Union whistleblowers: We were beaten and harassed after they accused bosses of looting

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 9:11 PM GMT
    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/05/15/2011-05-15_clam_up_or_else_union_whistleblowers_we_were_beaten_and_harassed.html

    Unionized phone company employees say they were beaten or threatened after they accused their labor bosses of looting their coffers through various scams.

    One member of Communications Workers of America Local 1101 said that after he reported a time-sheet padding scheme, a thug beat him so badly his spine was injured.

    Another says he found a dead rat in his locker, while a third said a union officer warned that suspected informants should be brought off company property and "taken care of."

    The threats come to light as the U.S. Labor Department is probing charges that union bosses lined their pockets at the rank-and-file's expense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    If the union bosses are, indeed, engaged in criminality, then they should be investigated and charged as such. But that makes them criminals and embezzlers which is not linked to their being union members/managers.

    For someone, who so willingly defends the financial services predators for screwing over the entire American economy, I'm surprised you're not lauding this behavior. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 11:10 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidIf the union bosses are, indeed, engaged in criminality, then they should be investigated and charged as such. But that makes them criminals and embezzlers which is not linked to their being union members/managers.

    For someone, who so willingly defends the financial services predators for screwing over the entire American economy, I'm surprised you're not lauding this behavior. icon_rolleyes.gif


    If you're referring to the fact that I think government created many of the incentives for the financial crisis that occurred and in the very least shares a substantial portion of the blame for what was systemic risk, then yes I suppose that qualifies as a defense - even though I believe that firms should have been allowed to fail. For clarification are you saying you defend the financial bailout?

    Fraud and the lack of accountability and violence are however not new to unions that depend on cohesion and employee discipline for their existence. I do however wonder how hard the Department of Justice will investigate these complaints.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 1:38 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIf the union bosses are, indeed, engaged in criminality, then they should be investigated and charged as such. But that makes them criminals and embezzlers which is not linked to their being union members/managers.

    For someone, who so willingly defends the financial services predators for screwing over the entire American economy, I'm surprised you're not lauding this behavior. icon_rolleyes.gif


    If you're referring to the fact that I think government created many of the incentives for the financial crisis that occurred and in the very least shares a substantial portion of the blame for what was systemic risk, then yes I suppose that qualifies as a defense - even though I believe that firms should have been allowed to fail. For clarification are you saying you defend the financial bailout?

    Fraud and the lack of accountability and violence are however not new to unions that depend on cohesion and employee discipline for their existence. I do however wonder how hard the Department of Justice will investigate these complaints.


    Theoretically, I did not oppose the bailout, though it should have been tied to the dismissal of the bank's management and they should have been put into receivership for the tax payers and then auctioned or somehow put back into private hands once their balance sheets were cleaned and the disaster averted. That was not going to happen with Paulson as the head of Treasury. Instead, Democrats had to fight for what little accountability was in the TARP legislation. (BTW, HBO is airing a film version of Too Big To Fail, which you may want to watch since it's clear you've read nothing about the actual causes of the crisis.)

    The tired canard of "government incentives leading to the systemic risk" is beyond laughable at this point. Minimally, the banks themselves lobbied extensively for such deregulation, and lobbied even harder for derivatives and exotic securities to remain unregulated. THAT caused the international systemic risk, not the government backing commercial banking.

    Further, fraud and lack of accountability and violence (both economic and physical) in the business sector are far older than unions. We have not invaded a country at the behest of the Teamsters, yet we've invaded several at the behest of multinationals. icon_rolleyes.gif