Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners

˜

Labor Board Sides With Incumbent Unions, Election Ordered For One

by Christine Stuart | Jul 3, 2012 5:00pm
(42) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, Legal

Christine Stuart file photo

Union members rally for choice of union leadership

(Updated 7:50 p.m.) One rival union’s attempt to woo members away from their current unions was dismissed by the Connecticut Labor Board of Relations, but another rival union will have an opportunity to compete for the support of 500 captains and lieutenants in the Correction Department.

The decision released Tuesday found that the petitions submitted by the United Public Service Employees Union on behalf of five bargaining groups was not filed in a timely manner.

As a result of the decision, AFSCME Local 749, the probation unit represented by AFT, the judicial marshal unit represented by IBPO, and the State Engineering, Scientific and Technical Unit, also known as P-4, represented by CSEA SEIU Local 2001, will not be given an opportunity to choose which union represents them.

But the Correctional Supervisors represented by CSEA SEIU Local 2001 will have an opportunity to decide whether to stay with its current leadership or switch to the National Correction Employees Union. Earlier this year, the board dismissed NCEU’s petition to organize AFSCME’s Correction guards.

The Labor Board of Relations sided Tuesday with the state and the incumbent unions who maintained that state employees essentially closed the window to switch unions when they voted to approve the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement and the bargaining unit agreements in August 2011.

Ben Philips, a spokesman for CSEA SEIU Local 2001, said the decision to allow the Correction Supervisors to vote doesn’t come as a huge surprise since it voted down the SEBAC agreement and was working without an individual contract.

The Correction Supervisors were one of two bargaining units to vote down the 2011 concession package.

The Labor Relations Board ordered an election by secret ballot for the Correction Supervisors in the next 30 days.

“We are looking forward to that election,” Philips said.

An attorney and leadership at the National Correction Employees Union could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. Representatives of UPSEU also couldn’t be reached for comment.

But John Vitale, a former member of the State Engineering, Scientific and Technical Unit, also known as P-4, said he was told by UPSEU leadership the decision will be appealed to court.

He said this was about giving members a right to vote.

“Why does anybody fear an election, if you’ve been doing a good job for your members,” Vitale said Tuesday in a phone interview.

While he’s disappointed in the decision he said he knew which ever way it went, it would wind up in court.

Attorney Robert Krzys, who was speaking on behalf of the other six bargaining groups, said they were happy with the board’s decision.

“We’re gratified that the State Board recognized the validity and importance of the SEBAC 2011 Agreement to the people of this state, and to its public service employees,” he said. “We are going to continue working together in the interest of our members and the public that they serve.”

The battle for control of the seven unions has been raging since the first failed vote on the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition $1.6 billion concession package.

Countless hearings were held on the merits of the petitions submitted by the two rival unions. The petitions had to be signed by at least 30 percent of the bargaining unit before the Labor Board of Relations could validate an election.

Toward the end of the hearings, which concluded earlier this year, the discussion centered on the controversial “Attachment H” and whether it was drafted before or after the General Assembly voted to ratify the agreement.

Robert Dellapina, an alternative board member who wrote the dissent, said he didn’t believe that “Attachment H” which set the contract bar for the unions to submit the petitions, should be considered enforceable since the legislature was not made aware of it.

He said he agrees that “Attachment H” purports to close the window these outside unions have to file petitions for an election to August 2016, but doesn’t believe it should apply in this case. He believes all seven bargaining units should be allowed to hold an election.

Patricia Low and Wendella Ault Battey authored the majority decision, and decided that since the legislature approved “Attachment H” when it voted to ratify the SEBAC agreement, the Labor Relations Board has no power to overturn the legislature.

“We find that Attachment H existed as part of those tentative agreements when they were submitted to the legislature for approval,” Low wrote in the majority decision.

Related:

Objections Abound AT Final UPSEU Hearing

Outside Union Optimistic About Labor Petition

Labor Board Recommends Dismissal of Prosecutor’s SEBAC Complaint

State Workers Rally For Union Choice

Bargaining Units Petition To Leave Their Union—And Join Another

Surprise Attachment Could Block Unions From Switching

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(42) Comments

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 3, 2012  6:54pm

Upset.Citizen

I’m speechless… I guess that means it’s time for action!  P4 members will become such a pain for SEUI/CSEA that they won’t want us!  We are already in the process of becoming fee payers and bankrupting that corrupt union!

BTW: Think this article is a related issue? Just look at their faces!

Labor Commissioner Resigns

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/labor_commissioner_resigns/

Marshall probably wanted to do the right thing and let us vote so Malloy told him to resign!

posted by: rankandfile | July 3, 2012  7:25pm

Wow, so Malloy and SEBAC were able to prevent democratic union elections. I’m not terribly surprised, though I had hoped for better. So essentially the August 2011 window closed before it was really open? So the next chance to file petitions is August 2015, that will be what, maybe 8 years of serfdom? What are the odds the next window will actually be allowed to open? I’m betting zero chance of that ever happening.

posted by: rankandfile | July 3, 2012  7:49pm

Malloy rewards SEBAC for changing its bylaws. No window before 2015 now, and they’ll close that before it ever opens. Seems the unions and the Democrats only favor democracy when it suits their purposes.

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 3, 2012  8:58pm

Major Shmuck

Am I still living in America??  Holy cow, what is going on at the Labor Board????  How on earth did the vote go that way?  There was not Attachmet H until after the vote by the members and union members have at adhere to that???? 

Major Shmuck will only ask this question once.  CAN SOMEONE SHOW MAJOR SHMUCK ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES THAT ONE PARTY CAN CHANGE THE CONTRACT AFTER THE FACT OR SHOULD I SAY, AFTER THE MEMBERS VOTE?  AND THE PARTY THAT DID NOT KNOW OF THE CHANGES, HAS TO ADHERE TO THE CHANGES?????

People at the Labor Board should loose their jobs over this.  Major Shmuck Salutes all P-4 Members.  You have RIGHT on your side.  Stick to your principles and you will be victorious in the end.  By the way, my troops have told me that several P-4 Officers and Stewards have had BS Union Charges placed against them which has forced them to leave their positions and become Fee Payer’s…  What exactly is a Fee Payer and why is the press not following up on this?  Who is placing these false charges and why is Dan Livingston’s firm overseeing the charge and trail process???? This appears to be a serious conflict of interests… Sounds like the fox is running the hen house…..

posted by: Lawrence | July 4, 2012  7:19am

Isn’t this the breakaway labor group that was supported by Republican legislators Joe Markley and Chris Coutu?

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/republican_lawmakers_support_unions_right_to_vote/

Where’s the ‘outraged comment’ from Markley and Coutu on this court decision?

Because, you know, they care about middle-class working people and everything…

posted by: perturbed | July 4, 2012  11:33am

perturbed

It’s clear now why a decision took so long; Low & Battey were busy torturing their logic!

Seriously, the Low & Battey decision is troubling for several reasons. It’s also clear they didn’t reach their decision through intellectual honesty. They merely found a convoluted way to justify the decision they either wanted or were forced to make. First, let’s try to follow the twists of their reasoning.

So the single objection by the SEBAC/Malloy team that Low & Battey (sounds like a comedy team) decided they wouldn’t be too embarrassed to defend was “Attachment H”. They dignify that piece of work with the title, “the contract bar rule.” Here are some of the “Findings of Fact,” rearranged in chronological order:

►32. Attachment H was not submitted for review to the members of the P-4 unit, DCJ unit, Judicial Professional unit, Judicial Marshals unit, and Judicial Non-Professionals unit on or prior to August 16 and 17, 2011.

►28. On or about August 16 and 17, 2011 individual collective bargaining agreements adopting the “2011 Agreement Framework” set forth in Attachment A to the Revised SEBAC Agreement were ratified by the P-4 unit, DCJ unit, Judicial Professional unit, Judicial Marshals unit, and Judicial Non-Professional unit.

►29. On August 18, 2011 all SEBAC member unions** voted to approve the Revised SEBAC Agreement including Attachments A through I of which Attachment H states, in relevant part:

Effective on and after July 1, 2011, the contract bar for purposes of any constituent union of SEBAC accepting a contract extension or renewal in accordance with Appendix A of this agreement shall be computed solely from the expiration date of any such extension or renewal.

** Note: this was NOT a rank-and-file vote. This was the same group of union bosses that secretly authored the agreement with Malloy. The rank-and-file ratified one agreement, then the union bosses modified it and approved a different agreement.

Here are the three key elements of the Low & Battey decision:

A) It was argued that the “premature extension rule” and the “three year rule” both override Attachment H. Low & Battey decided that if they followed the letter (not the intent) of SERA labor laws, in effect at the time and since changed, they could find a way to justify rejecting the intent of SERA labor laws. In effect, they said,“Attachment H ties our hands, so, sorry, we have no authority to contradict Attachment H,” regardless of past precedent, the true intent and spirit of SERA, or the authority vested in the Board.

The Dellapina dissent addresses this fallacy:

As the majority recognizes, MERA and SERA afford the Labor Board authority to determine what constitutes good cause for directing an election during the term of a collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board has consistently made such determinations through sound rules it has adopted from long-standing federal labor law. The instant petitions are timely under two of these rules, the so-called three year rule and the premature extension rule. While I refrain from discussing the three year rule other than to say it should have been applied here given the underlying policies recently discussed in State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Decision No. 4571 (2011), I feel that further discussion of the premature extension rule is warranted given the undisputed facts in these cases.

Dellapina goes on to cite a precedent in which the Board adopted the premature extension rule of the National Labor Relations Board. The Labor Board wrote in that case: “We believe the premature extension doctrine presents a sensible rule. It protects the employees’ right to choose their collective bargaining representative and the challenging union’s right to file election petitions. At the same time, the doctrine goes no further than the contract rule itself in its effect on the stability of collective bargaining relationships.”

B) It was argued that Attachment H should not be binding because the rank-and-file never had a chance to see it, and it wasn’t part of the agreement we voted on. In effect, Low & Battey said, “The union bosses can do whatever they want, we can’t rule on the fairness of their treatment of the rank-and-file union members.”

C) It was also argued that Attachment H should not be considered binding, because it conflicted with labor laws, and that conflict was not properly day-lighted for the legislature before they voted on the agreement. Here again, on a technicality squarely at odds with the spirit of labor laws, Low & Battey give Attachment H a pass. “In short, on August 22, 2011 Attachment H was consistent with and a codification of then existing law under SERA. As such we cannot ignore legislative approval of its provisions on the basis of a supersedence notice the statute did not require.”

—perturbed

posted by: perturbed | July 4, 2012  11:41am

perturbed

So why is the Low & Battey decision so troubling?

First, it demonstrates that the Labor Board is willing to alternately use their best judgement and vested authority when they choose to, or to pretend they have no authority when the political demands of the executive branch warrant it. In essence, Low & Battey have firmly established the role of the Board of Labor Relations as political instrument. I don’t know how they’re able to live with themselves, and I’m willing to bet Dellapina sleeps better at night.

Second, it sends a clear message to SEBAC—who has newly enhanced (through their modification of the ratification rules last year) authority to limit the demands of the individual bargaining units—that they have the green light to overrule the best interests of the rank-and-file, and the spirit of existing labor protections. Any time a vote is put to the rank-and-file, it’s OK for the SEBAC voting union bosses to alter the document we voted on at their whim?

Third—and this is the most troubling—using the Low & Battey logic, it would conceivably be possible to *NEVER* allow state workers to change unions ever again! How? The state and the corrupt union bosses can simply jointly agree to re-negotiate a new contract before the old one expires, and before the August 1 to August 31 window period, perpetually extending the expiration date of the contract. One hand washes the other. The state helps the union bosses collect more dues and political clout to further their political objectives, and the union bosses help the state by betraying the best interest of their (state employee) members. Is this really the world the “Board of Labor Relations” intends to create? Low & Battey should be ashamed of themselves.

Here is a picture of the Low & Battey team (seated along the back wall, Battey in red and Low black, with the lone voice of reason, Dellapina, to the right of them): Board of Labor Relations Hearing

As P-4 President Vitale noted in the article, this whole convoluted case is really only about one thing: the opportunity for the rank-and-file to exercise our right to choose our own representation. It’s a sad irony that on the day before Independence Day, the Board of Labor Relations published a decision that state workers in Connecticut do not deserve the right to choose their own representation. (Sounds downright UN-American to me.)

One last jab directed at the illustrious Christine Stuart: the opening line of this piece is characteristically misleading (and insidiously pro-SEBAC). “One rival union’s attempt to woo members away from their current unions was dismissed by the Connecticut Labor Board of Relations, but another rival union will have an opportunity to compete for the support of 500 captains and lieutenants in the Correction Department.”

It ain’t how you describe it, Christine!

No rival unions are doing any “wooing” or “competing.” (Haven’t we had this discussion before?!?) We rank-and-file members are desperately seeking help from any and every source we can find to escape the corrupt clutches of our union bosses. It’s us, actual state employees, that reached out for the help of other unions. We’re the ones that would have to convince any timid colleagues that the politics of the huge national unions no longer work in our favor (or in the favor of the general population of the state). Honestly, state employees should treat the actions of any union skeptically. UPSEU and NCEU would never be able to convince us to leave our oppressors, and that’s how it should be.

No, the betrayal by our own current union bosses is all that is necessary to drive us into the safe haven offered by UPSEU and NCEU.

We will get out eventually. Low & Battey just handed AFSCME and SEIU tens of millions of dollars more of our dues money in the interim, but we will get out eventually .

—perturbed

posted by: Joe Markley | July 4, 2012  1:13pm

My experience testifying before the board left me convinced that the process existed to give an air of legitimacy to a plainly unjust process.  I think anyone who cares about fair elections will be outraged when they learn of a decision based on a clause inserted into a contract after its ratification, which the legislature was not made aware of.  I remain convinced that the P4 members are entitled to a free election.  It’s not a matter of class: fair and open processes, governed by the rule of law, make us all free and equal citizens.

posted by: rankandfile | July 4, 2012  2:20pm

Major, a fee payer is someone who pays forced union dues but is not a member of the union. The amount is supposed to be reduced so that you don’t have to pay the Democratic campaign contribution portion. Where they charged with trying to bring in an ouside union? That may be enough under the current system. Unions have many built-in monopoly protections to protect their fiefdoms.

posted by: FeePayer | July 4, 2012  2:28pm

Truly unbelievable!  What a disgrace!  Since my vote was worthless and has now been completely taken away from me, a fee payer I shall become… Democracy is dead on this Independence Day.  Thank you, CSEA.  Thank you, Labor Board.  Thank you, Gov. Malloy.  Thank you, Legislators.  Thank you, Patrice Petersen, Bob Rinker, and their weak, pathetic followers.  The revolution has just begun.

posted by: victory1 | July 4, 2012  8:01pm

Like the democrat party is some profile in courage. Doing and saying nothing because they are more concerned about the union bosses cutting off their campaign contributions than doing the right thing. At least Couto and Markely stood up for P-4 member’s right to vote. Just like at the kangaroo labor board, at least one person followed the law, and he will be proven correct when this goes to court.  and it WILL go to court. In the meantime can you say Fee Payer, just remember there is more than one way to starve a tick. The smart people realize the old style left wing union politics, using the member’s due for their own political agenda and claiming it is helping the members are on thier last legs. Read the Supreme Court decision Knox V seiu.

posted by: Reasonable | July 4, 2012  8:53pm

Lawrence:  Your assertion that Joe Markley and Chris Coutu “care less about middle-class working people” is ambigious, political, and not believable.  Your thoughts are not gospel, by any means.

posted by: perturbed | July 4, 2012  10:00pm

perturbed

Now we have proof for Luke that Mark Ojakian lied about Attachment H. (See Findings of Fact 23, 27, 31 and 32.)

Just for the record…

wink

—perturbed

posted by: rankandfile | July 5, 2012  7:57am

Attachment H wasn’t the only change inserted after the vote. An attachment I is mentioned, I still haven’t seen what is in that. The agreement that members voted on also specifically stated that we were giving up a longevity payment only on the condition that managers would give up at least an equal amount. Yet in the final agreement union members gave up a longevity payment without managers giving up any portion of theirs. What was the purpose of having a vote and then a revote if wholesale changes could be made to the agreement after the fact?

posted by: Raoul Duke | July 5, 2012  1:50pm

Reading the comments on this article, I have to ask: are state employees given a mental health exam?  The unhinged ramblings of these P-4 members is frightening.  Are all state employees this disturbed?

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 5, 2012  4:39pm

Upset.Citizen

@Raoul Duke – Before you go using words you don’t understand look them up first!

up•set   [v., adj. uhp-set; n. uhp-set]
verb (used with object)
2. to disturb mentally or emotionally; perturb: The incident upset her.
4. to disturb physically: It upset his stomach.

dis•turbed   [dih-sturbd] 
adjective
2. agitated or distressed; disrupted: disturbed seas; a disturbed situation.

The unions have forgotten who pays them.  They treat the members like we know nothing and what we want and need does not matter.  We pay them, but they are our boss!  This is upsetting to the point where I want to throw up and the disturbing situation will not end soon enough!

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 5, 2012  4:42pm

Major Shmuck

Raoul Duke, Calling people names is a bit childish.  Try being constructive for a change.  Maybe when your rights get trampled on like these P-4 members that Major Shmuck is reading about, you will sing a different tune?????  Now, off with you…....your ignorance has irritated Major Shmuck

posted by: Mr.Kruger | July 5, 2012  4:51pm

Oh look, blue light special now going on at Feepayers-R-Us!  Hurry in now for the “fill out your paperwork and be set free” deal.

Time to bankrupt CSEA!

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 5, 2012  5:17pm

Major Shmuck

Troops….. Major Shmuck has done some initial recon on P-4.  It has come to my attention that there are approximately 19 Chapters in P-4 and a whole bunch of Stewards. However, the troops are not happy and the count of stewards appears to be dwindling.  It has also come to the Major’s attention that charges have been placed by members who are “posing” as “legal officers” against duely elected leaders who were elected by the members, not by higher level officers and staff….  Holly Cow?????  Ironically the union is backing the illegal officers????  Major Shmuck says, Hanoi Jane would be happy….Major Shmuck is not…..

Major Shmuck asked that if these are members posing as officers and holding illegal meetings…..would these individual be personally responsible for monies that are spent in the “name of P-4 members”?  Folks, Major Shmuck was told, “Roger that Sir, that would be a big AFFIRMATIVE!!!”  Major Shmuck says again….Holy Cow!!!!
Major Shmuck was also told that Charges have been placed against 3 out of 4 P-4 Officers and approximatelty 5
+/- P-4 Chapter Presidents and 2 to 3 stewards/members.

Additionally P-4 members as a whole are livid by the decision of the Department of Labor and many will become “Fee-Payers”.

RANKANDFILE…Major Shmuck thanks you for letting me know what a “Fee-Payer” is.

Major Shmuck will continue to recon this situation and will deliver a SIT-REP (Situation Report for you civilians) ASAP…Over and Out….

posted by: rankandfile | July 5, 2012  5:43pm

“On August 18, 2011 all SEBAC member unions** voted to approve the Revised SEBAC Agreement including Attachments A through I”. Can anyone provide a copy of attachment I ? I checked several different union websites,they all only show A-G. Apparently there is some reason that they are still hiding H and I. Also, I would think that the State paying outside lawyers to defend SEBAC against an opportunity for members to have free and open elections would have generated more news.

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 5, 2012  7:07pm

Upset.Citizen

I have an idea for all you P4 members who are about to become fee payers…  How about you pony up for true representation!!

Who has done more for you than your own union SEIU/CSEA???  Well, WHO!?!?

I’ll tell you who, that’s the CtNewsJunkie! 

They have done more towards representing us, letting us get our voices heard, and reporting the truth about our situation than anyone else!  Why don’t you take a few of the $$ you saved by becoming fee payers and send it to them? 

Think of why you became fee payers? It’s for the exact opposite reasons that you read the Junkie!  Christine Stuart and her colleagues have done more for us than our union has over this past year, that’s for sure!

I took the plunge!  Now follow my example and tell your friends and coworkers to do the same!

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/become_a_member/

I put my money where my mouth is, won’t you!

UC

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 5, 2012  9:54pm

Major Shmuck

Troops…..I am forwarding coded intel to our troops on dangerous shores…as we did during WW-II

The Piggy is run-in around
Tooth is on da ground

Flea on the dog
Man-hands pickin up da frogs

Bobbi is da Puppet Rapper
CSEA is in such Dis-aster

Horse on da run
Hobbit not have-in any fun

Traitor lost his way
Sasquach will have-ta pay

Witch is flyin high
UPSUE’s by our side

Billy Joel, bust-in rhymes
He don’t take no-buddies side


Translation will come on later broadcast….... Stay Strong P-4….Major Shmuck Out….

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 5, 2012  10:05pm

Major Shmuck

Attention Upset Citizen…..

Major Shmuck would be proud to donate to CTNewsJunkie.com.  Christine does an outstanding job and gives an honest report.

Christine, thankyou for your honest reporting and hard work.  You write many articles and us readers appreciate that you keep us and the public informed.  I have said this before…..Major Shmuck Salutes You!!!!!!!!

posted by: Raoul Duke | July 6, 2012  11:07am

A special message for true patriots and freedom loving Nutmeggers:

Fake marine could make you scream

Caesar hair just doesn’t care

Living fetus is so fat he’ll try to eat us

Skinny loser wishes he was cooler

Taxpayers should have a better workforce, but we’re stuck with this group of doofus

Engineers who can’t do math and property managers who can’t find a path

If we could just lay them off, I wouldn’t scoff

The Newington trash is scamming for cash

The public beware, the quality of some state employees could give you a scare.

posted by: Edward Abbey | July 6, 2012  11:56am

Major Schmuck, really?  Using military metaphors?  Let’s not dishoner the men and women who serve our country with distinction by writing Lord of the Flies mean rhymes. 
I don’t even know that you’ve really served your country, and you’re pretending this is about some military mission?  Please! 
If you want to behave honorabley, write about the people you clearly dislike, be honest, use facts not ill references.  This whole story appears to be about Unions and their work for Union members.  Either be part of the solution or be quiet.

posted by: Edward Abbey | July 6, 2012  12:15pm

Is the Joe Markley who posted Senator Joe Markley?  If so, why have you advocated that state employees lose their pensions (go to 401Ks) and why have you otherwise voted against collective bargaining and state employees on a consistent basis?  You’re the “champion” for just one of the unions involved?  Any particular reason?  Why does UPPYSEU support YOU when you attack collective bargaining?

What’s the trade-off, if you’re SENATOR Markley?

posted by: perturbed | July 6, 2012  12:30pm

perturbed

@Edward Abbey, you wrote: “This whole story appears to be about Unions and their work for Union members.”

If only that were true!

I’m not sure how familiar you are with this story, Mr. Abbey, but I assure you this story has nothing—absolutely nothing!—to do with Unions and their work for Union members. However, you are to be congratulated to see the distinction between the Unions and the Union members. At this point, the vast majority of the Union members distrust, and actually despise, the Unions.

No, Mr. Abbey, this story is all about Unions teaming up with the Malloy administration to work against union members. If the Unions didn’t team up with Malloy to write their own SEBAC agreement to begin with, there would have been no petition by the union members to change unions. After the petition by Union members was filed with the Labor Board, the state and the Unions saw fit to unite against the rights of the Union members to vote on their choice of representation.

Let me just pose this question to you: How can the Unions’ fight to suppress the Union members’ right to choose their own representation possibly be construed as “work for Union members?”

The state paid a couple of lawyers and the Unions paid a whole bank of lawyers (from Union members own dues!) to fight against Union members rights.

Can you find a single shred of evidence in this story of Unions working for the benefit Union members? Anything at all?

If you had attended any of the hearings before the Labor Board you wouldn’t have heard a single utterance by any of the Unions’ lawyers that expressed any concern whatsoever about the Union members. They behaved rudely, childishly, and pompously, and offered no real justification for their objection to our vote. At several points, I was actually embarrassed for them—their arguments were that pathetic.

Thanks for any insight you could provide on this. Your interpretation of this story truly baffles me.

—perturbed

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 6, 2012  1:07pm

Upset.Citizen

@Christine -Flag on the playing field! The posts by Raoul Duke are not related to the article and are little more then insults and name calling…

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 6, 2012  1:19pm

Major Shmuck

Edward,  you may want to check with Raoul Duke’s post where it questioned my service and used foul language. “Fetus”...really?????
Major Shmuck did not dishonor military members.  Major Shmuck is not a state employee.  Major Shmuck is trying to find out why these members are not getting a vote?  This travesty has been going on for a long time, and appears to be continueing…Makes no sense to Major Shmuck????  Also angry response appears to Major Shmuck that intel was spot on!  Next question?

posted by: perturbed | July 6, 2012  1:31pm

perturbed

@Edward Abbey: Do you believe state employees have a right to choose their own union(s) or not? If not, why not?

—perturbed

posted by: Edward Abbey | July 6, 2012  2:06pm

Instead of working against one another, Unions should be working together to strengthen collective bargaining.  Does no one want to work toward improvement?  Does everyone posting want to get rid of collective bargaining?

UPSEEU pals around with legislators who would like to destroy collective bargaining.  Why would any Union member want to associate with either that kind of organization or those kinds of legislators?

It should be about working together to advance our collective interests.  No one is talking about that.  I want us to fight together—far more effective for all of us.

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 6, 2012  2:38pm

Major Shmuck

Edward,  you must be referring to RD?  He brought up military comments…and his email was rude and crude….  “Fetus”.  Really…...

Major Shmuck did not dishonor military members.  Major Shmuck is not a state employee.  Major Shmuck is trying to find out why these members are not getting a vote?  This travesty has been going on for a long time, and appears to be continueing…Makes no sense to Major Shmuck????  Also angry response appears to Major Shmuck that intel was spot on!  Next question?

posted by: Edward Abbey | July 6, 2012  3:51pm

Absolutely Union members should have the right to vote.  However no one has answered the question about whether or not the whole SEBAC agreement or our Contract would go down in flames if we decertified.  Either way, UPSEU doesn’t seem to care, and I care.  Some of my good friends, one with 17 years of service, were going to get laid off.  We need the SEBAC agreement to keep collective bargaining. 

I notice that MSchmuck did not answer about the alleged military service. Making references to other state employees in silly rhymes is a waste of time.

posted by: perturbed | July 6, 2012  4:03pm

perturbed

First Edward Abbey wrote:

“If you want to behave honorabley [sic], write about the people you clearly dislike, be honest, use facts not ill references.”

Then Edward Abbey wrote:

“UPSEEU [sic] pals around with legislators who would like to destroy collective bargaining.”

Hmmmm. Really?

Though the term “pals around with” is nebulous, however you choose to define it, could you provide the source for this “fact?”

Also, because it’s critical to this issue, I’ll ask again:

Do you believe state employees have a right to choose their own union(s) or not? If not, why not?

(If you remain non-responsive, I’ll have to assume you are not interested in being part of the solution, Mr. Abbey, and that you are affiliated with a union that has betrayed state workers’ interests.)

Thanks in advance for your (ahem) “clarifications.”

—perturbed

posted by: rankandfile | July 6, 2012  4:10pm

Edward, having a free choice to vote on which union represents you doesn’t weaken collective bargaining, it strengthens it. Also, not all members would agree that changing bylaws, revotes, the Health Enforcement Program, multiple changes to the agreement after the revote, giving back hard fought benefits for temporary layoff protections, etc are examples of “working together to advance our collective interest”.

posted by: perturbed | July 6, 2012  4:45pm

perturbed

@Edward Abbey—thanks! We agree: Union members should have the right to vote!

Next question:

Why are our own unions fighting to suppress our right to vote?

Mr. Abbey said:

“However no one has answered the question about whether or not the whole SEBAC agreement or our Contract would go down in flames if we decertified.”

Sorry, didn’t see the question asked before. That’s an easy one:

NO. Neither the whole SEBAC agreement nor our contract would be jeopardized in any way.

Think about it for a minute, Mr. Abbey. Either the state or UPSEU would have to actually want that to happen.

There. Now do you see how ridiculous that question is?

(Sheeeesh! Talk about a non-issue.)

—perturbed

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 6, 2012  5:43pm

Upset.Citizen

Edward, It’s refreshing to have someone from DEEP ask questions rather than spout off without knowing.  You’ve come to the right place!  We’ve been researching this since before it even started a year ago!  See our site - site for history

(BTW: Edward Abbey – good reading!)

Our contract will go with us.  This is not the first time a union/chapter split off from CSEA.  CSEA was the first and only union in the state for a very long time… all the other unions are representing other employees in the state because they left CSEA in the past and they have been better for it… For starters compare their contracts with ours… flex time, better pay, better bumping, better language for seniority protection, training, advancement, etc… CSEA got lazier and sloppier over time…

UC

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 6, 2012  9:01pm

Major Shmuck

Edward…silly, silly, silly.

My retired military friend called me today and said, “Major, why are you allowing this person be rude to you after all of your years of service?  You should dress them down right straight and proper!”  I responded, “No need Sgt. Major, this child is silly.  Obviously she or he never served in a third world county, never was locked and loaded on, and more importantly, never served.  I can tell that by they way she or he writes their childish post, trying to use the military as a tool!”  Sad, sad sad….  Hopefully this answers your rude and tastless questioning of someone who has served and retired from the active service….as in FULL TIME military service, my ignorant child.

Now again, away with you and your silly comments

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 8, 2012  8:23am

Upset.Citizen

@Major Shmuck  Mission Piggy Run acknowledged and underway!

THE GLOVES ARE COMING OFF!

Our site has instructions on how to become an Agency Fee Payer!  (Look under the WHAT TO DO WHILE YOU WAIT section.)

What does it mean to become an Agency Fee Payer?  You will be sending a message to your union that they suck and you will be giving yourself a raise!  You lose nothing!  You are still covered by our contract and have union protection.  What does SEIU/CSEA lose?  They will only be able to collect the amount of dues from you that directly relates to you and our contract.  They will no longer have extra monies to funnel to politicians who pretend to be our friends… well you know how that turned out!

UC out!

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 8, 2012  1:51pm

Major Shmuck

A quote for my child friend Eddie:

“Hierarchical institutions are like giant bulldozers — obedient to the whim of any fool who takes the controls”.

-A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

This is from the real Edward Abbey

Appears to Major Shmuck that Eddie is a bit clueless and intellectually challanged on all fronts….“And the truth shall set you free”  Booooo-Yaaaaaaaaaa

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 8, 2012  9:44pm

Upset.Citizen

People please…  Edward is new here.  He may have said a few things that were off putting, but keep an open mind.  He also asked some valid questions, which I believe we answered.

Edward, was there anything else that you would like answered?

UC

posted by: perturbed | July 9, 2012  7:51am

perturbed

Edward’s statements so far have raised some questions here and I’m hoping he’ll be honorable enough to provide honest answers, using “facts not ill references,” as he recommended others do.

I think we all deserve a response on how Edward came to the conclusion that “UPSEU pals around with legislators who would like to destroy collective bargaining.” The implication is that UPSEU wants to destroy collective bargaining. That stretches the imagination. Which legislators are you referring to, Edward? And how do you mean, “pals around with?” Have you seen them hanging out together in night clubs? Do they go to ball games together? Or—now be honest here Edward—is it just the coincidence that both UPSEU and a couple of legislatures believe state employees should be allowed to vote for their own choice of union representation? (Hey, as long as we’re forced to pay union dues (or fees!) as a condition of our employment, I sure do believe we deserve at least the choice of union to pay them to!)

I’d also like to explore this question a bit more: Edward, why are our own unions fighting to suppress our right to vote? Aren’t they supposed to protect our rights? Why would they fight against us, and then claim they are working in our interest? Fighting to prevent our vote directly conflicts with their stated goal.

I’m hoping Edward will behave honorably here, answer these basic questions, and be part of the solution…

...or be quiet.

—perturbed

On second thought, Edward Abbey does actually seem terribly confused. I’d also be glad to help his understanding in any way I could if he has more pertinent questions.