He made the trains run on time and controlled the Unions
- October 23, 2003 Fascism is recognized to have first been officially developed by Benito Mussolini, who came to power in Italy in 1922. To sum up fascism in one word would be to say "anti-liberalism".
...............Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century."
Image Source Page: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/glenn-beck-champions-u-s-pro-nazi-text/
That's a very fair offer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you, narsbars. Lets see if this works now...
ReplyDeleteMark Turek
Fee Challengers Vs. MSEA-SEIU Local 1989
ReplyDeleteIt's time MSEA-SEIU Local 1989 is held responsible for their overall lack of detailed accountability, and questionable business management practices, with respect
to their "fair share" fee. The fee calculation process that was used is anything but accurate or fair, and this will be illustrated at next week's hearing.
When: Next Monday, July 16th -- 9:00am start
Hearing Location: St Paul Center (a.k.a., Oblate Fathers Retreat House)
136 State Street, Augusta
--> This building is located just above the capitol-side rotary, and across the street from the District Court House and a Verizon office. There is also a large/free parking
lot next to St Paul Center.
Please Note: Since this arbitration case is being handled by the American Arbitration
Association (AAA), we must follow their "Rules for Impartial Determination of Union Fees,"
http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=22110&printable=true. (e.g., Attendance at Hearings: The
arbitrator shall maintain the confidentiality of the hearings unless the law provides to the
contrary. Persons having a direct interest in the arbitration are entitled to attend hearings.
The arbitrator shall have the power to require the retirement of any witness during the testimony
of other witnesses. It shall be discretionary with the arbitrator to determine the propriety of the
attendance of any other person.)
Please spread the word, as this will probably be our final hearing in the current arbitration case.
Mark Turek
www.UnFairShare.org ~ mark.turek@unfairshare.org
Thank you, Narsbars. Although I realize we currently have two different opinions on the MSEA's lack of detailed accountability for their "fairshare" fee, I respect your right to feel that way. However, with that said, I hope you will come to the hearing next Monday in Augusta to learn more of the real facts about this challenge.
ReplyDeleteThis case involves so many issues, it's impossible for either side to explain everything on a Blog. The bottom line for me in this challenge is that your union (MSEA-SEIU Local 1989) has been using insufficient accounting practices to meet their "burden of proof" as required by law. In fact, your union has created and used a significant amount of fraudulent information in their fee calculation process. We have countless examples of this fact, and they will be discussed in detail at Monday's hearing.
In addition, the challenge process that seems to have been written and approved by the Baldacci-MSEA Team are anything but impartial. With that said, this issue is far from over and seems to be heading in the direction of new/additional lawsuits against your union and/or the Baldacci Administration.
Mark Turek
www.unfairshare.org
P.S. By the way, in fairness to our side of this story, please add our UnFairShare website to your Blog's list of favorites.
I find it ever harder to listen to the claims of proof, proof, proof.
ReplyDeleteIf there is proof then an arbitrator or a court will find either completely or partially in their favor. I believe the intent is actually an accross the country campaign funded by anti union labor to break the unions by constant law suits, which cannot be won but are a constant drain on funds.
That's an interesting concept, although I am not anti-union. As I've said several times, if the MSEA had better accountability for where the money went, I would be happy to pay the fee.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as our proof will clearly illustrate at Monday's hearing, the MSEA has been using an insufficient accounting process for a very complex fee calculation system. That being said, the current arbitration process is but one small part of the challenge. If you'd like to see the proof, I hope you'll be there on Monday.
Mark Turek
www.UnFairShare.org
So where's the beef, after all?
ReplyDeleteIf you want beef, looks like you'll have to go to Wendy's.
ReplyDeleteI said I would publish anything that met the guidelines. The "beef" comments meet the guidelines. Now that I said that I apologize for not making one of the rules something to do with relavance. This poster must be sitting alone, in the dark, possibly giggling, snorting twinkies and mountain dew.
ReplyDeleteHello, Narsbars:
ReplyDeleteConsider me a longtime MSEA, SEIU Local 1989 friend. You may know me.
Or not.
I admire your site, and your support for the union. Also, your willingness to open the forum to other points of view. That said, I have observed the "fair share" debate in Maine for a while, and offer some comments.
First, those who oppose fair share are a small minority - some are dues-paying union members, some are not. MSEA nevertheless represents them, and will continue to do so. They have different reasons for not supporting the union - some political, some personal. But unions like MSEA are not only democratic and speak for the individual, they are political, and seek out the best interests of their membership. They take political positions and endorse political candidates. Where they find support and shared interest, they offer the same. If you as a member don't like the choices, have your say, but just like in an election, majority rules. Doesn't mean you can't vote.
MSEA's collective bargaining contracts, never perfect, sometimes lacking that which people may want, have nevertheless significantly improved the wages, benefits (especially health and retirement benefits), and working conditions of people who work in Maine, over thirty years. That in turn has benefited Maine. To say differently is pure ignorance. For those who believe they can individually bargain for themselves, look to why MSEA was formed; see what the history of individual bargaining really was.
Last comment, Narsbars. You give credence to those who wish to attack the union. Fair enough. They should have their say, but by no means does that make them right. Judging by another website on the Public Forum, dominated by three posters, they have little of value to contribute, no real understanding of the true purposes of a union or how bargaining works, and occasionally add ugly personal comments. I have a special grievance against the contemptible individual who has attacked an MSEA employee for something done many years in the past, has long since paid a price and resolved the matter,and is a fine person today. You, sir, have no shame. You should.
Thanks for the time and space. I think you will find that MSEA wins every issue related to fair share, especially on the issue of accountability. Let MSEA, Local 1989 be what it is and should be, and prosper!
Narsbars,
ReplyDeleteread your comment on AMG, 8/1/9. Take 'em right on! Remember, the host of AMG, Scott Fish, will accept any kind of lie and disinformation on his site. He himself engaged in the same kind of trash against unions and MSEA back in the '90's. But best of luck!