NALC have an entrenched
officer down the road it will become more difficult because they
don't want to risk not being numero uno. Other than the
leadership, there is no threat to anyone should there only be one
union. In fact, there truly is strength in numbers. I can think
of no logical argument against merger of the APWU and NALC other
than those that might be raised by incumbent officers.
Long Gone
> > (clip)
> > > If we went, things would really fall apart here. Someone
has
> > to stay behind
> > > and look after things.
> >
> > True and looking before things ain't bad either. ~g~
> >
> Good thing, too, because I just LMAO 8-))
Strange, most people have to go to Las Vegas to experience that.
Well maybe not. I guess they only lose theirs. ~g~
Long Gone
I will resist temptation yet again. ~g~
mail...@webtv.net
an agenda that attacks another union is pretty sad. It is reminiscent of
the arbitration hearings where the NALC played on the back of the APWU
to gain their victory.
That the Rurals are getting the shaft from their own Union is a REAL
SHAME. That one Union would try to help the members of another Union is
commendable. And I think we went over this before; the NALC didn't get
ANYTHING on the BACKS of ANYONE but the LETTER CARRIERS. The NALC said
WE work harder. NOT harder than ANYONE ELSE. Just harder than WE use
to. We show them why and we won.
Don't blame the NALC because they got something for their membership.
Ask the APWU why they didn't.
Ed the Mailman
Check out my web site:
http://www.mailman15.com
Long Gone
news:26724-39...@storefull-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Let me begin by saying that in no way, shape, form or fashion do
I begrudge the carriers what was obtained in arbitration. I
don't know that I would go so far as saying the carriers "won"
when all is said and done. Having said that, all it takes is a
reading of the arguments presented in arbitration to understand
that the carriers did in fact present a case built on alleged
disparity between clerk and carrier jobs. The carriers said that
it was no longer appropriate to continue the equality (that began
many long years ago) of clerks and carriers receiving equal pay.
True enough the carriers used other arguments but that does not
diminish the pitting of craft against craft comparison. All jobs
in the Postal Service are much more demanding than they were
years ago. The knowledge required in many clerk jobs has
increased ten fold over the years. The carrier jobs have not
increased significantly in knowledge over the same period. For
carriers the only significant change has been the introduction of
additional bundles. The use of scanners is a technological
improvement but hardly calls for more knowledge. Carriers being
out in the heat hasn't changed since day one. Simple
environmental exposure and concerns do not warrant additional
money. Were that so then ditch diggers and garbage collectors
would be among the highest paid workers. Motor vehicle,
custodians, maintenance and clerks all have jobs that require
them to work in temperatures equal to or in excess of those
experienced by carriers. Even within the carrier craft not all
carriers experience the same "intolerable" conditions (not
totally germane, only a comment since the same applies to all
crafts).
At this time I will not add to my original comment concerning the
NALCs approach to the rural situation.
Anyway, I am not trying to promote a fight between crafts. I
think it will all balance out in the long run. Certainly I see
arbitration in the APWU future because the company isn't about to
yield on the wage issue voluntarily. If they do I will be among
those pleasantly surprised.
Terry Ray Mills
<mail...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26724-39...@storefull-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> That the rurals have problems is a known fact. But for one union to pass
> an agenda that attacks another union is pretty sad. It is reminiscent of
> the arbitration hearings where the NALC played on the back of the APWU
> to gain their victory.
>
> That the Rurals are getting the shaft from their own Union is a REAL
> SHAME. That one Union would try to help the members of another Union is
> commendable. And I think we went over this before; the NALC didn't get
> ANYTHING on the BACKS of ANYONE but the LETTER CARRIERS. The NALC said
> WE work harder. NOT harder than ANYONE ELSE. Just harder than WE use
> to. We show them why and we won.
>
> Don't blame the NALC because they got something for their membership.
> Ask the APWU why they didn't.
>
Tell me again the part about winning(?). Between the extra scanning, the
three-wing, five-shelf cases, sloppy one-bundle mess and the increased
hassle, the little forty-something cents increase isn't worth it.
Long Gone
news:8mme8k$dda$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
(clip)
> Tell me again the part about winning(?). Between the extra
scanning, the
> three-wing, five-shelf cases, sloppy one-bundle mess and the
increased
> hassle, the little forty-something cents increase isn't worth
it.
I think you might be right. But in case you are making
donations, could you tell me where the line is forming? ~g~
wharfrat
Terry Ray Mills <t-m...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8mme8k$dda$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Tell me again the part about winning(?). Between the extra scanning, the
> three-wing, five-shelf cases, sloppy one-bundle mess and the increased
> hassle, the little forty-something cents increase isn't worth it.
>
OTOH, you may have gotten all of this without the level increase. I see all
the added responsibilites that have been dumped on my job and I haven't
received a cent. LOL-not!
wharfrat
> Anyway, let us hope that the leadership in all the unions
> recognizes the inherent pitfalls this year. I was under the
> impression that the NALC contract didn't expire this year. At
> any rate, we have had far too many "me too" contracts and the
> arbitrators do look at what the other unions are willing to
> settle for.
>
do. Their extension was only for a few months.
As far as the arbitrators looking at what other unions settle for, it's
obvious. Look at the last cycle of negotiations. APWU and Mail handlers
agredd to 2% the first year, 1.4% the second. The rurals then signed on to
that. The arbitrator then gave the NALC the exact same figures for the first
2 years, leaving the level increase for the 3rd. What's scary about the NALC
contract is that without the level increase the arbitrator only awarded them
1.2% for that 3rd year. Can be pretty sure what the PO is going to offer
us-1.2%. See them in arbitration.
Dee
> > > (clip)
> > > > If we went, things would really fall apart here. Someone
> has
> > > to stay behind
> > > > and look after things.
> > >
> > > True and looking before things ain't bad either. ~g~
> > >
> > Good thing, too, because I just LMAO 8-))
>
> Strange, most people have to go to Las Vegas to experience that.
> Well maybe not. I guess they only lose theirs. ~g~
>
§:-)
Dee
§:-)
Long Gone
(clip)
> Not really, I only came home without my shirt.
Now stop that before you drive me to drink and I start seeing
double. ~h~
Long Gone
(clip)
> Ahhhh, it's so nice when great minds think alike.
> §:-)
mail...@webtv.net
three-wing, five-shelf cases, sloppy one-bundle mess and the increased
hassle, the little forty-something cents increase isn't worth it.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting more than a forty cent raise
from the current contract. Where did you get that figure from. The
Postal Service asked for givebacks and we got a raise, kept our COLA's
and will get a step increase soon. We are thousands ahead of Rural
Carriers who do the same work we do. Scanning is the way of the
future, whether you like it or not. And it's the Postal Service that
determines how we work, NOT the Union. It's a hard job that requires
hard work, so you will always something to bitch about. And we will
always have hassles on this job. I've never had a job that didn't have
some hassle to it. And even if we got a 40¢ raise, I didn't see
anyone offering to give it back to the PO at the convention.
Terry Ray Mills
<mail...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19463-39...@storefull-245.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Tell me again the part about winning(?). Ed the Mailman
>I don't know about you, but I'm getting more than a forty cent raise
>from the current contract. Where did you get that figure from
http://www.mailman15.com
The $.48 or $.49 is the difference between T-6 and the new Grade 2 pay/hr.
Long Gone
I don't know about you, but I'm getting more than a forty cent
raise
from the current contract.
Only from beginning of the contract to the end. Because the
contract was already in effect when finally arbitrated you may
have gotten an initial raise that "appears" larger but really
isn't. The 40 plus cent reference isn't way out of line. ~g~
Butch
I'm an ex carrier and union official.
In my humble opinion, the unions haven't given a damn since the late sixties
or early seventies.
Long Gone <not...@nospamforadam.net> wrote in message
news:jELi5.534$xw3.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> wharfrat <whar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:IuKi5.74205$V34.6...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> (clip)
> > I think the NALC wants the rural territory for themselves.
> Merger,
> > decertification issues aside, I think that it is imperative
> that the 3
> > unions whose contracts expire in November negotiate together.
> We know
> > barring some unforseen happening that APWU will be going to
> arbitration.If
> > either of the other 2 unions agree to a contract, odds are is
> that is what
> > the arbitrator will award.
>
> 102 at 2 in the morning in Vegas is normal. But 99 at midnight
> in Chicago is not.
RugRat
Butch wrote:
> Wharfrat & Long Gone,
>
> I'm an ex carrier and union official.
>
> In my humble opinion, the unions haven't given a damn since the late sixties
> or early seventies.
You generalize "unions" as though it were a single entity . . .
Being an ex "union official", you should know that the unions are the craft
employees (plural) . . .
To give the "unions" a personality trait is misleading and false . . .
It's true that there are many craft employees who do not care, that's why
they're either not in the union (scabs) or disinterested members . . .
A quick look at the numbers of those who voted in the past officer elections
will point this out . . .
Almost every union official I do know does care, that's why they do what they do
. . .
Otherwise, they'd switch to the dark side (management), going for the bucks and
inflated egos . . .
:-)
Robert DeSavage
wrote:
From what I've read, this ex union official ain't worth a tinker's
damn. Since when does a union official (ex or otherwise) call his
people overpaid and under worked?
-
Dee's toaster was the master plan for Hell
wharfrat
RugRat <rbel...@texhoma.net> wrote in message
news:39930A6A...@texhoma.net...
>
>
> Butch wrote:
>
> > Wharfrat & Long Gone,
> >
> > I'm an ex carrier and union official.
> >
> > In my humble opinion, the unions haven't given a damn since the late
sixties
> > or early seventies.
>
> You generalize "unions" as though it were a single entity . . .
> Being an ex "union official", you should know that the unions are the
craft
> employees (plural) . . .
> To give the "unions" a personality trait is misleading and false . . .
> It's true that there are many craft employees who do not care, that's why
> they're either not in the union (scabs) or disinterested members . . .
> A quick look at the numbers of those who voted in the past officer
elections
> will point this out . . .
> Almost every union official I do know does care, that's why they do what
they do
> . . .
> Otherwise, they'd switch to the dark side (management), going for the
bucks and
> inflated egos . . .
> :-)
into mgt. They think that they will remember where they came from, but they
foget really fast. Some of them are the worst contract violaters of all.
It's almost as if they have to prove to their new friends how tough they can
be. Really sad. Bunch of sell-outs.
Long Gone
(clip)
> RR, unfortunately, I've seen too many union officers who have
made the move
> into mgt. They think that they will remember where they came
from, but they
violators of all.
> It's almost as if they have to prove to their new friends how
tough they can
> be. Really sad. Bunch of sell-outs.
Everything you say has a basis in truth. They move into
management with the intent of "making a difference" and I don't
doubt that they really believe that. But the ability to make any
difference is limited by their managers. Once in management they
are pretty much between a rock and a hard place. They have to
march to the orders they are given or get out of management.
Only two ways to do that. One is quit and find another job. The
other is to go back to craft. But will their boss might not let
them go back. So if they want to continue they must "conform" to
what they are told to do. Managers are in a lot more precarious
position than craft employees. Managers can be terminated with a
lot less effort than a craft employee. Get one LOW and follow it
with a second one, the second one can become termination.
I say all that not because I think managers need to be a harsh as
they are at times. But on the other hand, sometimes they have no
choice. Which makes it easy for me to stay in craft. They don't
pay enough money for me to join that rat race.
RugRat
Long Gone wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
> news:0Eri5.131839$dF.37...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > Long Gone wrote:
> >
> > >I notice that RR posted once upon return from convention.
> Suspect that
> > >some of the regulars are at the NALC convention.
> >
> > They had better come back and post some good gossip! Not to
> mention full
> > details of the new representation of rural carriers!
> >
> > Don't you clerks ever go to a convention?
>
> Obviously you did a poor job of lurking last week. Clerks were
> in convention last week. I posted that the RR leadership was
> discussing merger with the APWU. Suppose they could also discuss
> it with NALC but I haven't heard that as happening at this point.
> ~g~
Guffey said talks between NRLCA and APWU were preliminary at this
point . . .
There won't be talks with the NALC . . .
:-)
Mailjockey
I can think
> of no logical argument against merger of the APWU and NALC other
> than those that might be raised by incumbent officers.
>
>
that one union is not really a feasible project. It sounds good that our
membership would swell so greatly, but I don't see a great correlation.
Carriers are concerned with DPS and bundle limits, while clerks are
concerned with automation and excessing. The only real issue that we share
is pay scale related (and maybe joint dispute resolution). I used to belong
to the APWU before becoming a carrier and I could see then that they were
not heading in the best direction. I mean get real! "Automation won't work"
was a battle cry for a long time. After the million$ that have been sunk
into it, do you really think that the P.O. will say "let's just use what we
can," let alone scrap the project? At least NALC knows to fight the battles
that are winnable.
(BTW if any NALC national officers lurk this NG, I offer thanks for level 6
and free lunch from my fellow workers and I if you come across I-64 thru KY)