Greetings Local 47 Colleagues!,<\/p>\n
We have some additional comments and counter comments
\nconcerning the rights issue for union members.<\/p>\n
As a reminder to those who frequent the list, unless you give
\nspecific permission your name will never be included in these
\nmailings. Only in this way can we guarantee your privacy from
\npotential retribution.<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s Comments:<\/p>\n
I think it is good and necessary to have a place to discuss
\n union issues without reprisal. This email forum does just that.
\n If we had jobs with tenure or contract, this anonymous forum
\n perhaps wouldn’t be necessary. But since jobs are gotten by
\nwhom one knows and whom one likes, it would be really
\nimpossible to get honest opinions in an open, unsecret,
\nif you will, forum.
\n Let’s not quibble about who has set this dialogue in motion and
\n get to the point.
\n That being said, I think it would be a good idea for whoever
\n “the committee” is to label their opinion as such so we know who
\n the contributors are and who management is. No names necessary. <\/p>\n
Thank you to John Given for his summary and links on the bills
\n for\/against unionism. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022
\nFrom a previous E-mail
\n> While the posters\u2019 point is valid concerning making additional
\nrules when there are already rules in place, if those rules are not
\nbeing enforced they must be made accountable for not enforcing
\nthem. ><\/p>\n
…… and the reply
\n Two final points regarding the brief rebuttal made to my earlier
\ne-mail: <\/p>\n
If the current rules regime is not being appropriately enforced, the
\n complaint about non-enforcement should be with the US
\nDepartment of Labor (more specifically with the Dept. of Labor’s
\nOffice of Labor-Management Standards). Creating a stricter rules
\n regime doesn’t address the enforcement effort directly, but
\nrather it harshly penalizes all unions, including the majority who
\nhave followed the rules (this according to the testimony to the committee by two of the
\n panelists, one of whom was Deputy Director of the Office of
\n Labor-Management Standards at the time of the hearing).
\n Ironically, a more strict regime would likely mean that the Labor
\nDepartment’s Office of Labor-Management Standards will have
\nmore work to do, and will therefore be even less likely to fully
\nenforce all the provisions of the original law, let alone any new
\nprovisions created in amendments to the law. <\/p>\n
Are there specific compliance issues with the Labor-Management
\n Reporting and Disclosure Act that anyone reading this e-mail list feels
\n Local 47 or the National AFM has not properly addressed? If the answer
\n is no, why would you create a situation where the Union, having likely
\n done nothing wrong as relates to LMRDA, would potentially incur
\n tremendous additional legal costs? At the very least, these costs
\n would mean that there is less money to address other important union
\n concerns. If the answer is yes, what are these complaints? I think it
\n would be very illustrative in the context of this discussion to find
\n out that there were or were not specific LRMDA enforcement issues with
\n our own union that anyone reading this was aware of and could post
\n here. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are none, but I don’t
\n have a way of knowing that without asking. <\/p>\n
Finally, at least as it was delivered to me, the links that I included
\n are correct, but don’t seem to work. If you have difficulty clicking
\n on the link to see the entire testimony, please note that some e-mail
\n readers may insert additional characters into the line, and they need
\n to be removed. Some smart person may know a better way, but you can
\n simply trim out the resulting extra characters if this happens to you.
\n The link is: <\/p>\n
And the extra characters that seemed to have been added were: %20%20. – John Given<\/p>\n \u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022<\/p>\n A few thoughts from me, Rick Blanc. You can attach my name John Given did his research and found that the people who Given’s remarks unwittingly support my own thoughts: 2) Republicans want union members to know what their money I would ask Mr. Givens for clarification on the Democratic Rick Blanc<\/p>\n \u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022<\/p>\n Further to the recent discussion about LMRDA and amendments The first is an overview called “Union Member Rights and Officer http:\/\/www.dol.gov\/esa\/regs\/compliance\/olms\/members.htm <\/p>\n The second is a look-up page referenced on the first web page, http:\/\/www.union-reports.dol.gov\/ <\/p>\n \u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022<\/p>\n From the Committee:<\/p>\n Comments on Mr. Blanc’s message: We don’t think it can be As the music market becomes more and more a global business, In future, posters should refrain from labels such as Thank you for writing and keep the dialogue going!<\/p>\n THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Greetings Local 47 Colleagues!, We have some additional comments and counter comments concerning the rights issue for union members. As a reminder to those who frequent the list, unless you give specific permission your name will never be included in these mailings. Only in this way can we guarantee your privacy from potential retribution. Today\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-committee-newsletters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=79"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=79"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n If you remove those, the link will work properly. (Too bad the
\n Committee for a More Responsible Local 47 doesn’t have a web site where
\n links related to this and other discussions could live.) Though the
\n bills appear to be dead, I think it is interesting reading to go
\n through the entire testimony. If nothing else it may be an excellent
\n remedy for insomnia. <\/p>\n
\nor not — you have permanent permission. At first I was critical
\nof your policy of anonymity but I think the way you are doing it
\nis probably good given the circumstances, in that nobody gets
\ncaught up in personalities and they’re not afraid to speak.<\/p>\n
\nsponsored the legislation were Republicans. Wow!
\nWhodathunkit? Of course they are Republicans because
\nDemocrats are the beneficiaries of union largesse, and no way
\ndo they want to publicize the fact that lots of disgruntled union
\nmembers have been blindly made to contribute to their
\ncampaigns.<\/p>\n
\n1) Republicans want unions to be responsible to their
\nmembership; <\/p>\n
\nis being spent for. Excuse me but I see nothing wrong in the
\naforementioned. Given’s research, finding Republicans behind
\npending legislation to reform American labor unions proves that
\nthe Democrats are less concerned about the rights of union
\nmembers.<\/p>\n
\nParty’s proposals on union reform. THERE AIN’T ANY!<\/p>\n
\nto it which were discussed in congressional subcommittee in
\n2003, here are two useful links for those who are interested in
\ngetting additional information about LMRDA, as well as perhaps
\ninvestigating what information is readily available about your
\nown local. <\/p>\n
\n Responsibilities Under the LMRDA” and is available at: <\/p>\n
\nthe OLMS Internet Public Disclosure Room: <\/p>\n
\ndenied that over time, all have benefited from the rules and
\nwages guaranteed by the work of unions. Even non-union
\nemployees enjoy higher wages (in general) because of the
\nlevels set by unions. This goes across party lines.<\/p>\n
\nchanges have to be made if the work is too survive. Unions cannot
\ncontinue to work as they have in the world of 20 or even 10 years
\n ago, That world is gone. The only guarantees are that technology
\n will progress and the music production world will get even more
\ncompetitive.<\/p>\n
\nDemocrat and Republican. While this concerns union politics,
\nit in more for things that affect Local 47 politics and our
\nbusiness here, rather than at the national party level. We don\u2019t
\nwant anyone\u2019s contributions colored by such labels. <\/p>\n