Go Urbon Go!

Molly, Urbon indeed scooped the rag big time. 

As of this morning, he didn't have anything on it.

Brockton Brenda, for future reference, when there is a law against interfering with employees unionizing to protect themselves, the last thing you want to do is be on the record bitching and moaning that the employees are trying to start a union to protect themselves.

I know, I know, I'm an evil power elitist for saying that, but just trying to help.

Can someone find a page and paragraph in the Charter where the Selectman take "Symbolic" Votes ?

PShooter you are the expert, can you find the tape of that meeting and see if they actually said this is not really a vote to cut these salaries it only a "symbolic" vote.

When something goes wrong they wipe their hands clean and blame it on ITA. With all the things they are and will be blaming on him in the next several weeks, I wonder if they will still hire him, seems if he is responsible maybe he should get the Donald "YOU'RE FIRED"

It was hard to understand Bobo's report because when I read it, all I could hear was the overwhelming suction sound of Bobo's lips on Sweet Brucey's butt.

Maybe a symbolic vote is like being a symbolic reporter - in name only.

Just note that the second of the two local papers that have offices has reported on this issue:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/wareham/town … ainst-town

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-08-28 17:34:37)

Does he have a red phone in his new bathroom office that goes straight to Sweet Brucey when you pick it up?

I spoke with a close friend who worked for many years at the State Labor Commission.  He helped clear up the confusion caused by having three different newspapers report slightly different accounts of the Wareham labor issue.

In Massachusetts, issues regarding violations of labor laws are referred to the Labor Commission and not to the regular court system.  These are technically “complaints” against an employer, but lawyers often talk about “bringing charges”, “filing charges” or even “suing” because everyone is more accustomed to the language of the regular court system.   It is not “wrong” to talk about “filing charges,” but it is not the language that the Labor Commission uses. 

To repeat-the lawyer for an individual or a union brings a complaint to the Labor Commission and the complaint is against the employer.  The employer is the Town of Wareham.   It is irrelevant whether it was the BOS or the ITA who was responsible.  The town is responsible and the town will pay the legal bills to defend against the complaint. 

The complaints first go to an investigative officer, who determines if the complaints have any possible validity.  This is equivalent to pretrial maneuvers in a regular court.  If the investigative officer OKs a complaint(s), the complaint goes forward to a hearing.  To repeat-the Labor Commission has not filed a complaint against the town of Wareham.  The investigative officer has allowed the complaints to be forwarded to a full hearing. 

The hearing is held at the Labor Commission.  The hearing is presided over by a hearing officer- the equivalent of a magistrate in the regular court system.  Both sides-union and employer -are represented by lawyers.   The hearing officer rules as to whether a violation of labor laws has occurred and suggested remediation.  Remediation attempts to make "whole" that which has been wronged.  The outcome could be job reinstatement, compensation for back pay, or whatever is appropriate.  It is not a criminal court-there are no criminal charges.  It is not a civil court-no individual is being sued.  If the union wins the case-Wareham will pay legal costs plus the costs of whatever remediation is determined.

If Wareham loses the hearing-the town can appeal to a three-man Board of Commissioners at the Labor Board.  If they lose that appeal-then and only then, the case goes to the regular legal system-the Mass Superior Court.  My friend said the Supreme Court almost never overturns the Labor Commission.
It looks like a long ride.

I believe so-but I did not ask him that specific question.

Thanks Cara:
Obviously my friend retired before the consolidation.  Glad to hear the process has been streamlined.  The important point is that the process does not punish the specific offenders- but rather the employing entity.  Its the taxpayer and not Sweet Brucie who will foot the bill.

She lost because people didn't care to vote. That is why we have to organize and inform. I believe we have two very qualified people (if they chose to run) that would make a difference. We may need 5 qualified people if the Grand Jury indicts the current group!

YOu might want to replace Larry with Pshooter. Next time recharge those batteries. Ha!

PShooter wrote:

LOL I'm an ass-fricken batteries.

im thinking if i could invent batteries that ran of bs and lies wed never need to recharge them at most public meetings..

In addition to legal fees, and there is no doubt that we will have legal fees, this case could end in favor of the all employees who had their salaries cut 6.5% whether or not they are still working for the town. They would have to be reimbursed their salaries and I believe, reimbursed with interest.

Since the labor people allowed the complaint to be filed after reviewing the evidence, it will most likely go in favor of the employees. I absolutely think they deserve the money owed them. But add that money to the legal fees, and Wareham's budget has just been shot to hell again.

Thanks bos for destroying Wareham yet again. That was just me being facetious.

Liz, you may be right. Again, I think people deserve their salaries, but with the budget crisis we are now facing, I don't think our bos were showing their highly touted "fiscal responsibility" when they stepped into this deep pile of you know what.

I'm trying to remember the bos meeting where Brenda made that statement that was reported in the ST and Courier. I'd have to go back but I'm pretty sure she followed up the $85,000-$90,000 comment with--and some with only a high school education.  I remember it because I thought it was so demeaning to the department head or heads she was referring to. And I remember it because I had to ask around to see who she was talking about. If she didn't say it at that meeting, it was around there.

The bos have been going after the department heads since they got wind of the union meetings. That's no secret. Firing the accountant for something that happened two years prior? Making it clear with public statements that they were doing away with S. Pizzolato's previous position so when they hire a new library director she'd be out of a job? Making disparaging comments in public at their regular meetings about Marilyn Whalley so she finally quit because of the hostile work environment? Facetious alert----Good move bos. Your legal pocketbooks seem to be overflowing.

Unions are strong and don't put up with any crap. When they bring these kinds of charges, you can be sure the union will walk away with the better part of the deal. Mediation anyone?

Molly wrote:

Liz, you may be right. Again, I think people deserve their salaries, but with the budget crisis we are now facing, I don't think our bos were showing their highly touted "fiscal responsibility" when they stepped into this deep pile of you know what.

I'm trying to remember the bos meeting where Brenda made that statement that was reported in the ST and Courier. I'd have to go back but I'm pretty sure she followed up the $85,000-$90,000 comment with--and some with only a high school education.  I remember it because I thought it was so demeaning to the department head or heads she was referring to. And I remember it because I had to ask around to see who she was talking about. If she didn't say it at that meeting, it was around there.

The bos have been going after the department heads since they got wind of the union meetings. That's no secret. Firing the accountant for something that happened two years prior? Making it clear with public statements that they were doing away with S. Pizzolato's previous position so when they hire a new library director she'd be out of a job? Making disparaging comments in public at their regular meetings about Marilyn Whalley so she finally quit because of the hostile work environment? Facetious alert----Good move bos. Your legal pocketbooks seem to be overflowing.

Unions are strong and don't put up with any crap. When they bring these kinds of charges, you can be sure the union will walk away with the better part of the deal. Mediation anyone?

i wonder how much our new TOWN ACCOUNTANT can she be called that with NO degree is making????

cas, the link doesn't work.

Thanks

It's interesting to see the three takes on this by three different papers, as well as the great explanation above in this thread.  Urbon got the wording wrong in his introductory paragraph, and I hope he corrects it, but the remainder of his article is on point, both in overall tone of the story and in facts.  Slager, however, misrepresented the situation as a whole once again.  Most of his article is a combination of slams against the S-T, the people involved in these claims, and supportive statements from Brucie.  It's actually pretty interesting to read through his take on the story and see what he did.  For the most part, there are few blatant mistruths.  However, the way that the story is structured gives it a definite supportive-to-the-BOS lean - this is both in the story organization, and the exclusion of some facts.  I don't have time this afternoon to properly organize this, so I'm going to intermix the general comments with his specific misleading quotes..  Now remember, it's ok that he has an opinion on these things, but my issue with this is when he tries to hide that opinion as "news", thus presenting it as factual reporting.

Realistically, based on the headline, this article should have been about the decision handed down from the Board.  He kicks it off, though, by taking a shot at the S-T.  Yes, that article was not worded correctly, but if Slager's writing a news article about the decision, a reasonable person would expect that article to begin with what the decision was, not a shot at a competitor.  It's not until the 4th paragraph that we find out what actually happened.

An investigator for the Division of Labor Relations – Kendrah Davis – dismissed two components of the complaint but concluded there was probable cause on three of the claims to bring the matter before a Division of Labor Relations hearing officer.

Two issues with this: It's interesting that he chose to mention the dismissals before the probably cause findings, especially since it appears in the opposite order in the actual document, as included in the Courier's article.  The only reason I can think of to do that would be to emphasize the dismissals, and treat the confirmations as an afterthought.  Again, it's odd that when these sorts of things happen, it seems to always be in ways that are favorable to the BOS, and negative towards Slager's opponents.  At first glance, this would seem to be contradictory to the later reporting in the article, where he describes the areas that the investigator "approved" the claims first.  However, as we'll note in a minute, most of that narrative is Slager railing against the people in question.  Second issue with the sentence: the quote from the document is not that there is probably cause to bring the matter before an officer.  It says, and I quote: "I have found probable cause to believe that a violation has occured" (emphasis added).  Why wouldn't he include the full quote here?  I come up with two possible reasons - either he isn't a good enough journalist to actually get the source document and read it before writing his report, or it didn't fit his agenda, so he left it out.  Now, knowing him, he'll probably say "that's a semantic argument, and it makes no difference", but I disagree.  The way he wrote it comes across as "yeah, sure, we'll talk about it.  The way the investigator documented it, though, is "hey, these guys probably violated the law".  Big, big difference there.

In her report, Davis claims that the termination of former accountant Robert Bliss, a four-day suspension of Building Inspector Ted Misiaszek, and the decision to reduce pay to all department heads by 6.5 percent were done in retaliation for department heads attempting to form a union.

Close, but not quite.  In the report, Davis states that the evidence reviewed supports the claims that Slager lists.  Again, he'll argue semantics, but it's an important difference.  Saying "Davis claims that (the actions) were done in retaliation" makes Davis look like the accuser, when Slager himself said in the same column that the Board can't bring these accusations.  Davis investigated the claims made by the union, and found that there was ample factual evidence to support them.  Big difference.

Slager then spends 3 paragraphs telling us how evil Bliss and Misiaszek were.  He left out some facts, though, which I guess is to be expected at this point.  He didn't mention that the BOS often approved payroll checks after they were signed, so what Bliss did was pretty normal.  He says that Misiaszek was the subject of 'heavy criticism' at a BOS meeting, but acts like the selectmen themselves are angels.  The best part, though, and the part that actually made me laugh out loud, was this quote:

Hartman's request to collect on his remaining sick and vacation time was scribbled on a note with no supporting documentation

So let me get this straight.  The guy who makes accusations that town taxpayers paid $40k of trustees' legal bills without a single supporting document...the guy who claims they lost $250k in the stock market without a single supporting document....is making accusations about not having supporting documentation?  Oh my head!

Someone else already commented on the silliness of 'symbolic votes', so I'll skip that part.

Davis dismissed two of the complaints. One involved former CEDA director Marilyn Whalley. David concluded...

Should be "Davis concluded" - not sure if it's fixed already, but figured I'd help Slager out on this one

Slager then devotes the last 205 words of his post (over 1/4 of the total content) to letting Sauvageau defend himself, and take another shot at the S-T.  Brucie says there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support the claims, which seems to be directly contradictory to what the investigator found.  Again, Davis said that she "found probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred."  There's no mention at this point of any attempt to get the other side of the story, through Bliss, Misiaszek, the union, the union's lawyer, the investigator, or anybody else.  Maybe he did make some phone calls, and nobody will talk to him, but he doesn't mention it in the story. 

Side note: Billw, not sure if you're reading this, but if you are, is there a way to get a 'preview' button on replies to a discussion?  It would greatly help me in my proofreading.  Thanks!

I think the important point is, had the BOS not been incompetent, the town would not be in a position where it has to now go and defend against a complaint that has been found to have enough probable cause to go forward.

This would not have happened if we had a competent BOS.

Its looking pretty obvious that the BOS fired Bliss to retaliate against his unionizing efforts, and replaced him with a friend of the TA that doesn't even have an accounting degree.  (And for some odd reason, they didn't even know that until AFTER they hired her.)

Molly,
The Selectmen would not last 6 months in the real world with this type of behavior. The bad part is their incompetence is destroying this town. I have never seen anyone step on their own tail so much and not get fired!

What makes this worse, is their is more to come...sigh.....we may not have to worry about April's election.