In a Wisconsin Supreme Court vote of 4 to 3, the Gang of Four Empty Robes aka GoFERs, pushed Wisconsin's union busting Governor Walker to victory over the middle class. Wait, I'm reminded of another monumental decision affecting America being decided by a close non-partisan 5 to 4 vote of a Supreme Court. I digress. The WI high court upheld Gov. Walker's "budget repair" bill which eliminates most collective bargaining rights for most WI public workers. And don't we all know that public employees - like maybe your next door neighbor that protects your house when you're on vacation - should not have the same union member rights as a private employer union member. BTW, how come Police, Firefighters and State Patrol Officers are not affected by Walker's law?

MOST union leaders slammed the high courts decision according to the AP. The President of the Wisconsin of the AFL-CIO, Phil Neuenfeldt, 'called it "an affront to our democracy"'.
I guess Phil is speaking for MOST of his union affiliates. Ya think Phil is aware that Union Boss Gooch McGowan of Wisconsin's Local 139, International Union of Operating Engineers SUPPORTS GOV. WALKER. Local 139 is 9,000 members strong in Wisconsin.

And who was one of the four GoFERs? Yup, Justice Prosser, former non-partisan Republican Speaker of the Assembly. The same Prosser who very recently won his reelection to the WI high court with 14,000 "found" votes by a Republican elections official in Waukesha. Big Ed says Prosser "wrote in his eight-page concurrence that GOP legislators had good reason to rush things they [sic] way they did, given the ugly mood of protesters at the Capital". Come on, why would upwards of 70,000 public workers and their supporters protesting at the state capital be upset about Wisconsin public union members losing their decades old and established collective bargaining rights. Rights that effectively helped to support their middle class families. Rights that non-public union workers still enjoy. At least for now.

Secrecy Good, Open Meetings Law Bad. Is this what the GoFERs are telling the citizens of Wisconsin? Telling the world?

And what of the three dissenting justices. They said the GoFERs rendered a "hasty judgement", "... they make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes,...and misstate case law". They went on to say that the court order was "based on errors of fact and law". Dissenting Justice Abrahamson wrote that the majority "set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation". Ouch.

Secrecy, arrogance and lying.

Union Boss McGowans Local 139 Violates Rank & File Members NLRA Rights

On March 17, 2011 Union Boss Terrance McGowan signed a settlement agreement with the National Labor Relations Board. Here's the link to it or click on agreement.

In February or March of 2010 rank and file member Tim Pare filed charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers local 139. This local is controlled by union boss Terrance McGowan. Pare complained to the NLRB that local 139 refused to give him copies of out of work lists and hiring hall dispatching rules. The out of work list shows all of local 139 members and non-union operators who are available for local 139 job dispatching. The local 139 hiring hall dispatching rules are the rules for dispatching union and non-union operators to jobs.

Pare later filed another NLRB complaint against McGowan's local 139. Pare complained that boss McGowan and some of his officers and staff and supporters were harassing him for filing the first charges. This was an UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE against local 139. The NLRB agreed with rank and file member Pare.

Pare and union boss McGowan eventually agreed on a settlement. PART of the settlement was that boss McGowans union would post the agreement in all of the four 139 district offices for 60 days. It was also posted on 139s website. Nobody could see the website agreement unless you were a member of the local. What is the rest of the settlement agreement?

Read the partial settlement agreementBoss McGowan agreed that his union will not threaten members with job loss or expulsion from the union or that members could lose their raises for filing charges against the union with the NLRB. McGowan agreed that the union would not threaten to file or urge members to file internal union charges against a member because they file a charge against the union with the NLRB. McGowan agreed his union would not condone members threatening other members with physical harm because they filed charges against the union with the NLRB.

Why would a union boss sign a NLRB agreement saying the union he is in charge of WILL NOT attack its members, if the union had not attacked its members? Wouldn't that be stupid? Why do union members allow that to go on? What's wrong with them? Go ahead and slip your kneepads on idiots.

NEW AUTHOR just signed on a new author. She's intuitive, curious, questioning and plain spoken. We like her style and hope you do too. Look for postings by nokneepads if that doesn't say volumes. Holy crap she's even simplified me.