Let’s get this strike on, tired of Stankey and his ilk taking all the money like they own the company. Rigged game
14 replies (most recent on top)
It was filed by one of the locals, unlike the one in D3 which was filed by the district.
It happens to be one of the more organized locals too. Also happens to be where all the state legislators work.
Oh, I know it's real; it just has no basis and will likely be dismissed.
And before you go all ape sh-t...that particular claim has no basis if it's against D9. That has no bearing on other claims.
look it up if you dont think it real https://www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-349786
Oh, I know it's real; it just has no basis and will likely be dismissed.
look it up if you dont think it real https://www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-349786
How can they file a ULP when there was no action on that contract for a month? The TA was announced, which is indicative of active/faithful bargaining, and then it was out for vote until 9/6. There was no bargaining happening to be done in bad faith. The ball was soley in CWA court for over a month. That will likely be dismissed. And they can't have filed on behalf of the D3 bargaining, because they don't have jurisdiction or standing in that--they aren't a party to it.
ULP has NOT been filed by D9. Not yet anyway. They voted down the TA. Now negotiations have to first be restarted.
It was filed by one of the locals, unlike the one in D3 which was filed by the district.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Two separate contracts with separate bargaining teams, with the same charges filed. What’s common, Team Stankey and their bad faith bargaining techniques, as stated in the charges on both.
Doesn’t stop a union from filing charges and going on a ULP strike just because you spout some statistics. These charges have merit, the bar isn’t that high to prove.
"this filing by the CWA isn’t the flex they are portraying"
69% of the ULP charges brought in 2023 were determined to be without merit. Those Charges clog the system, and having so many false allegations reduces the credibility of anyone making a charge.
just verified its real case states 8(a)(5) Refusal to Bargain/Bad Faith Bargaining (incl'g surface bargaining/direct dealing
Individuals can and do file a ULP, not just unions. Still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a legal charge filed against a party with a federal agency who investigates and makes a ruling that can include penalties, fines, back pay, etc.. so yes it can have serious consequences or flex.
By having so many filed means there are a lot of alleged bad actions out there. A couple thousand filings at the federal level in a country of hundreds of millions is miniscule.
D9 filed their own ULP charge(s) against T on 9/5:
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-349786
So I went to the NLRB site to view the filing against ATT. When I used the search menu, I filtered to include all the ULP filings in the last 30 days. Care to guess how many have been filed??? Over 2000. Maybe, just maybe, this filing by the CWA isn’t the flex they are portraying.
ULP has NOT been filed by D9. Not yet anyway. They voted down the TA. Now negotiations have to first be restarted.