Sacrifice Your Rights: Join a Union

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/29/98
to

Here's what you get with union membership:

-A political action group you are forced to pay for, but may not agree
with.

-A representative instead of a lawyer. That's right, the union can
refuse to provide you with a real lawyer even if you are dealing with
legal issue outside of the contract. I can almost guarantee your
employer will hire a real lawyer. These representatives are oten
would-be lawyers who just couldn't make it. As far as I know, there
is no standard they must meet to represent you.

-In the event your would-be lawyer loses the case, your court case has
just been seriously damaged. "An arbitrator is bound by nothing."
These famous words of AFSCME representative Jim Younger are absolutely
true. You are entitled to nothing at an arbitration hearing.
Precedent, procedure, all of the things you expect from a court of law
are marginal to nonexistent at the arbitration hearing. But the
arbirtration weighs in just as a court decsion would

I can almost hear the representatives and the people who
unconditionally support unions now. Let me assure you, these guys are
notorious liars.

YOU LOSE RIGHTS BELONGING TO A UNION!
x-no-archive:yes

Dan Bahr

unread,
May 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/29/98
to

Steve Kangas <redc...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<356f0a90...@news.teleport.com>...

>
> Here's what you get with union membership:
> -A political action group you are forced to pay for, but may not agree
> with.

No member of any group agrees with every position taken by the group. But
the purpose of joining together is to match the strength of the employers.
The upside includes better pay, benefits and working conditions than
non-unionized employees (according to DOL studies).


> -A representative instead of a lawyer. That's right, the union can
> refuse to provide you with a real lawyer even if you are dealing with
> legal issue outside of the contract. I can almost guarantee your
> employer will hire a real lawyer. These representatives are oten
> would-be lawyers who just couldn't make it. As far as I know, there
> is no standard they must meet to represent you.

Hogwash. While I obviously can't speak for other unions, I can speak for
mine (New York State United Teachers, AFT). I am not a lawyer and,
therefore, cannot handle court-related issues. We have a team of more than
two dozen lawyers to deal with those cases. We guarantee an attorney for
any member who is threatened with job loss and take other legal matters on
a case by case basis. Arbitrations are handled by me and about 100 other
non-lawyers. We have been well-trained and win far more arbitrations than
we lose --- against those management lawyers you seem to fear so much.

> -In the event your would-be lawyer loses the case, your court case has
> just been seriously damaged. "An arbitrator is bound by nothing."
> These famous words of AFSCME representative Jim Younger are absolutely
> true. You are entitled to nothing at an arbitration hearing.
> Precedent, procedure, all of the things you expect from a court of law
> are marginal to nonexistent at the arbitration hearing. But the

> arbirtration weighs in just as a court decsion would.

There is no truth to these statements. First, it is rare to have an
arbitration and a court case on the same matter. The courts have routinely
remanded cases back to the contractual grievance procedure in such
situations. It is true that an arbitrator is not bound by the rules of
evidence. However, precedent, procedure, the concepts of res judicata and
collateral estoppal, past practice, just cause, etc. are all concepts taken
seriously by all arbitrators and have all been reasons I have won cases
over the last two decades.

> I can almost hear the representatives and the people who
> unconditionally support unions now. Let me assure you, these guys are
> notorious liars.

Speak for yourself. If you have had a personal problem with your union,
don't paint us all with that warped brush. If you have had a personal
problem with your union be specific with your complaints. The generalities
you so liberally spout only cause us to believe you are simply a
disgruntled loudmouth.


Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

On Fri, 29 May 1998 21:13:17 GMT, "Dan Bahr" <dan...@unix.asb.com>
wrote:

>Steve Kangas <redc...@teleport.com> wrote in article
><356f0a90...@news.teleport.com>...
>>
>> Here's what you get with union membership:
>> -A political action group you are forced to pay for, but may not agree
>> with.
>
>No member of any group agrees with every position taken by the group. But
>the purpose of joining together is to match the strength of the employers.
>The upside includes better pay, benefits and working conditions than
>non-unionized employees (according to DOL studies).

Yes, this is undoubtedly true with public sector employees allowing
their retirement funds to be invested in takeover firms like KKR.

Denying a person the right to settle in court. I rest your case

It is true that an arbitrator is not bound by the rules of
>evidence.

I rest your case again


However, precedent, procedure, the concepts of res judicata and
>collateral estoppal, past practice, just cause, etc. are all concepts taken
>seriously by all arbitrators

A broad, sweeping staement we should accept as gospel "all
arbitrators."


and have all been reasons I have won cases
>over the last two decades.
>
>> I can almost hear the representatives and the people who
>> unconditionally support unions now. Let me assure you, these guys are
>> notorious liars.
>
>Speak for yourself. If you have had a personal problem with your union,
>don't paint us all with that warped brush. If you have had a personal
>problem with your union be specific with your complaints. The generalities
>you so liberally spout only cause us to believe you are simply a
>disgruntled loudmouth.

And here we start with the personal attacks. Anyone who does not like
the way unions operate is disgruntled. You know, you've heard it
before from employers: The disgruntled employee. My dictionary
defines disgruntled as discontented. Yes, I am not content with
unions interfering with the civil rights of employees, and I am quite
loud about my discontent. Maybe I should just be quiet and let Union
Joe go about his business - and it is a business as opposed to a
movement
>
This guy is selling unions. I'm telling you the truth. Why don't you
wait until you need a union to find out? Fact is: You must prove a
union DELIBERATELY failed to represent in order to hold them
accountable in a court of law. How do you meet this ridculous
standard of proof? No one does.

This guy is a master of double-talk. If you fail to exhaust your
administrative remedies, i.e. go to arbitration, this will hurt your
chances in court. If you go to arbitration and lose, this will also
seriously hurt your chances in court. It makes no difference if you
are talking about your civil rights, or contract related matters.
Yes, an arbitrator (at least in Oregon) is supposed to confine his
opinion to the contract. As it works, however, arbitration is used
by employers to escape a real court of law.

I have nothing to gain here. I'm self-employed with no employees, and
was once a very strong supporter of unions. I'm just telling it like
it is. You can believe me, or Union Joe. He's making his living
telling you what he would like you to believe: half-truths, and
misleading statements.

x-no-archive:yes

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to


>On Fri, 29 May 1998 21:13:17 GMT, "Dan Bahr" <dan...@unix.asb.com>

>>


>>No member of any group agrees with every position taken by the group. But
>>the purpose of joining together is to match the strength of the employers.
>>The upside includes better pay, benefits and working conditions than
>>non-unionized employees (according to DOL studies).
>Yes, this is undoubtedly true with public sector employees allowing
>their retirement funds to be invested in takeover firms like KKR.


The Oregonian: 11/19/97

"-- In 1968 , 28% of the work force was unionized. By 1996, just
14.5 percent was unionized"

"--Private sector decline has been partially made up by gains in the
public sector, where 37.7 percent of the work force is now unionized"

And what have your public sector brothers been doing to assist the
private sector: allowing PERS to invest in takeover firms like KKR, a
company that has contributed to the elimination of countless private
sector jobs and created untold hardships for workers.

Mr. Bahr fails to mention a union has no obligation to provide a
lawyer. Oregon AFSCME Council 75 has threatened to withdraw
representation entirely if an employee insists his own lawyer
represent him at a hearing.

x-no-archive:yes

Allen Shur

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

Steve Kangas wrote:
>
> Here's what you get with union membership:
>
> -A political action group you are forced to pay for, but may not agree
> with.
>
> -A representative instead of a lawyer. That's right, the union can
> refuse to provide you with a real lawyer even if you are dealing with
> legal issue outside of the contract. I can almost guarantee your
> employer will hire a real lawyer. These representatives are oten
> would-be lawyers who just couldn't make it. As far as I know, there
> is no standard they must meet to represent you.
>
> -In the event your would-be lawyer loses the case, your court case has
> just been seriously damaged. "An arbitrator is bound by nothing."
> These famous words of AFSCME representative Jim Younger are absolutely
> true. You are entitled to nothing at an arbitration hearing.
> Precedent, procedure, all of the things you expect from a court of law
> are marginal to nonexistent at the arbitration hearing. But the
> arbirtration weighs in just as a court decsion would
>
> I can almost hear the representatives and the people who
> unconditionally support unions now. Let me assure you, these guys are
> notorious liars.
>
> YOU LOSE RIGHTS BELONGING TO A UNION!
> x-no-archive:yes
Then, why don't you go to a different newsgroup?

How about alt.society.mouse-molestation ?? Just trying to be nice,
make you feel at home!

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

>>
>> YOU LOSE RIGHTS BELONGING TO A UNION!
>> x-no-archive:yes
>Then, why don't you go to a different newsgroup?
>
>How about alt.society.mouse-molestation ?? Just trying to be nice,
>make you feel at home!

And here we have the thoughtful, intelligent response of a union
supporter. In essence, this person is saying: I don't want to hear
the voice of dissent.
x-no-archive:yes

kim overstreet

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to


> I can almost hear the representatives and the people who
> unconditionally support unions now. Let me assure you, these guys are
> notorious liars.
>

And your not? Maybe just ignorant and ill formed of the facts!

> YOU LOSE RIGHTS BELONGING TO A UNION!

>YOU LOSE THE RIGHT TO WORK MORE FOR LESS
(SAFETY<MONEY<BENEFITS<EQUITY,etc.)

x-no-archive:yes
>

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

On 30 May 1998 12:17:33 GMT, "kim overstreet"
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

You lose your right to protect your civil rights in a court of law.
If you belong to a union and your civil rights are violated by your
employer, your employer will argue you should be using the grievance
procedure if you take them to court. If, however, you use the
grievance procedure, your employer (I should say your employer's
lawyers) will argue that your civil rights complaints are subject to
arbitration. It is the classic catch-22.

So, belonging to a union hinders your ability to pursue your civil
rights in court. You also lose the right to have a lawyer represent
you. While some unions will provide a lawyer at the arbitration
hearing, Oregon AFSCME has threatened to withdraw entirely if the
grievant insists a lawyer represent him at the hearing. Now, Since
you seem to feel I may be "ignorant and ill-informed of the facts, "
Why don't you tell me what happens if the union withdraws. I guess I
could give you a short english lesson while we're at it, but sometimes
I have trouble placing hyphens, apostrophes, and using words.
Besides, I want to encourage you to voice your opinion, just as I
have.

The Union Joes will tell you your civil rights are a separate issue
from the grievance process, and they are partially right. In reality,
however, employers have used arbitration as a shield against
litigation, even when the issues have nothing to do with the contract.
I'm saying this is wrong and should be changed. I'm also saying the
unions should not be so well-cloaked against lawsuits.

The people who run unions, as opposed to the people who belong to
unions, are quite adept politically, and legally. They have stacked
the deck against workers who would hold them accountable for their
misdeeds. Tell me, If a union fails to represent, how does a person
prove they failed to represent DELIBERATELY? It is an impossible
standard of proof. The union simply says: Oops, we didn't mean too.

If an employee wants to bring his or her own lawyer into an
arbitration hearing, why should the union object, or be allowed to
withdraw the grievance? The union will be the first to tell you it is
their grievance and they have absolute control over the process.
Apparently this is true, but it is your life the are dealing with, and
I believe you should be entitled to the best representation available.
That means a lawyer. Either the unions clearly separate legal issues
and keep the arbitration process out of decisions a judge will make,
or they provide lawyers and make sure all the procedures followed in a
court of law apply to the arbitration process, including the
arbitrator's conduct. It's only fair.
x-no-archive:yes

Rascal

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

I'm not sure of the situation you are referring to, but our Local has
attorneys on retainer, and they are consulted any time there is a legal
question........and any time a member requests. We have several cases
involving members that are being handled through these attorneys, rather
than the grievance process, at no cost to the member. Of course, our Local
is run by The Union (the members), not by some faceless "representative."
I'm not going to argue with you about our differing opinions on Union
membership, at least not without hearing more about your situation, and why
our Local seems to handle things differently.

David F. Boetcher

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

>The people who run unions, as opposed to the people who belong to
>unions, are quite adept politically, and legally. They have stacked
>the deck against workers who would hold them accountable for their
>misdeeds. Tell me, If a union fails to represent, how does a person
>prove they failed to represent DELIBERATELY? It is an impossible
>standard of proof. The union simply says: Oops, we didn't mean too.


As in any group there are good and bad unions. My question to you is what
is your point. You say the employer uses the arbitration clause against you
and therefor the union is sacrificing your rights. Would you be better with
no union?

The people who run unions should be the people who belong to the union. I
know this has been said before but get in your union and run for office.
That is the best way to ensure bad officers are out. Bad union
representation is not a reason to end all unions, it is a reason to fix
those unions. Obviously the employer is just out to catch you in that
catch-22, so only a good union can be there to help.

David F. Boetcher
President
MATC Part Time Teachers' Union
dfb...@itis.com

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

On Sat, 30 May 1998 15:40:23 -0500, "David F. Boetcher"
<dfb...@itis.com> wrote:

>>The people who run unions, as opposed to the people who belong to
>>unions, are quite adept politically, and legally. They have stacked
>>the deck against workers who would hold them accountable for their
>>misdeeds. Tell me, If a union fails to represent, how does a person
>>prove they failed to represent DELIBERATELY? It is an impossible
>>standard of proof. The union simply says: Oops, we didn't mean too.
>
>
>As in any group there are good and bad unions. My question to you is what
>is your point. You say the employer uses the arbitration clause against you
>and therefor the union is sacrificing your rights. Would you be better with
>no union?

Absolutely. Without a contract calling for arbitration you can step
into court where many of these "grievances" belong. If you are
covered by a contract and fail to exhaust your "remedies" before going
to court, you will hurt you chances of winning.

>The people who run unions should be the people who belong to the union. I
>know this has been said before but get in your union and run for office.
>That is the best way to ensure bad officers are out. Bad union
>representation is not a reason to end all unions, it is a reason to fix
>those unions. Obviously the employer is just out to catch you in that
>catch-22, so only a good union can be there to help.
>

I am trying to fix some problems with unions:

1. You should be able to use your own lawyer at an arbitration
hearing.

2. Legal issues and contract issues should be clearly separated
before the arbitration begins

3. An arbitration ruling should not be admissible in court of law
unless all the rules applied in a court of law are applied at the
hearing and the arbitrator is bound by the same constraints as a
judge, i.e. rules of evidence, procedure, precedent, etc.

4. The standard of proof required to hold a union accountable in a
court of law should be lowered. Proving a union DELIBERATELY failed
to represent is impossible, and the unions know it.

5. If there are legal issues involved, the arbitration hearing should
have no bearing on the legal case. In theory, I believe this is true.
In practice it is not.

>David F. Boetcher
>President
>MATC Part Time Teachers' Union
>dfb...@itis.com
>
>

x-no-archive:yes

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/30/98
to

On Sat, 30 May 1998 14:58:27 -0500, "Rascal" <rasc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

It sounds like you belong to a respectable union.

All unions will benefit from calling unions like AFSCME when their
members raise no objection to PERS investing retirement funds in the
elimination of private sector jobs. Unions have withheld, even
destroyed documentation related to arbitrations to protect employers
from litigation. Not to pick on AFSCME, but Oregon Council 75 is
guilty of this. If "representatives" want to play law, they need a
law degree. If they want to represent people within clearly defined
non-legal boundaries, fine, but the arbitration decision should not be
admissible as evidence unless the jury clearly understands the
arbitrator is not a judge, and many of the rules of procedure and
evidence do not necessarily apply to arbitrations

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK
x-no-archive:yes

Annie

unread,
May 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/31/98
to

It sounds to me as if you have had a bad experience with a union. This
means that your particular case was mishandled. This does not mean that
the entire concept of a unionized workplace is wrong. It does not mean
that the collective bargaining process is corrupt. There are thousands of
Doctors who are guilty of gross malpractice. Some have lost their
licensure as a result and some continue to practice on an unsuspecting
public. But, I'm guessing that if you were to fall and break your leg, you
are still going to the local emergency room! Why? Because, you are
trusting in your own ability to manage your health care and it's better
than the alternative.
If people would take an interest in their union before the greivance
occurs, maybe there would be less complaints about the way the union is
run. Perhaps if we were active in our union management, going to meetings,
participating in the conventions and just reading the damn newsletters we
wouldn't see it all as a great surprise. And maybe, just maybe, if we were
aware of the problems within our own locals and sections before it was too
late; it might just be possible to fix them!
Most people that I see, look at their union membership like a purchased
service agreement. "I'll pay you so much a month and you fix anything that
breaks" That is not what unions were meant to be. We are the unions! We
are the ones who make it or break it. We are responsible for who runs it.
We are responsible for it's decisions! Much like the regular political
elections. We all want the right to complain bitterly about those bums in
Washington D.C. or in our state capitals, but we won't get off our butts
and campaign for the ones who could change the status quo. We may piss and
moan about how all the candidates are alike, but we don't run for local
political office and we don't support our peers who do. We wait until the
day of the election when the money and the power brokers have decided who's
going to be on our ballots and complain!
Everytime you say "The Union" you should just strike it out and put in the
names of you and your co-workers. You are "The Union"! If you have
consented to give all your power away to someone else, then you only have
two choices left........ Do something about it! or....... sit down and
shut up!

Annie

kell...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/31/98
to

I get frustrated with my union at times also. Some of my union brothers are
lazy bastards who should be fired. A few of the reps and officials steal good
oxygen from other more deserving people every time they draw a breath. And we
sometimes endorse moronic candidates for political office. However, unions
are worth joining, starting, and fighting for. Anybody who thinks their boss
cares about their personal financial well being is an idiot. Hang in there,
and get involved-read the newsletter, attend meetings, vote, and if you still
aren't happy, run for union office yourself.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

kim overstreet

unread,
May 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/31/98
to


> >> YOU LOSE RIGHTS BELONGING TO A UNION!
> >>YOU LOSE THE RIGHT TO WORK MORE FOR LESS
> >(SAFETY<MONEY<BENEFITS<EQUITY,etc.)
> >
> You lose your right to protect your civil rights in a court of law.
> If you belong to a union and your civil rights are violated by your
> employer, your employer will argue you should be using the grievance
> procedure if you take them to court. If, however, you use the
> grievance procedure, your employer (I should say your employer's
> lawyers) will argue that your civil rights complaints are subject to
> arbitration. It is the classic catch-22.
>
> So, belonging to a union hinders your ability to pursue your civil
> rights in court. You also lose the right to have a lawyer represent
> you. While some unions will provide a lawyer at the arbitration
> hearing, Oregon AFSCME has threatened to withdraw entirely if the
> grievant insists a lawyer represent him at the hearing. Now, Since
> you seem to feel I may be "ignorant and ill-informed of the facts, "
> Why don't you tell me what happens if the union withdraws. I guess I
> could give you a short english lesson while we're at it, but sometimes
> I have trouble placing hyphens, apostrophes, and using words.
> Besides, I want to encourage you to voice your opinion, just as I
> have.

As we discussed before,If you feel that you got a raw deal from your reps
a: vote em out b:run yourself
c:tell the nlrb d:sue them for mis/nonrepresentation e:get a different
unionf:just shut up and live with it.
Since you keep on painting ALL UNIONS because you had a fuck up or fucked
up doesn't give you the go ahead to be a scab on the rest of us.And since
you said you didn't mind being a scab......


Ida Ontkno

unread,
May 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/31/98
to

Often, people say . . . if you don't like what the union leaders
are doing . . . run for office.
I agree.

An example . . . Geronmo should have ran for president of the United
States if he didn't like the treatment he was getting.

or, if the Jews didn't like the treatment given to them by the
National Socialists of Germany . . . one of them should have ran against
Hitler in the early 1940's on the "Be Nice To Jews" platform..

Don't complain about civil rights violations, or attempt to seek
justice. Run for office, instead.

It keeps people like me, and the government agency that I work for from
having to get involved, and from having to make a committment to your
civil rights protection.

gotta run . . . Ida

David F. Boetcher

unread,
May 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/31/98
to

< Often, people say . . . if you don't like what the union leaders
<are doing . . . run for office.
<I agree.
<
< An example . . . Geronmo should have ran for president of the United
<States if he didn't like the treatment he was getting.
<
<Don't complain about civil rights violations, or attempt to seek
<justice. Run for office, instead.
<
<It keeps people like me, and the government agency that I work for from
<having to get involved, and from having to make a committment to your
<civil rights protection.


The difference in Geronimo running for president and a union member running
for president of their local is scale. Most local unions are not so large
that an individual has no chance. My electrical local is only 600 people.
If the president is so bad that 301 do not like him, one of those 301 can
run against him.

Local politics is always easier to influence than national. A bad local is
not like Nazi Germany. A simple mailing to 600 people can change the entire
course of a local. You do not need millions of dollars or millions of
supporters. Bad locals stay as they are because of 301 lazy people
complaining.
David F. Boetcher
dfb...@itis.com


Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

On Sun, 31 May 1998 10:29:52 GMT, kell...@hotmail.com wrote:

>I get frustrated with my union at times also. Some of my union brothers are
>lazy bastards who should be fired. A few of the reps and officials steal good
>oxygen from other more deserving people every time they draw a breath. And we
>sometimes endorse moronic candidates for political office. However, unions
>are worth joining, starting, and fighting for. Anybody who thinks their boss
>cares about their personal financial well being is an idiot. Hang in there,
>and get involved-read the newsletter, attend meetings, vote, and if you still
>aren't happy, run for union office yourself.
>
>

I believe unions can be more than they are. The existing unions want
to have it more than one way. Either you stand together for what is
right, or you practice lifeboat ethics, throwing people overboard who
don't quite fill the mold you've created. I stand alone for what I
believe is right.

Union representatives should not be playing lawyer, and arbitrators
should not be playing judge. If either want to continue, we need to
adapt the rules to fit the roles. We also need to hold unions
accountable for their misdeeds.

>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

x-no-archive:yes

Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

On 31 May 1998 12:49:29 GMT, "kim overstreet"
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Here is a union response you may hear one day: "Just shut up an live
with it."

Tell me, how do you sue a union for misrepresentation when you must
prove they DELIBERATELY failed to do so? It is an impossible
standard of proof that affords the unions absolute impunity.
x-no-archive:yes

Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

I'll give you this much credit: At least your post is worth
responding to.
x-no-archive:yes

Ryan M Lankford

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to


Allen Shur wrote:

> Steve Kangas wrote:
> >
> > Here's what you get with union membership:
> >
> > -A political action group you are forced to pay for, but may not agree
> > with.
> >
> > -A representative instead of a lawyer. That's right, the union can
> > refuse to provide you with a real lawyer even if you are dealing with
> > legal issue outside of the contract. I can almost guarantee your
> > employer will hire a real lawyer. These representatives are oten
> > would-be lawyers who just couldn't make it. As far as I know, there
> > is no standard they must meet to represent you.
> >
> > -In the event your would-be lawyer loses the case, your court case has
> > just been seriously damaged. "An arbitrator is bound by nothing."
> > These famous words of AFSCME representative Jim Younger are absolutely
> > true. You are entitled to nothing at an arbitration hearing.
> > Precedent, procedure, all of the things you expect from a court of law
> > are marginal to nonexistent at the arbitration hearing. But the
> > arbirtration weighs in just as a court decsion would
> >

> > I can almost hear the representatives and the people who
> > unconditionally support unions now. Let me assure you, these guys are
> > notorious liars.
> >

> > YOU LOSE RIGHTS BELONGING TO A UNION!

> > x-no-archive:yes
> Then, why don't you go to a different newsgroup?
>
> How about alt.society.mouse-molestation ?? Just trying to be nice,
> make you feel at home!

Don't worry about this crap...whenever these left-wing pinkos can't win a
debate, they resort to name-calling, and worthless flames. I tend to agree
with you on almost everything, except for the intentional
misrepresentation. I think that intentional misrepresentation could be very
easy to prove, especially if decent records and transcripts are kept.

Ryan Lankford
lank...@dwx.com
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Sands/4253

Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

> Don't worry about this crap...whenever these left-wing pinkos can't win a
>debate, they resort to name-calling, and worthless flames. I tend to agree
>with you on almost everything, except for the intentional
>misrepresentation. I think that intentional misrepresentation could be very
>easy to prove, especially if decent records and transcripts are kept.
>
>Ryan Lankford
>lank...@dwx.com
>http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Sands/4253
>

Well, I may be wrong, but I base this assertion on what I was told by
a prominent Portland labor attorney. According to him, the unions
simply claim they blew it - that the failure was unitentional, and
they're off the hook. AFSCME Oregon Council 75 has destroyed records
and denied the grievant access to them without worry.

Well, I guess we all know corruption exists even at the highest
levels. Why should Council 75 be different than their national
leaders?
x-no-archive:yes

kim overstreet

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to


> Tell me, how do you sue a union for misrepresentation when you must
> prove they DELIBERATELY failed to do so? It is an impossible
> standard of proof that affords the unions absolute impunity.
> x-no-archive:yes
>

I have a friend/superintendant who has done this 3 times succesfully!

Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

On 2 Jun 1998 11:53:13 GMT, "kim overstreet"
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

I'm not sure I understand. Your superintendent friend belongs to a
union, or has belonged to several unions and has successfully sued the
union(s) for failing to represent his/her interests on three different
occasions?

I'm not trying to be critical, but your post is not very clear.
Anyway, you raise an interesting question: Just how often are unions
successfully sued for misrepresentation? It's a question worth
researching.
x-no-archive:yes

kim overstreet

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

> >I have a friend/superintendant who has done this 3 times succesfully!
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Your superintendent friend belongs to a
> union,

belongs....B&CT


or has belonged to several unions and has successfully sued the
> union(s) for failing to represent his/her interests on three different
> occasions?
>

yep


> I'm not trying to be critical, but your post is not very clear.
> Anyway, you raise an interesting question: Just how often are unions
> successfully sued for misrepresentation?

Ask the NLRB

kim overstreet

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to


> > >I have a friend/superintendant who has done this 3 times succesfully!
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand. Your superintendent friend belongs to a
> > union,
> belongs....B&CT
> >

> yep
> > I'm not trying to be critical, but your post is not very clear.
> > Anyway, you raise an interesting question: Just how often are unions
> > successfully sued for misrepresentation?
> Ask the NLRB

The man in question is very sharp,has read every publication on these
subjects by the NLRB,and is the very essence of fear for bad BA's as well
as scabby contractors.


Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

On 5 Jun 1998 03:20:53 GMT, "kim overstreet"
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Would you mind citing the specifics about this superintendent who
successfully sued the union he belongs to three times for failing to
represent him. It sounds very interesting, and I imagine much of it
is public record anyway.

Who is this person? Can you cite specific court cases?

I believe the unions are too well insulated against members who would
like to hold them accountable for misdeeds. If, in fact, the members
must prove unions deliberately failed to represent them, the standard
of proof is too high. Also, if arbitration is to carry the weight of
a legal decision, the representatives should be lawyers, the
arbitrators judges, and all the rules and procedures applied in a
court of law should apply at the hearing. Otherwise, as I've said,
you sacrifice rights belonging to a union.
x-no-archive:yes

freedo...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

It is the labor movement that fights for and protects the rights of all
working people. Yes, even the workers that despise the unions and would
like to destroy the labor movement. These people are too brain-washed
and ignorant to understand how they have benefited. Workers of Amerca,
do not fall prey to the ramblings
of the anti-forces, they are just to blind to see. PROTECT your rights,
join a Union.
Organize the un-organized......

Eric Olsen

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

freedo...@webtv.net wrote:
: It is the labor movement that fights for and protects the rights of all


you talk about being brain washed? You do not fight for my future pal. You and the rest of the
"goonions" drive jobs out of the country and prices of goods and services way up! Anyone in a union
today is too feeble minded to think for themselves. Unions "program" their members into thinking that
big bad corporate america is the big money hoarding enemy when in fact alot of union big wigs sit high on the hog living it up
on union dues. OR they dip into penison funds and when caught red handed they have the nerve to say they
were only "borrowing" the money!

Also, anyone who doesn't agree with the union philosphy is labeled a "scab". Just goes to show you are not allowed to think for yourself in a union. God forbid you cross a picket line beacuse your union does not have a strike fund and you need to feed your family.


--

kim overstreet

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to


> Who is this person? Can you cite specific court cases?
>

What are you trolling for???? I'll see if I can call him and find out more
info,but as it stands now,everybody shuts up around him.


> I believe the unions are too well insulated against members who would
> like to hold them accountable for misdeeds. If, in fact, the members
> must prove unions deliberately failed to represent them, the standard
> of proof is too high. Also, if arbitration is to carry the weight of
> a legal decision, the representatives should be lawyers, the
> arbitrators judges, and all the rules and procedures applied in a
> court of law should apply at the hearing. Otherwise, as I've said,
> you sacrifice rights belonging to a union.

Again that was your problem not ours,I'm beggining to think that"
responding to you kills brain cells"
If you wanna be a scab,and continue with your preposterous postings,don't
yell when you get flamed!

> x-no-archive:yes
>

kim overstreet

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to


>
> you talk about being brain washed? You do not fight for my future pal.

Do you earn time and one half after 40 hrs?Do you have health insurance?

You and the rest of the
> "goonions" drive jobs out of the country and prices of goods and services
way up! Anyone in a union
> today is too feeble minded to think for themselves.

I would venture that anyone NOT in a union would be either a coprorate
welfare shark,or brain dead.
Choose your poison.

Unions "program" their members into thinking that
> big bad corporate america is the big money hoarding enemy

Hell,they don't need to brain wash anyone.The corporate record speaks for
itself!

when in fact alot of union big wigs sit high on the hog living it up
> on union dues. OR they dip into penison funds and when caught red handed
they have the nerve to say they
> were only "borrowing" the money!

And it's acceptable for corporations to raid pension money?


>
> Also, anyone who doesn't agree with the union philosphy is labeled a
"scab".

Horseshit!


Just goes to show you are not allowed to think for yourself in a union.
God forbid you cross a picket line beacuse your union does not have a
strike fund and you need to feed your family.
>

God forbid that some asshole will cross a picket line to work for less of
everything so your family starves!
>
>
>
> --
>

David F. Boetcher

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

You and the rest of the
>"goonions" drive jobs out of the country and prices of goods and services
way up! Anyone in a union
>today is too feeble minded to think for themselves. >

>Also, anyone who doesn't agree with the union philosphy is labeled a

"scab". Just goes to show you are not allowed to think for yourself in a


union. God forbid you cross a picket line beacuse your union does not have a
strike fund and you need to feed your family.


And everyone who is in a union is labeled a "goonion". If you see a problem
with labels and blanket rhetoric statements do not use them yourself. This
is just a form of hate speech disguising itself as debate.
David F. Boetcher
dfb...@itis.com

Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to

On 5 Jun 1998 19:19:00 GMT, "kim overstreet"
<oooh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

As I suspected, you seem to be posting false information to support a
case that doesn't exist. The problems I am talking about are problems
that can hurt any union member. Your angry posts reflect
unconditional support of unions, but no real substance. If you have
verifiable facts to supply here, please do. If you are here to flame
people, that is your right, as it is mine to choose to ignore you.

Calling names doesn't convince me, or anyone else that you have valid
points to make. Why are my posts "preposterous"? Why do you assume I
am a scab (I believe the term is intended for people who cross a
picket line)? Why are you so angry?
x-no-archive:yes

Steve Kangas

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to

Kim loves to cite the wonderful benefits associated with belonging to
a union. Unfortunately, most of those benefits are enjoyed by public
employees at the private sectors expense.

"In 1968 28 percent of the work force was unionized. By 1996 just
14.5 percent was unionized. Private sector decline has been partially
made up by gains in the public sector, where 37.7 percent of the work
force is now unionized." *

While the public employee unions have gained as the private declined,
some public employees have allowed their pension funds to be invested
in takeover firms eliminating private sector employment. These are
the shameful facts unions do not want people to hear. People like Kim
unconditionally support unions for any of a number of reason, and some
of them may be good reasons. The unions have done good things in the
past, and continue to do some good things. The problems that exist,
however, need to be widely known, then dealt with as the significant
issues they are. Another serious problem with unions is forcing
members to finance political causes they do not believe in. I believe
it is an issue that will come up all over the country. Many union
members are not aware that the people they employ with their dues have
stacked the legal deck against them in a number of ways. But I think
more and more members are learning more about the organizations they
fund. Hopefully this will lead to stronger, more ethical unions that
stand for all workers and the best interests of society.

*LA Times - Washington Post Service
x-no-archive:yes

kim overstreet

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to


> As I suspected, you seem to be posting false information to support a
> case that doesn't exist.

Horseshit!!! I'm working 90+ hrs a week and can't just drop everything to
call someone who may or may not be home so I can answer the questions of an
inarticulate self appointed scab.


The problems I am talking about are problems
> that can hurt any union member. Your angry posts reflect
> unconditional support of unions,

Again horseshit....I and other members readily admit to problems with
organized labor,however the difference between you and I is that I try do
do what I can to change the problem and drive out those who want sttus quo
whereas you want to whine and bitch on a public forum and sit on your lazy
ass telling all the conservinazi's everthing they want to hear.And when
someone offers advice to help you....You just go on repeating the same old
dry retoric and don't do any thing to implement any advice given to you.
You epitomize the republinazi's claim that union members are lazy and won't
help themselves.
You'd scab on a brother not out f principle,but out of sheer laziness and
ignorance.
Thus I refute Kangasbub!!


but no real substance. If you have
> verifiable facts to supply here, please do.

Wait your damn turn...OSHA has determined that the maximum load on my ass
is one person unless I install safety rails and harnesses,so you'll just
have to wait 'till the last asshole gets of my back to come aboard.


If you are here to flame
> people, that is your right, as it is mine to choose to ignore you.
>
> Calling names doesn't convince me, or anyone else that you have valid
> points to make. Why are my posts "preposterous"? Why do you assume I
> am a scab (I believe the term is intended for people who cross a
> picket line)? Why are you so angry?

Why are you so stupid and hardheaded???

> x-no-archive:yes
>

b.w...@usa.net

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98