Despotic Usurpers! There are other parts of Federal, State Departments and Bureaus making regulations which are equally despotic. Although it is more out of ignorance than design! Still, these Unions do not support, nor subscribe to "..all men are created equal.. endowed by their Creator... with certain unalienable rights - unalienable because the rights come directly from God. As State employees, many take an Oath to support Our Constitution, which you can see is unalterable in its connection to the Declaration, and almost since the union's founding, has never accepted nor adhered too.
The two - Unions and 'Progressive-Democracy-Socialists' share the above as common 'philosophy'of refusal to accept unalienable rights of man from God; and therefore any part of the Constitution, with its design to protect the individual from government.
This is THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to all natural and naturalized American Citizens. Thanks to re-allowing C-Span back into committee meetings, today, the 'Ways and Means Committee'(Thurs 2/3mtg) met with Treasurer Gaitthner(?sp), to speak about the budget: When Republican set record straight about exactly how much is left over from 2008 and added the several facts about failed Administrative policy to date, Charles Rangle, Ch.said there isn't enough time to answer that..trailed-off sentence: which is the point!
HOW CAN THIS OBAMA and ADMINISTRATION EVEN CONSIDER THE MISUSE OF NEARLY GONE TAXPAYER RESOURCES (A.K.A. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS-STIMULUS-REGULATION-NEW ENERGY-etc.), EVER CONSIDER ADDING A 'GOVERNMENT'JOBS with UN-NECESSARY - EVEN REGRESSIVE - HIDDEN ADGENDAS??!! HOW CAN THIS OBAMA & ADMINISTRATION CONSIDER 'REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME' AT 'THE BUSINESS AS INDIVIDUAL LEVEL' by DESIGNATING ONLY SMALL BUSINESS - AS WORTHY OF TAX BREAKS!? Nothing in the United States economy occurs in isolation because of people, basic resources required both natural and man-made raw materials in developing business. This kind of ignorance MAINTAINS THIS ADMINISTRATION AS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, especially with the China connection not only in business, but also in cyber-space which some specialists recognize as a cyber-war not working in America's favor right now.
Because of the Unions, This Progressive/democracy Administration, the nature of huge indebtedness to 'few men government' of China and other Nations, which adds to our vulnerability along with no oil production or nuclear power source, Our United States of America is more vulnerable than when Hitler was invading Europe and USA had guns to shoot the enemy!
There are no guns in this Our Current war represented by the Above. The worst of the opposition to USA is: 1) Since "Truth is very hard to know (Obama's AutoBiography)", unions, taxpayer resources (government spending), group decisions made based on a 2-head-Roosevelt Dime, disrespect, disregard, and ignorance for both Congress and American People ("they don't understand"), history's lessons, only 'the few' are assisting Obama: Soros, Czars, Cabinet members, and some 'Democratic'- excluding 'centrist'Democrats - are allowed to decide. Even to the extent that Obama declares "..The only trouble with Republicans is they won't listen to our side..!". 2) Since both the Declaration and Constitution are written based on honor, integrity of personal responsibility, and the steadfast to this day belief that All Men Have Intrinsic Value (as well as opposite bad traits), and the Ability to Act in Honor With The Truth of God and The Holy Bible, plus several centuries of history of fallen and troubled Nations, added to the reason Our Country was populated in the first place, and to its 200 y/o each of the 13 Colony's Constitutions, resulting in the Two Most Unique Statements of Mankind's Ability to learn Human Nature ever written by a very special group of gentlemen, then the opposition must ignore the existence of such ideas! The length of this sentence is also the reason it stands above ANY AND ALL OTHER POINTS OF VIEW, especially the clothed wolf called Progressive, covered in the Grizzly Bear skin of Democracy. One founder described Democracy as a beautiful sounding idea: - lets help everyone - that eats itself up and has never, in history, succeeded as a form of government.
But the Unions and this Administration have severe blind and deaf problems resulting from the 2-head-Roosevelt Dime plus the peculiarities of human nature self-contained and in power absent reason.
And they have the luck of an America who has never directly faced an attack on its 224 yr. old(+ in A.D. history) Basic Human Rights and the integrity plus understanding of human nature the Constitution represents in protecting the 'unique-person-individual' as the best method to achieve Life-Liberty-and-The Pursuit of Happiness! 'We the people' continue to grapple with this fact. It is very hard to believe that several generations of Americans, including this President and members of his Administration, cannot and do not subscribe to the United States of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution which is reflected in each of the fifty State's Constitutions.
'We the people' have to complete 'acceptance' that the opposition means what they say -- equally to We Mean What We Say: "It is our duty to our country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against ALL ENEMIES."(The American's Creed by W.T. Page, Clerk of the House, 1917)!
Unions have to learn that they are American and subject to the same Constitution. Everyone who remains silent during this part of our history - the Renewal of Belief - is in agreement with Progressive - Democracy. 'We the People' must 'go to work' for our children, grand-children, and this Nation into the prosperity of the future, our forefather's with Gods Help Defined For All Men, In All Times and All Places!
When unions eat their own
Written by on February 06, 2010, 05:05 PM
Cop out
Sworn peace officers attempt to break away from statewide public-safety workers union
By Amy Yannello, Sacramento News Review, 2/4/10
Now that Chris Lewis, an investigator for the state Department of Corporations, has won his case against the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, he and other sworn officers hope to start a new union.
Suppose you happen to be among the 12.3 percent of Americans who belong to a labor union. You enjoy the benefits of being in a union, but at the same time feel the bargaining unit doesnt have your best interests at heart. When the unions contract expires, you take advantage of the opportunity provided by state law to reduce your dues, and then set out to form your own union. Except before you have the chance, the old union boots you out and youre forced to take them to court.
That, in a nutshell, is the situation that Chris Lewis and Scott Edelen found themselves in when they sought to resign from the powerful California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, a public-employees union 7,000 members strong. The CSLEA serves a wide membership that includes state hospital police, Department of Justice special agents, Department of Fish and Game wardens, Department of Insurance fraud investigators, Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control agents and state park rangers. It also represents the interests of about 2,800 sworn peace officers.
The latter group includes Lewis and Edelen, sworn officers who work as special investigators for the Department of Corporations, the state counterpart to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. They feel that a union consisting of only sworn officers would better represent them.
Im sorry, but as sworn peace officers, we just dont have a lot in common with DMV driving instructors, said Lewis, noting that the CSLEA covers them, too.
In June 2008, CSLEAs collective bargaining agreement with the state expired. State law allows public employees to resign from their unions and pay fair share dues during a specific window of time when theyre not covered by a contract. In November 2008, Lewis and Edelen submitted a severance petition to CSLEA which would have dropped their dues from about $80 per month to about $32 per month. Instead of allowing the pair to resign, CSLEA kicked them out of the union instead an action that Lewis says was done purely out of spite because he and Edelen wanted to start a new union.
The union officially kicked out both men in January 2009. Between February and April, briefs were filed and hearings held at the Public Employment Relations Board. Lewis and Edelen contended that CSLEA violated state law specifically the Ralph C. Dills Act in not letting them to pay fair-share dues and resign from the union.
Despite being contacted by SN&R numerous times, CSLEA declined to comment for this story. In its closing brief filed with PERB, the association argued that it was within its rights to deny Lewis and Edelen the opportunity to reduce their dues. It also insisted that it had not retaliated against the pair, despite the fact that it booted both of them out of the union. Although Edelen and Lewis were subsequently expelled from CSLEA membership, there is no evidence the motive to deny the requests was in retaliation for protected activity.
However, PERB chief administrative law judge Bernard McMonigle didn’t see it that way, finding that CSLEA unlawfully interfered with employee rights when it refused to honor valid requests to withdraw from membership in violation of the Dills Act. McMonigle also concluded that CSLEAs action did constitute a form of retaliation.
CSLEA also argues that Edelen and Lewis cannot prevail here because they have not established an unlawful intent to interfere with their rights under the Dills Act, the judge noted. However, the test of whether a respondent has interfered with the rights of employees under the Dills Act does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee rights result from the conduct.
Not surprisingly, Lewis agrees.
Usually, when you resign from a union, you go to fair share the least amount of money because they’re still the recognized bargaining unit that negotiates contracts and enforces contract provisions, and the law has provided that they’re entitled to some of your money, Lewis said. This is not about being anti-union. Its about them wanting to take as much money as they could from us by denying us that right to resign. If they were truly interested in not having me involved in their union, they would have let me resign. Instead, they took disciplinary action against me and kicked me out. So, yes, it was retaliatory. Absolutely.
The Public Employees Relations Board concurs. In June 2009, it ruled in favor of Lewis and Edelen, but the CSLEA appealed. On December 31, 2009, an administrative law judge for PERB denied CSLEAs appeal and upheld the first courts ruling that CSLEA was in violation of the Dills Act for not allowing Lewis and Edelen out of their union, continuing to charge them full dues and retaliating against them by kicking them out of the union after they had asked to resign.
Because of the ruling, Lewis and others who had applied for fair-share dues will be issued refund checks in the near future, according to PERB officials. Lewis said he didnt know how much his would amount to, but that he was expecting word in the coming week.
Just as importantly, the ruling paves the way for Lewis and Edelen to start their own union, tentatively called Peace Officers of California. Theyve already gained support from more than 50 percent of the 2,800 sworn officers in CSLEA an action that helped spur retaliation from the union, Lewis said. He contends that a new union will grant sworn officers more bargaining clout with the state.
We brought in testimony that showed that two previous governors wanted to give raises to the peace officers, but not to the non sworn, Lewis said, explaining why he thinks the CSLEA does not adequately represent peace officers. The union turned both of those offers down because there were no raises to be given to the non sworn.
According to Lewis, the inability to negotiate wages separately for sworn officers is creating vacancies at the state level because the pay is not on par with sworn officers at the county and city levels.
When you cant compete with pay, you’re not going to be able to compete, so we had recruitment and retention issues, Lewis said. For example, in 2008, Department of Fish and Game wardens were at 1970 staffing levels. (Fish and Game wardens are sworn officers, at the same level as California Highway Patrol officers, which have their own union.)
For its part, CSLEA isnt talking. Repeated attempts over a two-day period to elicit a response for this article went unacknowledged by CSLEA chief legal counsel Kasey Clark.
But its safe to assume that the union isn’t happy at the prospect of losing nearly 3,000 of its cop members, thus making a nice dent in the $6.72 million annually in dues it takes in from its 7,000 members.
Meanwhile, other sworn officers in the CSLEA are following Lewis and Edelens lead.
I’m looking forward to moving to the new union, said Todd Hern, a detective with the state Department of Insurance. Im absolutely pleased with the ruling; I don’t think the union has been doing us any favors. I tried to resign in January 2009, and was told I couldn’t and that I needed to have done it in June 2008but I was deployed with the military at that time, so I couldn’t even do that. They said Id have to wait another three years to resign June 2011even though we don’t have a new contract in place. This new ruling nulls and voids that.
I truly believe that the CSLEA has been doing us a disservice and that everyone law enforcement will switch, Hern concluded.
Sworn peace officers attempt to break away from statewide public-safety workers union
By Amy Yannello, Sacramento News Review, 2/4/10
Now that Chris Lewis, an investigator for the state Department of Corporations, has won his case against the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, he and other sworn officers hope to start a new union.
Suppose you happen to be among the 12.3 percent of Americans who belong to a labor union. You enjoy the benefits of being in a union, but at the same time feel the bargaining unit doesnt have your best interests at heart. When the unions contract expires, you take advantage of the opportunity provided by state law to reduce your dues, and then set out to form your own union. Except before you have the chance, the old union boots you out and youre forced to take them to court.
That, in a nutshell, is the situation that Chris Lewis and Scott Edelen found themselves in when they sought to resign from the powerful California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, a public-employees union 7,000 members strong. The CSLEA serves a wide membership that includes state hospital police, Department of Justice special agents, Department of Fish and Game wardens, Department of Insurance fraud investigators, Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control agents and state park rangers. It also represents the interests of about 2,800 sworn peace officers.
The latter group includes Lewis and Edelen, sworn officers who work as special investigators for the Department of Corporations, the state counterpart to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. They feel that a union consisting of only sworn officers would better represent them.
Im sorry, but as sworn peace officers, we just dont have a lot in common with DMV driving instructors, said Lewis, noting that the CSLEA covers them, too.
In June 2008, CSLEAs collective bargaining agreement with the state expired. State law allows public employees to resign from their unions and pay fair share dues during a specific window of time when theyre not covered by a contract. In November 2008, Lewis and Edelen submitted a severance petition to CSLEA which would have dropped their dues from about $80 per month to about $32 per month. Instead of allowing the pair to resign, CSLEA kicked them out of the union instead an action that Lewis says was done purely out of spite because he and Edelen wanted to start a new union.
The union officially kicked out both men in January 2009. Between February and April, briefs were filed and hearings held at the Public Employment Relations Board. Lewis and Edelen contended that CSLEA violated state law specifically the Ralph C. Dills Act in not letting them to pay fair-share dues and resign from the union.
Despite being contacted by SN&R numerous times, CSLEA declined to comment for this story. In its closing brief filed with PERB, the association argued that it was within its rights to deny Lewis and Edelen the opportunity to reduce their dues. It also insisted that it had not retaliated against the pair, despite the fact that it booted both of them out of the union. Although Edelen and Lewis were subsequently expelled from CSLEA membership, there is no evidence the motive to deny the requests was in retaliation for protected activity.
However, PERB chief administrative law judge Bernard McMonigle didn’t see it that way, finding that CSLEA unlawfully interfered with employee rights when it refused to honor valid requests to withdraw from membership in violation of the Dills Act. McMonigle also concluded that CSLEAs action did constitute a form of retaliation.
CSLEA also argues that Edelen and Lewis cannot prevail here because they have not established an unlawful intent to interfere with their rights under the Dills Act, the judge noted. However, the test of whether a respondent has interfered with the rights of employees under the Dills Act does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee rights result from the conduct.
Not surprisingly, Lewis agrees.
Usually, when you resign from a union, you go to fair share the least amount of money because they’re still the recognized bargaining unit that negotiates contracts and enforces contract provisions, and the law has provided that they’re entitled to some of your money, Lewis said. This is not about being anti-union. Its about them wanting to take as much money as they could from us by denying us that right to resign. If they were truly interested in not having me involved in their union, they would have let me resign. Instead, they took disciplinary action against me and kicked me out. So, yes, it was retaliatory. Absolutely.
The Public Employees Relations Board concurs. In June 2009, it ruled in favor of Lewis and Edelen, but the CSLEA appealed. On December 31, 2009, an administrative law judge for PERB denied CSLEAs appeal and upheld the first courts ruling that CSLEA was in violation of the Dills Act for not allowing Lewis and Edelen out of their union, continuing to charge them full dues and retaliating against them by kicking them out of the union after they had asked to resign.
Because of the ruling, Lewis and others who had applied for fair-share dues will be issued refund checks in the near future, according to PERB officials. Lewis said he didnt know how much his would amount to, but that he was expecting word in the coming week.
Just as importantly, the ruling paves the way for Lewis and Edelen to start their own union, tentatively called Peace Officers of California. Theyve already gained support from more than 50 percent of the 2,800 sworn officers in CSLEA an action that helped spur retaliation from the union, Lewis said. He contends that a new union will grant sworn officers more bargaining clout with the state.
We brought in testimony that showed that two previous governors wanted to give raises to the peace officers, but not to the non sworn, Lewis said, explaining why he thinks the CSLEA does not adequately represent peace officers. The union turned both of those offers down because there were no raises to be given to the non sworn.
According to Lewis, the inability to negotiate wages separately for sworn officers is creating vacancies at the state level because the pay is not on par with sworn officers at the county and city levels.
When you cant compete with pay, you’re not going to be able to compete, so we had recruitment and retention issues, Lewis said. For example, in 2008, Department of Fish and Game wardens were at 1970 staffing levels. (Fish and Game wardens are sworn officers, at the same level as California Highway Patrol officers, which have their own union.)
For its part, CSLEA isnt talking. Repeated attempts over a two-day period to elicit a response for this article went unacknowledged by CSLEA chief legal counsel Kasey Clark.
But its safe to assume that the union isn’t happy at the prospect of losing nearly 3,000 of its cop members, thus making a nice dent in the $6.72 million annually in dues it takes in from its 7,000 members.
Meanwhile, other sworn officers in the CSLEA are following Lewis and Edelens lead.
I’m looking forward to moving to the new union, said Todd Hern, a detective with the state Department of Insurance. Im absolutely pleased with the ruling; I don’t think the union has been doing us any favors. I tried to resign in January 2009, and was told I couldn’t and that I needed to have done it in June 2008but I was deployed with the military at that time, so I couldn’t even do that. They said Id have to wait another three years to resign June 2011even though we don’t have a new contract in place. This new ruling nulls and voids that.
I truly believe that the CSLEA has been doing us a disservice and that everyone law enforcement will switch, Hern concluded.
RECOMMEND (8)
