Object Lesson of the day

[10 point]

Yes, you are correct.

But the ALJ did not reinstate him because he agreed that UPS would have discharged him for those comments had he still been an employee at the time he made the comments.

During the last 18 months he couldn't come up with information against the company to neutralize the affects of the statements he allegedly posted while terminated?
That is the issue that stumps me. Heck, that info is available and documented.

 

[Mugarolla]

During the last 18 months he couldn't come up with information against the company to neutralize the affects of the statements he allegedly posted while terminated

Apparently.

allegedly

He admitted to posting them.

 

[10 point]

Apparently.



The admitted to posting them.

There is rebuttal.

 

[Mugarolla]

There is rebuttal.

Hey. I edited that post and took out the .

 

[10 point]

Hey. I edited that post and took out the .

Looks like the mod forgot to proof read the whole thing.

 

[badsporh]

These are the comments that were made, in their entirety, taken from the company's closing brief

 

[badsporh]

When asked why he made these remarks on social media (5 months after his termination was upheld at panel), this is his response (taken from the trial transcripts)

 

[badsporh]

From what I know, the Facebook post in which these comments were made, was a post in which many Teamster UPSers were discussing various managers that were "bad" and having a discussion as to why our brethren should watch out for them. This could also be referred to as engaging in protected, concerted activity.

 

[badsporh]

Here is the workplace posting that the ALJ has ordered be posted as a part of his decision. That is of course contingent upon possible appeals of his decision from either party.

 

[badsporh]

I spent a great deal of time reading this case last night.. a paragraph or so cost this member tens of thousands of dollars in back pay/pension/health and welfare payments (along with his chance at reinstatement) as the NLRB cut off the penalty at the time when the company "discovered" the posts.

It wasn't cut off from the date that the comments were "discovered" by the company, but from the date that the court was made aware of the comments, more than a year after they were initially posted

 

[badsporh]

There's absolutely nothing for a "good lawyer" to "fix" as the member has exhausted nearly (if not) all of his appeals with the NLRB.

This is a completely uninformed and untrue statement. The member in question has as much right to appeal this "recommendation" by this ALJ to the NLRB as the employer does. In fact, the betting money is that BOTH sides will appeal the decision to the NLRB in D.C.
The member nor the company is nowhere close to having exhausted all appeals.

 

[badsporh]

ITG summed it up perfectly below.


What I would like to add is what I have already posted, but would now like to expound upon.

This guy has represented himself as a martyr....
.....and now we'll see if he's "the real deal"???

Whether he likes it or not, this case now affects more than just himself and his family.
This decision could very likely set precedence if left to stand and may effect many others going forward.

He chose to be "up front" in the National Election when it was "sexy" and convenient, but will he stay the course when UPS waives some money around?

We'll soon see if he's the "pioneer" he represented himself to be....???

Since the issuing of this ALJ's recommendation, there has already been a settlement offer extended by the company to RA. It was rejected. Don't know what more he has to do to prove he's the "real deal", but whatever that might be, I'm thinking he'll do it.
One caveat; If his legal counsel at any point makes it abundantly clear that there is no successful path forward legally, it would obviously mean that he would have to reassess his options.
Keep in mind, he fights this battle alone with only his own resources and those of the NLRB bureaucracy. It's a bit sardonic to implore him to continue to march on for the benefit of all, with the help of almost none.

 

[Bubblehead]

Since the issuing of this ALJ's recommendation, there has already been a settlement offer extended by the company to RA. It was rejected. Don't know what more he has to do to prove he's the "real deal", but whatever that might be, I'm thinking he'll do it.

I was referring to his portrayal as a "martyr", in regards to being the "real deal".
Fact of the matter to date, is that he has yet to take on the role of a martyr, as he was nothing more than a victim that vigilantly fought to protect what is his and what was unjustly taken.
That fight was a worthy battle and God bless him for having the fortitude to do what many would not have, and I mean that sincerely.

Going forward, in the wake of getting his "head back above water", he will soon find himself at a "crossroad" and will be put to decisions that will determine whether he is the "real deal" in my eyes.
While I just mixed my metaphors, I think it illustrates my assertion?

One caveat; If his legal counsel at any point makes it abundantly clear that there is no successful path forward legally, it would obviously mean that he would have to reassess his options.

To this I say, get new legal council.
Legal council will always put getting themselves paid ahead of the client's principals and the needs of our Teamster brothers and sisters.
For them, time is money and resources, and they have no interest in the crusade of a martyr.

If I remember correctly, RA was told that he had about a 1% chance of ever getting in front of a NLRB Judge by his "legal council", yet here we are?

Keep in mind, he fights this battle alone with only his own resources and those of the NLRB bureaucracy. It's a bit sardonic to implore him to continue to march on for the benefit of all, with the help of almost none.

Sardonic, not really.
That's what martyrs do, they "march on for the benefit of all".

Where is TDU when you need them?

 

[badsporh]

I was referring to his portrayal as a "martyr", in regards to being the "real deal".
Fact of the matter to date, is that he has yet to take on the role of a martyr, as he was nothing more than a victim that vigilantly fought to protect what is his and what was unjustly taken.
That fight was a worthy battle and God bless him for having the fortitude to do what many would not have, and I mean that sincerely.

Going forward, in the wake of getting his "head back above water", he will soon find himself at a "crossroad" and will be put to decisions that will determine whether he is the "real deal" in my eyes.
While I just mixed my metaphors, I think it illustrates my assertion?

I guess I'm just a little confused!?!?!
You say he's fought a great fight, but it seems like you seem to think that the only possible way he can be true to the membership is to win or die trying. That's an awful high bar to set for martyrdom. You do realize that he has not received a paycheck from UPS for over 2 years, and every day that goes by is another day without those earnings. It'll be quite awhile before he gets his "head back above water", especially with the continuing years long fight that he in all likelihood faces in pursuit of justice for all.

That being said, I think you're saying that if he accepts a settlement from UPS that he will be a sellout. I agree, to a certain extent. I know the dude pretty well, and the only way he would quit or settle is if his legal counsel becomes unwilling to fight on (don't think that'll happen) and he can not procure legal counsel that will represent him moving forward (very likely scenario IF his current legal counsel would be unwilling to continue).

 

[badsporh]

To this I say, get new legal council.
Legal council will always put getting themselves paid ahead of the client's principals and the needs of our Teamster brothers and sisters.
For them, time is money and resources, and they have no interest in the crusade of a martyr.

If I remember correctly, RA was told that he had about a 1% chance of ever getting in front of a NLRB Judge by his "legal council", yet here we are?

His current legal counsel is excellent. Her name is Cathy Highet from Highet LLC in Portland OR. She is in this for ALL of the right reasons and she believes 100% in getting justice in this case for the benefit of all union members, not just RA. That having been said, if UPS would offer 10 trillion billion zillion dollars tomorrow to settle, even if RA would say no, there's not many attorneys that would agree to that type of "principled" decision. I think we'd all have to acknowledge that there is a # out there that could make any legal counsel think that their client is bat poop crazy for not accepting it. *editors note: I hope nobody thinks that I really think UPS will offer 10 trillion billion zillion dollars in settlement to RA.

Sardonic, not really.
That's what martyrs do, they "march on for the benefit of all".

Where is TDU when you need them?

TDU has helped RA IMMENSELY and in myriad ways. Not the least of which is, he would not have his current legal counsel if it were not for the good folks at TDU putting the two of them in contact with each other.

 

[Dracula]

You gotta be smart. Social media can be nice, but it does have claws. The internet is forever. Some people just don't get that.

 

[badsporh]

You gotta be smart. Social media can be nice, but it does have claws. The internet is forever. Some people just don't get that.

I don't know if you read the comments that were made. They are listed above, taken from UPS's final argument. While derogatory, they are fairly mild, especially when you consider the full body of the post in which they were made. I'm pretty sure we as fellow union members don't want the bar set this low for what is considered a dischargeable offense in the future. Additionally, keep in mind, that 5 months prior to these comments, RA had unlawfully been fired by these two labor managers and was now watching the financial devastation of their heinous acts take hold on his and his families lives.

They broke the law, stole his lifelong 27 year career and sole source of income, in effect robbing him of approximately 15 years of future earnings, and the worst RA did was make some sophomoric remarks, buried deep within a Facebook posting, about the two law breakers that perpetrated the crime.

Fortunately, RA is not settling with this company and is appealing the ALJ's decision to the NLRB in D.C. There is a risk to doing this, because the portion of the decision finding UPS at fault could be overturned. But the greater risk is in allowing the ALJ's decision on the Facebook posting to stand as is.

here is a link to the entire case on the NLRB website:
NLRB

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of my brothers and sisters.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I don't know if you read the comments that were made.

I read the entire case.

I read the case, from his Panel discharge hearing.

(at least the part he posted, again, on Facebook)

While derogatory, they are fairly mild, especially when you consider the full body of the post in which they were made.

In making that statement, there is a degree of conjecture involved.

I'm pretty sure we as fellow union members don't want the bar set this low for what is considered a dischargeable offense in the future.

Here's a thought (in keeping with the purpose of this thread)


A 17 year Steward, who is protesting his discharge....

Shouldn't be spilling his guts, on a social media platform.


Let's see how it turns out.



-Bug-