NLRB Appointee Will Continue to Receive Payments from Union

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

    Jan 24, 2012 4:41 AM GMT
    Financial disclosure forms at the link.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/23/nlrb-appointee-will-continue-to-receive-payments-from-union/

    Financial disclosure documents filed by two of President Obama’s illegal appointments to the National Labor Relations Board show that one will continue to receive payments from a major labor union during his time on the board.

    Richard Griffin, the former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers, will receive regular payments under two different IUOE pension plans. The payment amounts are not listed on the disclosure form. He will also receive a single lump sum payment equal to three weeks of salary (one week for each of the three years since he enrolled in the plan). Griffin’s annual salary as the IUOE’s general counsel was $376,778, according to the disclosure form.

    In his capacity as general counsel, we have noted, Griffin advanced policies that helped insulate corrupt union leaders from challenge.

    Both Griffin and Sharon Block, who was also illegally appointed to the NLRB, filed ethics agreements with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics stating that they will not, in their capacity as NLRB members, participate in matters that might affect their personal finances. Assuming that agreement is adhered to, Griffin’s continued compensation by the IUOE is licit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 4:46 AM GMT
    Well, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 4:52 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 5:01 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.


    Which ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 5:05 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.


    Which ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL


    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204731-recess-appointments-might-not-hold-

    Yeah I'm sure the Justice department would claim that there is a chance the appointments would be overturned... like really Christian? You couldn't do better than that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 5:41 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.


    Which ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL


    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204731-recess-appointments-might-not-hold-

    Yeah I'm sure the Justice department would claim that there is a chance the appointments would be overturned... like really Christian? You couldn't do better than that?


    They won't be. Any actual legal arguments?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 5:42 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.


    Which ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL


    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204731-recess-appointments-might-not-hold-

    Yeah I'm sure the Justice department would claim that there is a chance the appointments would be overturned... like really Christian? You couldn't do better than that?


    They won't be. Any actual legal arguments?


    Yes - in the article - try reading it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.


    Which ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL


    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204731-recess-appointments-might-not-hold-

    Yeah I'm sure the Justice department would claim that there is a chance the appointments would be overturned... like really Christian? You couldn't do better than that?


    They won't be. Any actual legal arguments?


    Yes - in the article - try reading it.


    No thanks. I've read the ridiculous right-wing claims already. Maybe try a news source that isn't completely biased.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 5:46 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWell, this "blog" post starts off with it's own bias claiming the appointments were illegal.

    Beyond that, he's receiving pension payments that he earned. Are the Republican members of the board suspending their own pensions?

    If so, fine. If not, there's not story here. icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are a number of legal scholars who are quite favorable to the Obama Administration who have also pointed out that they are likely illegal if not explicitly stated as such.


    Which ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL


    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204731-recess-appointments-might-not-hold-

    Yeah I'm sure the Justice department would claim that there is a chance the appointments would be overturned... like really Christian? You couldn't do better than that?


    They won't be. Any actual legal arguments?


    Yes - in the article - try reading it.


    No thanks. I've read the ridiculous right-wing claims already. Maybe try a news source that isn't completely biased.


    Your ad hominem attacks must really comfort you - if you think you can reject every argument because of its source. And yes, that's what ad hominem means - you're an expert at it after all. Too bad these "ridiculous claims" include those made by scholars who have sided with the Obama Administration in the past.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2012 10:25 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidWhich ones. Here's the legal precedent if you'd like to find fault with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/12/bloomberg_articlesLXP7PE6K50XW.DTL

    This after the fact justification from the Justice Department has already been rebuked by constitutional legal experts. What would you expect from a department headed by a hack that has no credibility within the legal community. An idiot so incompetent he never researched case law prior to the Khalid Sheik Mohammed decision. A department run by a total incompetent driven only by politics.