Visit uncharted.ca!
  • authored by news
  • published Thu, Feb 7, 2002

Biz-Union Assault on Freedom of Speech

UFCW Seeks Gag Order Against Part-time Clerk

A disturbing development in the case of UFCW Local 777 member Bill Gammert. Just days after discussion of the UFCW's lawsuit against the part-time grocery clerk appeared in MFD's weekend edition, the Voice of Working America has filed a Motion in BC Supreme Court seeking to have Gammert's web site shut down until their lawsuit is decided in court. The case is still in the preliminary stages and a no trial date has been set. The gag motion served on Gammert yesterday is the first that he has heard of the lawsuit since the UFCW filed it some six months ago. Among the UFCW's complaints is that Gammert posted its Constitution on his web site.

"It looks like they are going to try to place an injunction on my web site and have it removed until a trial. If they win [the injunction] and then stall on a trial, the site will be permanently removed. More games and wasting of members money," Gammert commented.

This case has significant implications for Canadians - union members, for the media and the general public. Are large International unions above criticism? We're going to find out.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: news ]

  • posted by retailworker
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 6:22pm

What an appropo moment to read The U-Train Manifesto!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 6:43pm

That's great! I knew it had potential when I read it earlier today but something just wasn't right. You solved the puzzle: the future is not about markets, it's about unions. I like it a lot.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 6:54pm

I did it rather quickly. Somebody with firsthand union experience should re-write it: I've only tried to join a union.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 7:58pm

I really hope leagle groups accross North America pitch in and help William defend his right to free speach. The UFCW wouldn't dare take this to court but getting the injunction would take it off the air for good because Will doesn't have the cash to fight the injunction.

"Voice of working America" Man they really mean it too. They would have it that they speak for us and we don't speak at all.

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 8:31pm

What a hoot too. Cliff's son and Mike Fraser's Cousin John Evans took Mike's affidavit.

In the affidavit, Mike says he strongly objects to the use of the International's copyrighted material to attract people to a website which is used to spread defamatory material about the International and the Local Union's Officers. As proof of how seductive the Constitution is to drawing unsuspecting people into William's Web he inculdes the following quote from a William's Web visitor:

quote:


The funny thing is, Will's website turned me off. His "United F(censored) and (censored) Workers' (while very funny) for me undermined his message. In my opinion, about the only thing that site did well is provide me with a readily availabe copy of the UFCW's Constitution. If the UFCW has nothing to hide or be ashamed of then we all should be very grateful to Will for putting it up and the UFCW should piss off.


Thank you Michael Fraser for putting the point in a public document.

If the UFCW would F%$#&^G provide all members with a copy of the F%$#&^G Constitution, there'd be no F%$#&^G reason for William to post the F%$#&^G UFCW International Constitution.

It's a public document paid for with dues dollars but those who pay the dues dollars can't get a copy of their own Constitution.

Is there something wrong with this picture and can the Maplegrove workers see what's wrong with the picture?

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by sleK
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 11:53pm

quote:


but getting the injunction would take it off the air for good


Wrong!

There's always the " Waaaaaay Back Machine"!!

These dumbasses don't know squat about digital media. I might just burn a few copies of Williams' site to CD for posterity and distribute them with my Xmas greetings next year. Or, maybe I'll convert the text to speech and distribute an mp3 renamed Britney Spears Live!! on Kazaa or Morpheous or eDonkey or WinMx or MusicCity or iMesh.

What a bunch of fools.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 8:31am

sleK, sleK, sleK, you know how easily the fragilies feelings are hurt. No doubt you hurt them even more.

Now they'll have to throw a convention in Hawaii, just to talk about their feelings and how mean sleK was. They'll have to fly in all sorts of paid consultants to figure out exactly what a "dumbasses" are.

"Was he callin' us stoopid fishes? Was he callin' us anus stupidius? Was he callin' us ignorant donkeys? Hey he wouldn't be callin' our lawyers names, would he? Hey, maybe he was talin' about another bunch of guys. Now we're so confused, we'd better form a couple of committees--one for Las Vegas and one for Florida."

  • posted by news
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:14am

UFCW International joins in lawsuit against member

According to documents served on Bill Gammert, a member of UFCW Local 777 who is being sued by his union over material on his web site, the UFCW International has now joined in the lawsuit against him. The International, UFCW Canada, UFCW Local 777 and two of its officials are asking the court to censor portions of Gammert's website and prohibit him from publishing anything the UFCW considers defamatory until the lawsuit is tried. The union is also looking for a restraining order preventing Gammert from reproducing its Constitution until the trial.

Why would something as stringent and restrictive as a restraining order be required? According to the UFCW's gag order motion, the "International is concerned that Mr. Gammert is breaching our copyright in the Constitution in order to attract people to his website, for the purpose of spreading the defamatory statements found on his website.

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: news ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:29am

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, it's seductive indeed. I believe a lot of porn sites have now adopted the practice of using the Constitution to draw surfers to their sites.

Once people know there's a good constitution on the site, they just flock there.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:23am

Think about it: "Post our constitution. Drive traffic to your site!"

Maybe they should just charge Bill a royalty. Better yet, maybe they should be paying him for "click-thru" business.

  • posted by Willie
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 11:20pm

Hi all
The reason that I put the Int. Const. on my site was that I was refused a coppy by the guys in Ont. when I tried to run for president and when I demanded one from the 777 office they gave me the old one. I did get one from REAP but why should anyone have to go to that trouble to get something that they should be suplied with??? If this is "of the workers and for the workers" then why can't the workers get a curent coppy??? It is the same trouble with our contract and by-laws. I guess that UFCW is ashamed of it.

Something to remember about the site also is that it started as a campane site after 777 refused to let other canadates campane outside of their own work places. Then the company ban it all together on company grownds both on and off shift.

Sorry about the spelling

Yours

William

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 10:58am

William:

Have you contacted anyone in the media about your story? Particularly the whole angle about republishing the UFCW constitution, which they are legally obliged to provide to all members anyway? I think we have to put as much heat on them as possible for this ridiculous act of harassment.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 12:30pm

Sad to say but our "esteemed" members of the press only care about what their advertisers tell them they can care about. Employers like the UFCW, employers spend a great deal of money on advertising. Employers can kill stories. That's reality and precisely why I will never pay for a Vancouver Province or Sun. To me they are just rages barely one step up from the tabloids with a sports section. They couldn't care less about working people as far as I'm concerned and talking to them is waste of time.

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Scott Mcpherson ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 1:16pm

I think we should all do what we can to get William's story "out there". If anyone has a contact in the mainstream media, please let them know what's happening. If the Vancouver press aren't interested, maybe we could try the national dailies or the CBC. What they're doing to this guy is so pathetic. I don't think they give a crap about what's on his web site. They're trying to generate case law that they can use to shut down other web sites and they're targetting someone who they feel is least able to defend himself in order to to it.

  • posted by Willie
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 3:28pm

I must agree with Scott and BC Cival Liberitys just blew me off also. You must remember what happend to Hugh for being on the Warren on the Weekend radio show and stating the truth. The UFCW lawyers jumped all over him. If the media wants to pick up the storie then I will answer the questions give them my evidence and let them talk to my contact people in Canada and the US. The bigest thing now is to keep the costs down and be prepair for the worst. I think that UFCW knows that I don't give up quickley.

quote:


Originally posted by remote viewer:
I think we should all do what we can to get William's story "out there". If anyone has a contact in the mainstream media, please let them know what's happening. If the Vancouver press aren't interested, maybe we could try the national dailies or the CBC. What they're doing to this guy is so pathetic. I don't think they give a crap about what's on his web site. They're trying to generate case law that they can use to shut down other web sites and they're targetting someone who they feel is least able to defend himself in order to to it.


  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 4:44pm

Hi Bill,
Thanks for visiting the site. We're all in this together and if we stick together, there's no question that we'll win. We hope that you'll keep us posted and that we can coorindate some activities as well. It's time that the rest of the world came to grips with what workers really have to put up with and what they're capable of.

  • posted by news
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 6:04pm

UFCW Canada promised to post now-secret document

Three levels of the UFCW organization - the International, UFCW Canada and Local 777 - are suing Bill Gammert, member of Local 777 for, among other things, posting the International Constitution on his web site. MFD has uncovered evidence that strongly suggests the UFCW considered its constitution a public document and was, in fact, intending to post it on the official UFCW Canada web site.

This archived copy of the UFCW Canada web site from May 2001 contains the following statement:

 

The UFCW International Constitution was amended and updated at the UFCW's quintennial constitutional convention held in Chicago in July 1998. The text of the document will be posted to this site when it becomes available.

It is believed that this statement appeared on UFCW Canada's web site for well over a year before the voice of working America initiated its lawsuit against its member Bill Gammert.

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: news ]

  • posted by Troll
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 6:43pm

Well UFCW...."with news, you lose."

  • posted by retailworker
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 7:03pm

The Church of Scientology has used similar copyright law prosecutions to silence critics.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 8:03pm

This seems so familiar. Now where have I seen this sort of stuff before?

quote:


 

By using copyright laws the Church of Scientology withholds information about the teachings of its founder from the public. The public sees only a limited amount of information, information the "Church" feels will not harm its reputation to any great degree. Thus people are attracted into it based on this limited information and its seemingly fascinating possibilities. Once in, the existing members of that organisation have the opportunity to possibly erode the critical thinking faculties of the new member over a period of years. After that, the person has either left, been evicted or possibly their critical thinking faculties have been eroded to the degree where the absurd is accepted as spiritual truth.


  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 8:17pm

quote:


The text of the document will be posted to this site when it becomes available.


So the only thing Will is guilty of is being a better webmaster and updating his site faster than they could? What a disgrace! Off the top, some better ideas on how to spend members dues.

Save the money spent to prosecute a dissenting voice.
Use it to deal with his and others issues.

Place in the strike fund needed for the imminent 1518 labour dispute.

Use it to support the striking 175 members.

Use it to plump up the fund for Local 1400 brothers and sisters.

Use it to create a medical fund for the members who don't qualify through employment.

Use it to educate the members about their rights.

Use it to better defend members rights.

There is no end to the better ways to spend the Power Sources's money than using it because a member said poop!

edit = afterthought.

use the money to update the UFCW website and finally get the updated version of the constitution posted!

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 7:48am

The company searched his locker for union reform materials. Well imagine that! Sorry, is it just me or does anyone else find something really disturbing?

They search this guy's locker because they think he has union reform material. Not drugs, not stolen goods, not weapons but union reform material. (Why do I hear alarms and sirens going off in my mental image of this locker inspection?)

The company was concerned that William was "slandering" the union? Oh gosh, good of them to be concerned. How did they become the judge and jury? Why would they care if a member wants to reform the union?

This must be some kind of cutting edge development in union-management partnering.

This is the kind of stuff that the public needs to hear about. William's experiences bring into very sharp relief what life is like for many union members - and why things have got to change.

  • posted by Willie
  • Tue, Feb 12, 2002 9:49pm

Something to think about. When I asked the IR Manigour, (sic) what he wanted in the locker for he said just open it. He would not tell me untill after he went through it what he was looking for.

quote:


Originally posted by remote viewer:
The company searched his locker for union reform materials. Well imagine that! Sorry, is it just me or does anyone else find something really disturbing?

They search this guy's locker because they think he has union reform material. Not drugs, not stolen goods, not weapons but union reform material. (Why do I hear alarms and sirens going off in my mental image of this locker inspection?)

The company was concerned that William was "slandering" the union? Oh gosh, good of them to be concerned. How did they become the judge and jury? Why would they care if a member wants to reform the union?

This must be some kind of cutting edge development in union-management partnering.

This is the kind of stuff that the public needs to hear about. William's experiences bring into very sharp relief what life is like for many union members - and why things have got to change.


NOTE
I have done some changes to my site to appease the Voice of Working America

null

  • posted by Shadow
  • Wed, Feb 13, 2002 8:59am

William why don't you write an open letter to the CLC and the BC Fed asking them to intervene on your behalf (ie., ask them to request the UFCW to drop the lawsuit).

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Feb 13, 2002 9:33pm

William, ask your lawyers if this is of any help to them. This was posted by the sports wiz on the maplegrove#2 thread and given that I believe he is a UFCW staffer, or at the very least a shop steward and a big supporter of the UFCW it's important. The so called UFCW leadership "represents" the interests of the membership so the opinion of the membership would seem important to me. Read this post;

quote:


4. I know and admit that this message is multi-faceted but that's the beauty of these things. I can post whatever I want, the longer the better and I have the comfort of knowing that the guys I want to read this will read EVERY last word.


It's clear even the most adamant UFCW supporter believes the internet is a medium where people can say what they please and feel secure that even the harshest critisim directed towards a specific group will in fact be read by that group.

Your critism was directed at the UFCW and I'd argue you wanted them to see and read it every bit as much as this UFCW representative wants and expects Myself, Siggy, wieser and HJF to read his posts. Turn about is fair play.

In my mind this at the very least this clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy that exists within the UFCW in terms of how they conduct themselves compaired to how they view the actions of others.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Feb 14, 2002 5:49am

Excellent point Scott. UFCW hacks have been using this web site for months now to make a wide range of comments, some of which are certainly offensive and in bad taste and some that are at least arguably defamatory. Some, in my view anyway, are acting on behalf of the UFCW organization and that will not be all that difficult to prove.

I don't think that you can apply one set of standards to yourself and another to your critics. I'd like to hear how they would defend this one.

  • posted by news
  • Fri, Feb 15, 2002 6:43pm

Constitution belongs to union members, not union honchos

UFCW member Bill Gammert filed court documents today in response to the UFCW's recent motion asking for a gag order on his web site. UFCW International, UFCW Canada, Local 777 and two of its officials are suing the part-time grocery store clerk for criticizing the union and posting its constitution on his web site. Gammert intends to fight the UFCW's motion and will claim, among other things, that the International Constitution belongs to union members and not union officials.

  • posted by Willie
  • Fri, Feb 15, 2002 7:04pm

Scott I don't have a lawyer. This is what UFCW wants is to bog me down with legal fees and put me into bankrupsey. SLAP me down so I can't get up again. This is a very common process for UFCW and why the rank and file don't stop it I will never figure it out.

[QUOTE]posted by Scott Mcpherson:
[QB]William, ask your lawyers if this is of any help to them.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Feb 16, 2002 12:17am

Well then bring it up in court. It couldn't hurt could it? A shop steward is a representative of the union in every sence. Their actions reflect on the organization. The sports wiz is at the very least an MSR person or a shop steward but more likely somebody on the UFCW pay roll. His words reflect the beliefs of the organization as a whole. A judge would be very interested in the Plaintiffs double standards. I'd even bring up their double standards concerning "raiding" and anything else that might establish that the UFCW has a pattern of doing one thing while saying another.

I see you've removed [as per the UFCW's request???] the 'united fraud and corruption workers' line as well as some other things so it's clear to me the UFCW could have sought remedy via other means. In fact the UFCW often goes to great lengths to aviod litigation agianst employers and news papers, and even other union who've In my opinion said and done far more damaging things.

I think the judge might want to know;

1: why has the UFCW decided to treat your situation differently?
2: Has any of representative of the plantiffs ever met with you in person to discuss their concerns and see if there is some middle ground?
3: Have they corresponded with you in writing asking for the removal of specific items of concern?
4:Have they ever asked you prior to filing their lawsuit to retract any statements?
5: Have they ever done any of the aforementioned steps when other parties in the past have critised them?
6: does the UFCW 'cherry pick' who they sue for slander who they don't?
7: If the answer is yes, how big a part does the ability of the defendent to cover legal costs play?

These are the kinds of things I think a judge would be interested in hearing don't you? For $10 call lawyer referal and see a lawyer for 30min and ask them if these are the types of things you should bring to the judges attention. If they are I'm sure the MFD has plenty of regulars who would be more than happy to help you gather this type of information and even help you prepair your defence.

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sat, Feb 16, 2002 3:01pm

FEI: I have filed an affidavit in support of William. It isn't much because I have to save the prime stuff for my own affidavits and the examination for discovery, should the UFCW ever set a court date.

I think it's scandalous that any union would sue to keep its "handbook of internal democracy" out of the hands of any working person. All union constitutions and by-laws contain necessary information for union members to run for union office; to understand how their union runs its affairs; to understand what is expected of them as members and to participate in the running of their organizations. To hide a constitution is to hide democracy. If democracy is hidden then democracy can't be practiced.

When I was a union official, all officials including myself feared any member who requested a copy of the union constitution. The constitution in the hands of the members was to be feared because the constitution told members how to file charges, lay complaints and run for office. It told them how often elections should be.

If you will remember, Gib Whitlock held on to power for two years after his term expired. How did he do that? It was easy, who knew except me and the other people on the gravy train. I blew the whistle on the lack of elections and a whole bunch of other stuff. Instead of praising me, the machine persecuted me, shipped me out of town, ransacked my files, and bought a real fine document shredder. Now the buggers are suing me.

And you know what? Blowing the whistle was the best decision I ever made. Filing an affidavit to support William is a pretty good decision too. The only way a lot of this stuff will ever become public record is when it hits the courts.

  • posted by <Joe Blow>
  • Sat, Feb 16, 2002 3:44pm

Have you thought of using the "exhaustion of internal remedies" route
More than one of our members has tried to have his disputes settled the "legal way" as compared to the "out behind the union offices with baseball bats" routine only to have their high priced lawyers worm out by taking ye olde exhaustion highway when they get to a judge. It sure would be retribution for it to go the other way!
Have they tried to settle anything with you internally? Not that I am nieve enough to think they would actually try and settle anything this way but you could try and buy some time with the judge.
That's the name of the game with the union officials, delay delay delay. And hey, get some free advice from a lawyer, some will give you an hour free.
If you decide to go it alone, judges can be very helpful if they think you have a "fair question to be asked"

  • posted by Legal_Beagle
  • Sat, Feb 16, 2002 4:45pm

That's definitely their weak point. From my understanding, the UFCW Constitution has a six-month window to kick ass. The UFCW missed that. The UFCW Constitution sets out a method for dealing with internal disputes between the UFCW and its members.

Likewise, the UFCW Constitution requires members to exhaust all internal remedies before going to the courts, so one would expect that the executive would bind themselves by the same rule. Even if that weren't in the UFCW Constitution, the Courts expect that internal remedies be exhausted before the courts will deal with this stuff.

I'd read up on SLAPP suits. You will see a lot of similarities to what the UFCW is up to with their suits. I understand that the UFCW is now threatening community activists in Toronto for saying bad things about 1000a.

As well, from what I understand all as the UFCW has produced to prove ownership of copyright is some guy's word that the UFCW owns it. They haven't provided any proof of registration of copyright. It's basically, "It's ours because we say it's ours." For all anybody knows, the damned thing could have been written by some scribe at the AFL/CIO. Maybe the AFL/CIO actually owns copyright.

As well, from what I've seen, of UFCW sites like the 1000a pages saying that Tom Collins and his organizers "can't be trusted", that's the same as saying they are dishonest or, perhaps, that they are lying! These union guys sue one of their members for saying a guy lied, and then they do the same. Hypocrites!

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Feb 16, 2002 11:15pm

The more law suits the UFCW files the more attention they bring to themselves. Where there's smoke there's fire and even the mass media won't be able to resist. Come on cowards, bring it what? ya need some more rope?

  • posted by sleK
  • Sun, Feb 17, 2002 7:38pm

UFCW constitution:

http://action.web.ca/home/local375/resources.shtml

http://www.ufcw.net/files/

http://bari.iww.org/iu660/

http://www.geocities.com/ufcw777/

Also found this: Cyber-Democracy for unionists: Your legal rights online (pdf)

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Feb 17, 2002 8:58pm

Here's another site, the BC Labour Board. This is the decision from a Section 12 complaint William laid against the UFCW. Section 12s are almost impossible to win because there is nothing that says a union has to be right, it only has to "be aware" of the problem and give it some thought. But read the stuff carefully and see how the union and the company see eye to eye on what's discipine. Bizarre

  • posted by frequentgrievor
  • Tue, Feb 19, 2002 3:46pm

Hey William,

rumor down in the warehouse was that your locker was searched because you were slandering the company (not the union) Supervisors down here were saying there were stuff being put all over the store about how they were such a bad employer dangerous to the health of the worker. Is that they case? Kevin was having similar problems putting stuff in our lunchroom too.

  • posted by Troll
  • Tue, Feb 19, 2002 6:03pm

As I read it the company's claims are laid out in the LRB Section 12 in the link above. I think the fact that William had something on his web site has nothing to do with the company searching his locker for REAP literature. I think it's clear that the harsh critsizm was on the Internet, not on paper being handed out.

Let's say the company has heard that you said some unflattering things about it, does that give it the right to search your personal belongings for union reform literature? The search of the locker was a monumental invasion of privacy and unlawful search. The CA only allows "random" searches. It doesn't allow targeted searches.

When you look at the lame part about "note to file" that says further discipline will happen if William doesn't smarten up, I think you can see the union and company doing a bit of after the fact butt covering.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Feb 19, 2002 8:05pm

From my reading of the LRB decision, it was pretty clear that what the company was looking for was union reform material. William was running for union office on a reform platform and this was causing the company some concern (wonder why that would be?).

I don't see anything in the LRB decision about William criticizing the company. Even if he was - so what?

  • posted by Troll
  • Wed, Feb 20, 2002 6:57am

So, let me get this straight....

If you say the company is bad, it's "Up against the wall, sucker! Danno, you search the locker while I read the dissident his rights."

That's so Orwellian. We must know what you are thinking, and we must be sure that you are not in possession of subversive written materials that mention our great company.

Scaaaaryyyy! Must be a swell place to work. Sounds like a peachy union too. Uhhhh... Yah, that's it... It was a note to file, not a disciplinary letter. Ahhhh.... You wasn't disciplined, you was just Ahhhh... Ahhh... Ahhh... Well we don't quite know what it was but you wasn't disciplined so you can't grieve.

  • posted by sleK
  • Sun, Feb 24, 2002 2:22am

Anyone posted this yet?

quote:


Consumer beefs part of free speech

Supreme Court strikes down bylaw that barred sign denouncing company

By KIRK MAKIN


Friday, February 22, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A5

JUSTICE REPORTER -- The Supreme Court of Canada struck a strong blow for free speech yesterday, ruling that consumers enjoy a vital constitutional right to publicly criticize companies, products and services.

"This type of communication may be of considerable social importance -- even beyond the merely commercial sphere," Mr. Justice Louis LeBel wrote for a 9-0 majority.

The court ruled that Canadians have a right to express their dissatisfaction via conventional media, the Internet and on signs.

"It is a form of expression of opinion that has an important effect on the social and economic life of a society," Judge LeBel wrote. "It is a right not only of consumers but of citizens."


  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Feb 24, 2002 10:01am

quote:


It is a form of expression of opinion that has an important effect on the social and economic life of a society," Judge LeBel wrote. "It is a right not only of consumers but of citizens


Here's hoping Williams' case can produce the same forward thinking decision that Judge Lebel's has.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Feb 24, 2002 10:11am

Here's the full text of the case: Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression

What's really sick about the UFCW trying to crush one of its members is that the UFCW has used the Charter argument twice, K-Mart and Farmworkers, to supposedly advance the freedoms of workers, but when it comes to itself, it has no problem ignoring the Charter's freedoms when it comes to SLAPPing one of it's own members.

  • posted by Richard
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 10:19am

Holy cow! Apparently, the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing again. From what I understand, the UFCW 247 lawyer pushed the button without checking the court registry. They thought Gammert hadn't filed his response.

They just found out that he did! They don't seem pleased with what was filed. Can anybody in BC get copies of what was filed, or can you post the case/file number?

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 10:41am

The UFCW has shown it's true colors to the world. It's a "do as I say not do as I do" kind of union who preys on the weak and defenceless. Corporations like Walmart have more legal muscle than the UFCW could ever hope to have so they stay clear of them, but a part time worker at Superstore, hey can they kick his teeth in for fun.

quote:


My definition of a Coward; to be strong when you opponents weak, and weak when your opponents strong.


The UFCW elite is a group of cowards who can dish it out with the best of them but can't take the heat. I can say the Prime Minister of Canada is a racist on the steps of the Parliment buildings but I can't say UFCW officials are on the take? How is that? where does it say in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms that as a Canadian I'm not allowed to criticize union officials? how are they any different from the rest of us?

These university and college professors who teach course's about the virtues of unionism but have never actually been a member of union or publically ran for office in a union need to give their heads a collective shake.

The Canadian union movement has been hijacked by opportunistic self serving con artists who will stop at nothing to maintain their power and silence their critics. Freedom and democracy do not exist in the overwhelming majority of todays unions. They are a farse at best. William Gammert has done nothing wrong and if a high ticket pro bono lawyer showed up to take the UFCW to task my guess is they'd crawl back under their gold plated rocks and wait for the next outspoken defenceless clerk to pounce on and crush. The UFCW has finally been outed for what it really is and one day God willing they will answer for it.

  • posted by Legal_Beagle
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 10:56am

Richard, you are right. Gammert did, indeed, file. After reviewing the contents of The Gammert/UFCW File, I've seen two amazing affidavits.

I'm sure that the lawyers representing the UFCW crews weren't aware of the filing before they forged ahead with the request for injunctive relief. I'm also convinced that they weren't aware of the February 21st Supreme Court decision either.

If these guys are really going ahead with the March 1st court date, If you haven't already done so, I'd reccomend that you contact the news media. They will love to hear some of the background stuff.

  • posted by Willie
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 4:17pm

The rumor is compleatley rong. They were looking for union reform material and some of the papers that I have on the bad spending by Gib and his boys on Boundry Rd. That is according to Roger Blockstall from IR for westfair. The only things that were put in the store were put in the lunch room and it was stuff like the REAP news and views. My fight has never been with the company because they only do what the union will let them do.

quote:


posted by frequentgrievor:
Hey William,

rumor down in the warehouse was that your locker was searched because you were slandering the company (not the union) Supervisors down here were saying there were stuff being put all over the store about how they were such a bad employer dangerous to the health of the worker. Is that they case? Kevin was having similar problems putting stuff in our lunchroom too.


  • posted by news
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 6:27pm

It doesn't matter what you've got to say - we're gonna sue you anyway!

In a move that appears quite unusual, MFD has learned that lawyers for the UFCW applied for their day in court in the UFCW's lawsuit against its member William Gammert, before they received Gammert's response to their Writ of Summons and the extensive documents filed in his defense. Last week, the UFCW's lawyers asked for a court date of March 1st but Gammert's submissions for his defense would not have reached them by that time.

"They either don't care what Gammert has to say and just want to drag him to court or they were not expecting him to respond at all, in which case they might win the suit by default", said one source who is following the case closely. We'll bring you more.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 7:05pm

quote:


if a high ticket pro bono lawyer showed up to take the UFCW to task my guess is they'd crawl back under their gold plated rocks.


I'd be willing to spend some time making this happen. Have some ideas...

  • posted by sleK
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 9:26pm

quote:


Have some ideas...


Do share!?

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Feb 25, 2002 10:24pm

Oh please do, pleeease. Not one but two Gold medals in Hockey already have me in perma smile mode, but the thought of seeing the UFCW destroyed in court for this dispicable legal action....careful I gotta work tomorrow at 6 and I need my beauty rest. If I get too excited I'll be up all night.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 6:48am

I found a site today that deals with people being sued for posting material on the internet that others would rather the world not see, and how we can legally fight a CyberSLAPP suit

I suggest everyone check this site out!
http://www.chillingeffects.org/

[look up] this site "ROCKS"

  • posted by sleK
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 6:49am

Oooh!

Good find!

  • posted by retailworker
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 8:00am

Hey I was going to mention chillingeffect.org!

Other ideas:

Contact Wired journalist Declan McCullough with a short synopsis of the case. He publishes a widely read email list called politechbot which is read by free speech advocates and legal-types. Be sure to mention the similarity to the Church of Scientology prosecution for copyright violations.

Contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Submit a link to MFD's coverage to Yahoo! Full coverage labor and union news.

There's a mailing list run by journalist Doug Henwood, publisher of the Left Business Observer. The folks on that list-- journalists, academics and activists-- might be interested.

submit the story to Plastic.com, a widely read interactive news site.

Contact Steven Greenhouse, the Washington D.C. based NY Times reporter who covers labor issues.

Here's a dangerous one: contact the US-based anti-union National Right to Work Foundation. They provide pro-bono legal assistance and bad publicity.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 8:24am

I bet the UFCW will squirm when they read this

  • posted by sleK
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 8:33am

  • posted by retailworker
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 9:48am

How's this for a synopsis?

"Union Sues Member for Posting Constitution on the Web"

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has joined with UFCW Canada and Local 777 in a lawsuit (.pdf) charging a grocery clerk with copyright infringement for posting the union's constitution on the Web.

In a move reminiscent of the Church of Scientology's prosecution of critics who published internal church documents on the internet, the UFCW is also seeking a gag order against the clerk, William Gammert. The gag order seeks to censor or shut down his site while the lawsuit is pending.

The UFCW is also suing over alleged defamatory comments about Local 777 and it's president, Gib Whitlock, on Gammert's Web site. On the site, Gammert referred to the UFCW as "the United Fraud and Corruption Workers" and questioned whether Whitlock's compensation arrangement amounted to bribery. The suit also tries to hold Gammert responsible for comments posted to his site's Guest Book.

Gammert, a part-time clerk who earns $7/hr, is seeking pro bono legal assitance.

  • posted by sleK
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 10:45am

The Church of Scientology?

L.Ron - Ever listen to BarkMarket?

  • posted by retailworker
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 11:02am

Farking Dargles? No I've never heard of them. I'm going to post that above story to retailworker.com and send it to Declan McCullough.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 11:20am

Thanks DriveOn. That's a good synopsis. If you have email addies for the other organizations you mentioned, send 'em in (hold off on the Right to Work gang though )

  • posted by retailworker
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 11:55am

quote:


posted by remote viewer:
(hold off on the Right to Work gang though)


I HATE those guys...

What about the right not to work?

  • posted by retailworker
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 11:59am

Oh I forgot one more: why not send the story to labourstart?

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 12:37pm

Internet law is in its infancy in Canada, but here's a site with good caselaw, which could be argued well in Canada. US Caselaw

  • posted by Willie
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 5:28pm

Stay tuned theirs something in the wind from the lawyers.

  • posted by Willie
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 7:57pm

A few corrections to this:
1) I am a Shipper / Receiver not a clerk
2) I make $22.36 per hr but I max out at 25 hrs a week.
I don't have much money because of the debts I encoured while I was working my way up the pay ladder. For years I lived on $400.00 to $800.00 a month. That is why no legal defence.

How's this for a synopsis?

"Union Sues Member for Posting Constitution on the Web"

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has joined with UFCW Canada and Local 777 in a lawsuit (.pdf) charging a grocery clerk with copyright infringement for posting the union's constitution on the Web.

In a move reminiscent of the Church of Scientology's prosecution of critics who published internal church documents on the internet, the UFCW is also seeking a gag order against the clerk, William Gammert. The gag order seeks to censor or shut down his site while the lawsuit is pending.

The UFCW is also suing over alleged defamatory comments about Local 777 and it's president, Gib Whitlock, on Gammert's Web site. On the site, Gammert referred to the UFCW as "the United Fraud and Corruption Workers" and questioned whether Whitlock's compensation arrangement amounted to bribery. The suit also tries to hold Gammert responsible for comments posted to his site's Guest Book.

Gammert, a part-time clerk who earns $7/hr, is seeking pro bono legal assitance.
[/QUOTE]

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Feb 26, 2002 8:56pm

quote:


I make $22.36 per hr but I max out at 25 hrs a week.


Well geez that changes everything! NOT !!!.

It still makes you the little guy up against the very organization that is supposed to defend and protect your rights not squash 'em in a court of law!

  • posted by frequentgrievor
  • Thu, Feb 28, 2002 4:43pm

Isn't that a US site. Refers to the first amendmant. Is there a similar canadian site?

  • posted by Willie
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 3:24pm

Hi All

Today was court day for me and I feel that it was a big win for all of us.

1) I must remove from my site the Constution in 1 week.

2) UFCW Canada must post the Constitution in both English and French within 4 months of todays date.

3) If UFCW Canada doesn't comply in the alotted time then I can re-post it on a different site for all.

My site stays up and opperating until trial on the other matters and in 4 months we all will have a working Constution for everyone.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 3:34pm

William, you are to commended for doing a great service to union members everywhere. How embarassing for the UFCW to be ordered by the courts to post a copy of their Constitution so that all members can read it.

I understand that Local 247 didn't show because they wanted to review the affidavits. Hmmmm....

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 3:42pm

Thanks Will, this is definitely something to celebrate.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 3:48pm

  • posted by Legal_Beagle
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 4:09pm

I understand that the judge was aghast that a union would actually seek to restrain members from viewing their own Constitution.

If Mike Fraser is the one calling the shots, I'd say he has a bit of 'splaining to do to Doug Dority.

This issue won't die here. Mike Fraser and Doug Dority have to understand that you can't control the Internet. When you try to control it, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

The stupidest thing Mike could have done was to launch law suits. They will be his undoing and will be the UFCW's undoing.

Congratulations, William. You have done a fine thing for union members everywhere.

BTW, those were fine affidavits that you filed. They are a fine read for anyone interested in union affairs.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 4:13pm

Well this certainly is the way of the future and Will has made one big inroad, but has anyone else noticed there is one thing intrinsically wrong with this whole internet thing?

It's bloody hard to party!

  • posted by laura
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 4:19pm

Congratulations William!

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 4:21pm

Y'know what's really funny, is that William has to pull the Constitution from his site within a week. However, the court ordered the UFCW to post and English and French version on the web within four months. The UFCW thinks that it has a little over three months of dead space between, but the marvel of the Internet has allowed the damned Constitution to be copied and placed on Internet sites around the world.

The buggers fought one site and caused the creation of hundreds of sites with their Precious Constitution proudly displayed.

They just don't understand the power of the Internet

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 4:50pm

The constitution has to be posted, in French and English, on the UFCW's website by July 1st.
Canada Day .. how special is that? No need to even mark your calanders!

  • posted by Troll
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 5:04pm

The fact that the judge gave the UFCW a dressing down is significant --very significant.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 5:17pm

William, you rule! You have done a great thing. This is your moment and our moment. It's time to party cyber-rebels!

We have only just begun to change the world.

  • posted by Willie
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 5:45pm

Thanks everyone

Now comes the real war. I must now get ready for trial and the Local could still try for an injunction and remove the site all together. I am living the time for now.

Thanks again for all your suport and help.

  • posted by Legal_Beagle
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 6:00pm

The buggers still haven't even set a court date. They haven't set dates for Examination for Discoveries. They haven't served a Demand for Discovery of Documents. They haven't done anything that would make me think they have any intention of going to court. This is a SLAPP action.

They sue and sit forever. They hoped to get an injuction and they they would never proceed to court, so the injuction would remain forever or until William applied to have the action dismissed. However, they know that he probably doesn't have the cash to do that.

After reading the Affidavits, I don't think they particularly want them shown to a judge and I'm sure as hell positive that they don't want HJ giving sworn testimony, or blabbing for a few hours in an Examination for Discovery.

Sworn testimony is public information and public information makes for fine Internet reading material.

  • posted by Secret Agent
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 6:42pm

Way to go Bill! Truth-seekers everywhere salute you.

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Mar 1, 2002 7:58pm

Ride 'em Cowboy!

YeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaw!

  • posted by <Joe Blow>
  • Thu, Mar 7, 2002 4:02pm

Legal Beagle: It's called motioning them to death.
Lawyers love this stuff. All they have to do is keep giving the union the "talk" and the union keeps doing the "walk" to the unions funds and throwing it in the trough. It's not their money but they are prepared to use every last cent to sue the victim member.
However, take heart. One savy Washington lawyer who does work for AUD has just won a big one for us. On March 6/02 a judge ruled that sec.199 of the UA Constitution is ILLEGAL. It took away the members rights to freedom of speech.
What makes the UFCW think any judge will take away the rights of members to freedom of speech via the internet?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Mar 7, 2002 4:55pm

That sounds like another victory for union reformers. Do you have any other information about the case (the wording of Sec. 199 or maybe a link to more information about the case)? These wins are worth telling everyone about.

  • posted by <Joe Blow>
  • Thu, Mar 7, 2002 6:10pm

AUD has kept a good record of what has been going on. Go to their "search" and punch in sec 199 challenge.
www.uniondemocracy.org

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Mar 22, 2002 3:32am

quote:


Our thanks to Labor Notes and Kevin LaPalme.


Yes!
Thank-you!

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Fri, Mar 22, 2002 5:59am

Here's a suggestion. When you visit www.teamster.net for the first time, the following disclaimer appears in a pop-up window.

quote:


Welcome to TeamsterNet. This is a web site built by a Teamster member for the purpose of allowing other Teamster members to communicate. This web site is not associated, affiliated or connected to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (www.teamster.org) in any way outside of it being maintained by an active member.
This message will only appear on your first visit, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Thank you,

Phillip Ybarrolaza - Webmaster of TeamsterNet


Now, I don't think the Teasters have ever sued Phil, so there's no guarantee that such a disclaimer would be legally sufficient. However, it might be worth trying it on this site. I don't think it would take anything away from the content and it might get the UFCW off your back.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Mar 22, 2002 11:00am

You've got a good point GT. Even though the only ones stupid enough to think this is an official UFCW site are obviously besotted machine heads and delerious lawyers, there should be something to help those types, set their lives straight.

Let's do what we can to help the disadvantaged.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 11:51am

Don't get too caught up in that stupid argument. Only an idiot would confuse this site with and "official" UFCW site and judges aren't that stupid. Not to mention the fact that all these suits are making it clear to the world that the union does not belong to the members it belongs to the despots controling them.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 1:54pm

I'm with Scott on this one. From what I understand, those idiots had the opportunity to get www.ufcw.net for themselves over a year ago. They didn't even have the decency to respond to a reasonable offer that was put to them. This isn't about people confusing the MFD site for an official UFCW site. This is about shutting down free speech. Sticking a pop-up box on the front page isn't going to deter them. Sticking them with the truth will.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 6:25pm

quote:


This isn't about people confusing the MFD site for an official UFCW site. This is about shutting down free speech. Sticking a pop-up box on the front page isn't going to deter them.


There is no doubt that the underlying theme is restricting free speech. Unfortunately a game with rules has been created away from the main issue. Playing the game to win is what has to be done. It is my belief that some Judges look favorably on those who show good faith in domain disputes and post a disclaimer for disputed domain names. I think a small line or link button at the top would be beneficial and a good legal move to show all those UNION ceo's and their friends that feel they are confused. For most of us we know that this is not an official union organzing site. However, a lawyer would have given the best legal advice and that we have to trust in for now.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 8:09pm

The Good news; you win... I agree
The Bad news; I don't do the tech stuff Slek does.
The ugly news; he's busy listening to The Squirrel Nut Zippers.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 9:03pm

In the life and leisure times of slek. The band has eight members and can be found on this site:

http://www.snzippers.com/

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by sleK
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 9:12pm

quote:


The ugly news; he's busy listening to The Squirrel Nut Zippers.


[singing gaily] All the time
I'm finding ways to make things fall in line.
I know how tricky things can be.
But I really do believe that you are mine,
and all the stars are there before us.
Listen here, some things are meant to be.

[/singing gaily]

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 9:42pm

I forgot how to decipher code. Please e-mail under secure notification.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 9:50pm

quote:


I forgot how to decipher code


You're lucky it's code, cause if it's not, you're both waaaaaaay off topic! What you gotta say fer yourself sleK?

  • posted by DuffBeer
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 10:23pm

quote:


posted by siggy:
The constitution has to be posted, in French and English, on the UFCW's website by July 1st.
Canada Day .. how special is that? No need to even mark your calanders!


UFCW Canada Constitution

quote:


A true and complete copy of the international constitution of the United Food and Commercial Workers is available online in PDF format by clicking here. You will need Adobe Acrobat® to read this document, which is a free download available here. Because the constitution is reproduced as an exact copy of its official printed form, it is a large file. This electronic document is currently being reformatted to make it a smaller but still true copy, and will be available from this page when it is ready.
2002.03.19


It is a large file: 16.4MB

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Mar 23, 2002 10:48pm

Hey Duff where are the links on that unions web site. I could not find any unless I missed it.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by sleK
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 12:40am

OMG!
It's the fabled 98 version! (I heard they had to send an elite team of BA's to the Dead Sea to recover it! )

quote:


Because the constitution is reproduced as an exact copy of its official printed form, it is a large file.


That really means: Because we are too lazy and inept to create a proper PDF we just scanned a paper copy of the big C into 42 image files then drag & dropped 'em into Acrobat.

But hey! At least it's up there!

quote:


What you gotta say fer yourself sleK?




  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 12:49am

Hey Mike. I do not belong to your union but I have saved a copy of your 98 version of your union constitution to my hard drive. As a union member I believe that I should have unrestricted access to all union constitutions so that I may have the freedom to form an educated opinion as to which union I may someday wish to belong to or switch unions to.

Why must you hide your constitution behind barriers? Are you ashamed of your constitution?

I HAVE IN MY HAND A COPY OF MY UNION CONSTITUTION IN BOOKLET FORM TO REFERENCE AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY.

If someone wants to e-mail this to mike@ufcw.ca by all means.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 5:02am

Well how about that! They posted it - and it hasn't been 4 months yet. Let it never be forgotten: Bill Gammert, member in good standing, Local 777, made them do it!

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 9:03am

quote:


The UFCW International Constitution was amended and updated at the UFCW's quintennial constitutional convention held in Chicago in July 1998. The text of the document will be posted to this site when it becomes available.


quote:


This electronic document is currently being reformatted to make it a smaller but still true copy, and will be available from this page when it is ready


Hmmmm ..!

  • posted by DuffBeer
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 10:35am

quote:


posted by about unions:
Hey Duff where are the links on that unions web site. I could not find any unless I missed it.

ABOUT UNIONS


Sorry, which links do you mean?
Now I am

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 11:16am

Duff I tried to find the constitution on www.ufcw.ca and could not last night. How did you find it on the site is the question I was really asking. Although I had a few glasses of water I did not think that it would impair my ability to track down the constitution you posted. On the site where the constitution is listed, all that pops up is an e-mail window. I even used a search engine and came up empty.

Stated another way, if I do not use your link and were entering the site of www.ufcw.ca, how does one find the constitution that way.

I am going to look again. Tks for reply

I quickly looked again and could not find it on their site.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 11:21am

Head on over to ufcw.ca and click on the big button on the left that says Constitution

Then one more click, pour yourself another glass of water 'cause you'll have some time while it loads.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 11:36am

Ok when I open up ufcw.ca I get a web page with a big logo and the welcome routine. I do not get the same web site as you do obviously. There is no such thing on my ufcw.ca The next page does not have anything about constitution either. Help?? Somebody please make me look good.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 11:47am

I have but one question. Have you clicked on the big pink button that says continue in english??

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 11:52am

Yes

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 11:59am

A younger smarter, better educated fellow union member just stopped by and can not find it either. Must get something stronger to drink until I see it.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 1:40pm

This what I see on the next page

I wonder if I am on a mirrored site and it is not updated???

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 2:15pm

That is what we see tooooo!
Scroll down, on the left is a Constitution button. Press it! Are you a UFCW M.R?

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 2:27pm

Thanks for humoring me. But I still do not get it.

These are the list on the left hand side of my page that I view,

about,
members,
contact us,
join us,
scholarships,
news & issues,
women,
youth,
links,
feedback,
en francais,
contents 1998-2001 ufcw Canada
have your say,

The rest of the left hand side is blank all the way down the rest of the page.

If your short hand is asking if I am a member of Ufcw, the answer is no.

Once last time siggy make a list like a kid for me to get there if it does not work, to hell with it.

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 3:04pm

Between Links and Feedback, I see "Constitution" and indeed, if I click and wait long enough, I am transported to the UFCW constitution.

Or maybe, maybe that's just a site they have for "known MFD'ers". The rest of the world gets the old constitution-less site. Ohhhhhh....

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 3:13pm

Ok thats helps me. What I am viewing on my computer is not what you are seeing on yours. WHY???

I swear that I am not under the influence of anything. I know this must sound like some prank to you, but it is straight up.

When I open up my own link there is no constitution anywhere. Why do we have different web pages?

If I saved this page and e-mailed it to you while you were off the net, I wonder if you would then be able to see what I am trying to tell you?

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 4:31pm

quote:


When I open up my own link there is no constitution anywhere


Update your link! Get a new 'puter or you can skip the whole thing 'cause it ain't worth this much trouble!!

  • posted by retailworker
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 4:58pm

quote:


posted by about unions:
Ok thats helps me. What I am viewing on my computer is not what you are seeing on yours. WHY???

I swear that I am not under the influence of anything. I know this must sound like some prank to you, but it is straight up.

When I open up my own link there is no constitution anywhere. Why do we have different web pages?

If I saved this page and e-mailed it to you while you were off the net, I wonder if you would then be able to see what I am trying to tell you?

ABOUT UNIONS


my guess is you're looking at a cached copy of the page. whether the cache is at your ISP or on your own 'puter is the question.

using netscape or IE?

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 5:23pm

IE

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Mar 24, 2002 5:42pm

REMOTE VIEWER IS THE GENIUS

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WONDER HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE RUNNING IE WILL EXPERIENCE THIS PROBLEM.
IT TOOK ALL THIS TIME JUST TO LOAD THE SITE BUT NOW IT WORKS OK I HOPE. THEY HAD TO HAVE CHANGED SOMETHING IN THEIR NEW FORMAT.

about unions

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Mar 25, 2002 4:54am

You have to love their attempt to keep people from veiwing that document (a 16 meg file takes a long time to load).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to make a .pdf smaller.......

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Mar 25, 2002 10:14am

It was an inept scan of the document. The French version is much smaller and a proper pdf.

  • posted by retailworker
  • Mon, Mar 25, 2002 10:28am

never mind

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Mon, Mar 25, 2002 2:55pm

Perhaps, for the sake of argument UFCW Canada has deliberatly posted a large file copy of an old Constitution in an effort to get back at the judge for his landmark decision. If I were UFCW Canada I would be very careful not to be found in contempt. It is my understanding that Judges take a very dim view on actions that show contempt for their decisions.If UFCW Canada can make the french version right the first time, obviously they have the ability to do the english version correctly the first time too.

I am not sure how UFCW Canada was able to convince the Judge that the UFCW Constituiton belongs to the "Union". The union is the members.

On the first page of our Constitution booklet I quote "...The CUPE Constitution accordingly belongs to the members of CUPE". The page is signed by our President Judy Darcy.

Why would Canada's largest union be upfront with our Constitution and yet one of the largest unions in U.S.A, the United Food and Commercial Workers International has yet of their own volition, posted their own constitution?

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by retailworker
  • Mon, Mar 25, 2002 5:26pm

If you remember, I previously noted the similarity of the UFCW's internet copyright lawsuit to an earlier lawsuit by the Church of Scientology against critical Web sites.

Well, the Church of Scientology is now threatening to sue US-based search engine Google for indexing a Norwegian Web site that has posted excerpts of church documents.

http://www.politechbot.com/p-03288.html

  • posted by <William>
  • Sat, Mar 30, 2002 11:14pm

Hi all

I didn't think that UFCW would post it but they did. They had better find someone that knows how to work with a web site. Makes you think twice about taking the computer classes that Local-2000 offers [look up]
Just incase some of you e-mailed me in the past month I ripped my computer apart and then broke my right hand at work and had fun putting it back together. I lost most of my e-mails in the re-install. Going in for sergery this week to get my right hand back in working order.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Mar 30, 2002 11:19pm

quote:


I ripped my computer apart and then broke my right hand at work and had fun putting it back together


Your hand or the computer?

Good luck with your surgery Will.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Mar 31, 2002 12:17am

Ok nobody laugh...I like to collect constitutions and CBA's. I have a whole bunch from all kinds of different unions. I even have the Maple Leaf Brandon CBA. I was going to toss them but I can't. Not exactly a stamp collection but just as dorky eh? Oh well.

  • posted by <William>
  • Sun, Mar 31, 2002 3:42pm

The computer. All the little screws and micro switches. I will leave putting the hand back together to the Doctors.

quote:


posted by siggy:

quote:


I ripped my computer apart and then broke my right hand at work and had fun putting it back together

 

Your hand or the computer?

Good luck with your surgery Will.


  • posted by Johnny Roberts
  • Sun, Mar 31, 2002 5:11pm

According to their "propaganda", at least at local 1977, "every member has the right to obtain a copy of all Executive Board minutes and financial tranactions each month". Well, at a recent union meeting I requested this but was told that "all members" now requiring this information have to sign "release forms" first to obtain this information that they "brag" about being a cornerstone of their "democratic ways".
Instead of making it easier for our members to find out about our local these guys make
a "travesty" of democratic and open unionism.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 10:10am

And uh, what would be on this Release Form? I'm really curious if it's a promise not to disclose the information to anyone else.

  • posted by Johnny Roberts
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 11:02am

I don't know Remote but my educated guess is that's what it says, or something to that effect.
They probably instituted this "rule" following their "exposer and embarrassment" over the salary increases.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 4:38pm

I think this article B.Vl Trials (k) of our Constitution prevents this freedom to distribute what the Biz calls "secrets".
HOW UNIONS TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOM WITH THIS

(k)Circulates reports designed or calculated to injure or weaken the Canadian Union of Public Employees;

Who determines if it is calculated to injure or help the union? Are not the members being hurt more by the authoritian rule on members freedom of expression?

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 5:53pm

I suppose that it would be CUPE that would decide if a member is circulating "reports designed or calculated to injure or weaken the Canadian Union of Public Employees". I'm not sure, however, how this would stand up if it were ever ended up before the Supreme Court. Can the a union constitution override the Charter of Rights? It shouldn't.

Remember the case involving the UA and a similar provision in its constitution that was struck down by a US court? I wonder if we would get the same result in Canada.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 8:42pm

Good question and one I would REALLY like to know the answer to. I am tired of trusting the Biz leader decision on what is the law. I feel that a few constitutions would fall to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, they may challenge on trademark infringment on their right to rule as they say not as the law says!!

ABOUT UNIONS

  • posted by <Lawman>
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 8:59pm

Union constitutions are not subject to the canadian charter of rights and freedoms.

The charter only applies to actions taken or laws enacted by any level of government or the courts against an individual or group. It is not applicable in disputes between individuals and groups that are not connected to the government.

  • posted by sleK
  • Mon, Apr 1, 2002 9:12pm

quote:


It is not applicable in disputes between individuals and groups that are not connected to the government.


Unions are connected to the government.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Apr 2, 2002 5:54am

Question for lawman: So let's say that I'm a CUPE member and I make comments that are critical of CUPE. They aren't libelous or slanderous or any of that kind of crap, they're just critical. I believe that I'm exercising my right to freedom of expression but CUPE has a different view and hauls me up on charges under its constitution. At the end of whatever the process is I am found in breach of the constitution and subject to whatever unpleasantness is deemed appropriate by CUPE. What recourse do I have? After all, I was excercising my right to free expression.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Apr 6, 2002 11:03am

Good question Brother RV.

REFERENCE TO IBEW CONSTITUTION FOUND DISCRINIMATORY BY US COURT Monday 22, November 1993

quote:


I was a delegate to the IBEW convention when the results of an ongoing grievance with several sections of the IBEW constitution by ordinary members of the IBEW was finally resolved by court decisions (Boswell v IBEW). The USA court found many provisions in the IBEW constitution to be discriminatory and illegal and ordered them removed from the IBEW constitution. A request from the convention floor to review thousands of cases where members had been punished and/or banished by these illegal sections of the IBEW constitution was denied by the leadership. I raise these issues because interfering in the affairs of a trade union was used by a member of the Ontario Legislature to condemn Bill 80


How is it that a United States court finds parts of IBEW Constitution discriminatory and yet unions continue to discriminate against they very members that pay their big wages!!

Comments like those of "lawman" motivate me to do more research. If I recall corectly, there is a case in which the Canadian Charter was criticized by the courts for being far too narrow in its scope and now covers issues as members rights in unions. I will keep looking.

about unions

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sat, Apr 6, 2002 1:36pm

This posting is about just what the court meant when it said the a member is free to oppose their union despite having to pay dues to the union.
Being free to oppose our union or any union, does that also give us freedom of expression to do so, or are we to silently think it to ourselves and somehow send thoughts tellepathically to others who share similar thoughts or for that matter anyone who may not be aware of issues.

quote:


Requiring that dues be paid to the Union does not restrict this right because the employee remains free to associate with others and is free to oppose the Union. At most, the provisions create a financial bond.


this quote from-

Lavigne v. Ontario Public service employees Union,[1991]2S.C.R. 211

about unions

© 2017 Members for Democracy