Posts tagged Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress

    Radio / Pod Cast Research ● Labor Unionization Unions

    Challenging Exclusive Representation: A Fight for Free Speech and Union Accountability; Disunion: The Government Union Report podcast

    November 14, 2024 // Osborne and McGrath delve into the legal implications of exclusive representation, where a union speaks for all employees in a bargaining unit, including non-members, and restricts individual negotiations. They discuss how exclusive representation in New York grants significant union power, even allowing the union to pursue anti-Israel stances as part of its collective bargaining scope. This case, they suggest, could reshape public sector labor rights and potentially dismantle exclusive representation if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and finds that it infringes on employees’ rights to free speech and association.

    anti-Israel Antisemitism Avraham Goldstein collective bargaining contract negotiations CUNY exclusive representation Fairness Center First Amendment free speech Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress Goldstein v. PSC/CUNY Labor Law Nathan McGrath National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation New York Public Sector Supreme Court union election

    Research ● Labor Unionization Unions

    Some Workers Try to Free Themselves from Unionization, Biden Officials Try to Dragoon More In

    January 5, 2024 // If the union loses the election, it often files an “unfair labor practice” charge against the company, seeking to invalidate the election. It used to be that after such a charge (assuming that an NLRB administrative law judge found it credible, which was usually the case), the remedy would be to order a new election. But now, the NLRB is making the remedy an order that the union has “won” and that the company must bargain with it. (Compulsory bargaining is another concept that’s contrary to the freedom that common law protected.) That was the ruling in I.N.S.A, Inc. This is “administrative law” at its worst. Under the Constitution, Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, is supposed to make the laws. But Biden’s pro-union appointments to the NLRB are determined to make the law under the guise of “interpreting” the NLRA. This ruling will lead to more compulsory unionism.

    Administrative Law AFSME Avraham Goldstein Barack Obama Biden administration City University of New York compulsory unionism Congress Constitution Democrats exclusive representation First Amendment Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress I.N.S.A Inc. Janus v. AFSCME National Labor Relations Act New Deal New York NLRB Professional Staff Congress Public Employees Supreme Court unfair labor practices Unionization

    News Article ● PRO Act Unionization Unions

    Federal court hands down a major conviction of corrupt union bosses

    July 2, 2023 // "LEEBA inflicted severe damage on its members over the years, to the point that it created division, disgust and disdain," said Bruce Mateer, a former member of the union. "Thanks to LEEBA, we have one of the worst-paid police departments in the entire state of New York and we lack proper retirement benefits. LEEBA is supposed to serve their members, but both contracts that LEEBA signed did not meet their members’ needs." Labor unions are supposed to have one simple function: represent their workers during negotiations with management and try to get the best deal possible. Kenneth Wynder and his cronies are unfortunately just the latest in a long tradition of union bosses who decided to make enriching themselves their No. 1 priority.

    bargaining unit corruption Department of Justice embezzle exclusive representation First Amendment Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress guilty Janus Jewish Kenneth Wynder Jr. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association Professional Staff Congress Public Sector Workers Retirement tax evasion