Isn't it a conflict of interest, what company has its own union, paying their own employees to represent union members paying monthly $60 union dues, gaining no money for winning grievances, when you can, for free, file an EEO within 45 days of Usps offenses, winning up to $300,000. for discrimination and up to $4 million for retaliation? Usps union is complicit with Usps management, practicing patterns of racism, retaliation against whistleblowers, and discrimination and retaliation against injured on duty disabled employees! See McConnell vs Usps, Pittman vs Usps, Glover vs Usps, and many, many more cases for decades! Past 5 years Usps paid out $5,631,795. for sexual harassment. Exercise your legal rights under federal protection Laws, No Fear act of 2002, prohibited personnel practices, due process, equality act of 2010, civil rights act chapter of 7, rehabilitation act of 1973 (504), and disability act. CYA!!!
It is true that the union should file a Greivance for contract violations. However they don’t , they just file a Greivance cause the employee wants to. It’s actually a poor process as their is no intake coordinator to say that this Greivance has or doesn’t have merit. It’s no different than in real life a man won’t pay an attorney hundreds to represent them on a $20 parking ticket. The cost is the barrier to the man to give up. With a union it’s all “free” so everything is grieved and the system is bottle necked with dubious grievances
Your point out that an absence of an intake coordinator or a similar filtering mechanism in the union grievance process can be a challenge. Generally, unions have some filtering mechanism in place. You draw a parallel with legal representation in smaller matters, pointing out how the cost can serve as a natural barrier to filing less serious complaints. You suggest that in the union context, the absence of such a financial barrier could lead to a bottleneck of grievances, some of which may have dubious merit. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
@@JessicaBagger yes, what I’m saying Dr. Bagger is because everything can be grieved and the accused has nothing do to (pay a fee, file paperwork etc) except tell a committee man they want it grieved. Then they get a Greivance written. Nor does the committeemen say to them “listen you were caught red handed or admitted to the charge in the hearing” they just “lie” on behalf of the person in fear of an NLRB charge for failure to represent. I work in labor relations with a union.
@@JessicaBagger I came to the video to just see an outline of the process and think about it. It’s a double edge sword. The solution would be an intake coordinator to determine if you have a case to proceed. However, there would be a conflict of interest as this person would be Union and can’t go against their union brother and sisters” and most likely say yes to all charges in the persons favor filing it. I don’t think it can be resolved, but the starting point would be at national negotiations when the CBA expires to suggest the coordinator
@@JessicaBagger I do want to point out that with the EEOC there is an intake process. People go and have to answer a questionnaire and the investigator reviews it, calls you down to their office and asks you questions. If it appears there could be a charge / case they proceed to send the letter to the employer if not they will tell you that you haven’t been able to make a case and deny it
![จบจนได้ ! | Black Myth: Wukong #007 [ตอนจบ?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSqvWndF0sw/mqdefault.jpg)
Isn't it a conflict of interest, what company has its own union, paying their own employees to represent union members paying monthly $60 union dues, gaining no money for winning grievances, when you can, for free, file an EEO within 45 days of Usps offenses, winning up to $300,000. for discrimination and up to $4 million for retaliation?
Usps union is complicit with Usps management, practicing patterns of racism, retaliation against whistleblowers, and discrimination and retaliation against injured on duty disabled employees! See McConnell vs Usps, Pittman vs Usps, Glover vs Usps, and many, many more cases for decades!
Past 5 years Usps paid out $5,631,795. for sexual harassment.
Exercise your legal rights under federal protection Laws, No Fear act of 2002, prohibited personnel practices, due process, equality act of 2010, civil rights act chapter of 7, rehabilitation act of 1973 (504), and disability act.
CYA!!!
It is true that the union should file a Greivance for contract violations. However they don’t , they just file a Greivance cause the employee wants to. It’s actually a poor process as their is no intake coordinator to say that this Greivance has or doesn’t have merit. It’s no different than in real life a man won’t pay an attorney hundreds to represent them on a $20 parking ticket. The cost is the barrier to the man to give up. With a union it’s all “free” so everything is grieved and the system is bottle necked with dubious grievances
Your point out that an absence of an intake coordinator or a similar filtering mechanism in the union grievance process can be a challenge. Generally, unions have some filtering mechanism in place. You draw a parallel with legal representation in smaller matters, pointing out how the cost can serve as a natural barrier to filing less serious complaints. You suggest that in the union context, the absence of such a financial barrier could lead to a bottleneck of grievances, some of which may have dubious merit. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
@@JessicaBagger yes, what I’m saying Dr. Bagger is because everything can be grieved and the accused has nothing do to (pay a fee, file paperwork etc) except tell a committee man they want it grieved. Then they get a Greivance written. Nor does the committeemen say to them “listen you were caught red handed or admitted to the charge in the hearing” they just “lie” on behalf of the person in fear of an NLRB charge for failure to represent. I work in labor relations with a union.
How would you solve it?
@@JessicaBagger I came to the video to just see an outline of the process and think about it. It’s a double edge sword. The solution would be an intake coordinator to determine if you have a case to proceed. However, there would be a conflict of interest as this person would be Union and can’t go against their union brother and sisters” and most likely say yes to all charges in the persons favor filing it. I don’t think it can be resolved, but the starting point would be at national negotiations when the CBA expires to suggest the coordinator
@@JessicaBagger I do want to point out that with the EEOC there is an intake process. People go and have to answer a questionnaire and the investigator reviews it, calls you down to their office and asks you questions. If it appears there could be a charge / case they proceed to send the letter to the employer if not they will tell you that you haven’t been able to make a case and deny it