UnionMaine

Trust me, I work for the Government

Mark Turek Speaks out. Click on comments to read All.

E.T.I. 2009

Mark,

You are invited to present any of your issues on my Blog http://www.unionmaine.blogspot.com/

While you may think I am a Union Lackey, I feel that my viewpoint is simply 180 degrees opposed from yours. What matters to me like the X files is that the truth is out there. The greater danger is that if we do not have a forum or if anyone is denied a forum then the truth is endangered specie. I suggest you have a “guest post”, rather than answering any of the current topics. Your points will be presented fairly. If you take advantage of this offer, be aware that a post could be edited according to the rules of my blog. I will submit my edits you for approval. If you wish to be a guest poster please include a picture, if you wish. You may also post anonymously or using a handle.

Mark, you are wrong, you have not provided any proof, and you have claimed that if you lose it will be due to a crooked court. I will not participate allowing you to claim the game is rigged. I offer you a podium for your point of view.

In total disagreement but with support for free speech

Narsbars

Trust me, I work for the government

Please read Mark Turek’s response. If Mr. Turek chooses to post as a guest poster he will have a featured post.

The Same invitation goes to anyone interested. I have said that the people opposed to our Union have one strength and that stength is persistance and dedication. I hope to hear from all view points as the real danger is lack of involvement. I have told Mr. Turek that I do not agree with him on any point. I think he is totally wrong, and his facts are questionable, BUT free speech will not be denied. To mangle Chandler, “This if Liberty hall, you may spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard”.


Enter your Email and press Subscribe

Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

July 10th, 2007 Posted by narsbars | AGEM, ATTACK ON UNIONS, MSEA, MSEASEIU, UNIONMAINE, Union Success, mark turek | 10 comments

10 Comments

  1. That’s a very fair offer.

    Comment by Anonymous | July 11, 2007

  2. Thank you, narsbars. Lets see if this works now…

    Mark Turek

    Comment by Anonymous | July 11, 2007

  3. Fee Challengers Vs. MSEA-SEIU Local 1989
    It’s time MSEA-SEIU Local 1989 is held responsible for their overall lack of detailed accountability, and questionable business management practices, with respect
    to their “fair share” fee. The fee calculation process that was used is anything but accurate or fair, and this will be illustrated at next week’s hearing.

    When: Next Monday, July 16th — 9:00am start

    Hearing Location: St Paul Center (a.k.a., Oblate Fathers Retreat House)
    136 State Street, Augusta
    –> This building is located just above the capitol-side rotary, and across the street from the District Court House and a Verizon office. There is also a large/free parking
    lot next to St Paul Center.

    Please Note: Since this arbitration case is being handled by the American Arbitration
    Association (AAA), we must follow their “Rules for Impartial Determination of Union Fees,”
    http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=22110&printable=true. (e.g., Attendance at Hearings: The
    arbitrator shall maintain the confidentiality of the hearings unless the law provides to the
    contrary. Persons having a direct interest in the arbitration are entitled to attend hearings.
    The arbitrator shall have the power to require the retirement of any witness during the testimony
    of other witnesses. It shall be discretionary with the arbitrator to determine the propriety of the
    attendance of any other person.)

    Please spread the word, as this will probably be our final hearing in the current arbitration case.

    Mark Turek
    http://www.UnFairShare.org ~ mark.turek@unfairshare.org

    Comment by Anonymous | July 11, 2007

  4. Thank you, Narsbars. Although I realize we currently have two different opinions on the MSEA’s lack of detailed accountability for their “fairshare” fee, I respect your right to feel that way. However, with that said, I hope you will come to the hearing next Monday in Augusta to learn more of the real facts about this challenge.

    This case involves so many issues, it’s impossible for either side to explain everything on a Blog. The bottom line for me in this challenge is that your union (MSEA-SEIU Local 1989) has been using insufficient accounting practices to meet their “burden of proof” as required by law. In fact, your union has created and used a significant amount of fraudulent information in their fee calculation process. We have countless examples of this fact, and they will be discussed in detail at Monday’s hearing.

    In addition, the challenge process that seems to have been written and approved by the Baldacci-MSEA Team are anything but impartial. With that said, this issue is far from over and seems to be heading in the direction of new/additional lawsuits against your union and/or the Baldacci Administration.

    Mark Turek
    http://www.unfairshare.org

    P.S. By the way, in fairness to our side of this story, please add our UnFairShare website to your Blog’s list of favorites.

    Comment by Anonymous | July 12, 2007

  5. I find it ever harder to listen to the claims of proof, proof, proof.
    If there is proof then an arbitrator or a court will find either completely or partially in their favor. I believe the intent is actually an accross the country campaign funded by anti union labor to break the unions by constant law suits, which cannot be won but are a constant drain on funds.

    Comment by Anonymous | July 13, 2007

  6. That’s an interesting concept, although I am not anti-union. As I’ve said several times, if the MSEA had better accountability for where the money went, I would be happy to pay the fee.

    However, as our proof will clearly illustrate at Monday’s hearing, the MSEA has been using an insufficient accounting process for a very complex fee calculation system. That being said, the current arbitration process is but one small part of the challenge. If you’d like to see the proof, I hope you’ll be there on Monday.

    Mark Turek
    http://www.UnFairShare.org

    Comment by Anonymous | July 13, 2007

  7. So where’s the beef, after all?

    Comment by Anonymous | July 18, 2007

  8. If you want beef, looks like you’ll have to go to Wendy’s.

    Comment by Anonymous | July 19, 2007

  9. I said I would publish anything that met the guidelines. The “beef” comments meet the guidelines. Now that I said that I apologize for not making one of the rules something to do with relavance. This poster must be sitting alone, in the dark, possibly giggling, snorting twinkies and mountain dew.

    Comment by Narsbars | July 19, 2007

  10. Hello, Narsbars:
    Consider me a longtime MSEA, SEIU Local 1989 friend. You may know me.
    Or not.

    I admire your site, and your support for the union. Also, your willingness to open the forum to other points of view. That said, I have observed the “fair share” debate in Maine for a while, and offer some comments.

    First, those who oppose fair share are a small minority – some are dues-paying union members, some are not. MSEA nevertheless represents them, and will continue to do so. They have different reasons for not supporting the union – some political, some personal. But unions like MSEA are not only democratic and speak for the individual, they are political, and seek out the best interests of their membership. They take political positions and endorse political candidates. Where they find support and shared interest, they offer the same. If you as a member don’t like the choices, have your say, but just like in an election, majority rules. Doesn’t mean you can’t vote.

    MSEA’s collective bargaining contracts, never perfect, sometimes lacking that which people may want, have nevertheless significantly improved the wages, benefits (especially health and retirement benefits), and working conditions of people who work in Maine, over thirty years. That in turn has benefited Maine. To say differently is pure ignorance. For those who believe they can individually bargain for themselves, look to why MSEA was formed; see what the history of individual bargaining really was.

    Last comment, Narsbars. You give credence to those who wish to attack the union. Fair enough. They should have their say, but by no means does that make them right. Judging by another website on the Public Forum, dominated by three posters, they have little of value to contribute, no real understanding of the true purposes of a union or how bargaining works, and occasionally add ugly personal comments. I have a special grievance against the contemptible individual who has attacked an MSEA employee for something done many years in the past, has long since paid a price and resolved the matter,and is a fine person today. You, sir, have no shame. You should.

    Thanks for the time and space. I think you will find that MSEA wins every issue related to fair share, especially on the issue of accountability. Let MSEA, Local 1989 be what it is and should be, and prosper!

    Comment by dudley | July 23, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.