On March 17, 2011 Union Boss Terrance McGowan signed a settlement agreement with the National Labor Relations Board. Here's the link to it http://bigmammasdirt.blogspot.com/p/test-pg-2.html 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 agreement. Boss 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment