Reference: National Legal and Policy Center "Union Corruption and the Law" by Phillip B. Wilson located on their website at http://www.nlpc.org/
Update: January 18, 2007
Racism is alive in the AFSCME union at Sheridan. It can be overt or subtle. Please, do not get it twisted. Racism is alive and well.
It appears AFSCME union members are misusing the tools of IDOC. It appears AFSCME union members have made statements against Mr. McDaniels that are false. Mr. McDaniels has sent me a posting requesting publication. If his comment is true, AFSCME union members have gone buck wild at Sheridan. The ramifications of someone making false and misleading statements leading to lockout is tremendous. What prevents someone from planting contraband in another's office that breaks the rules of IDOC policy?
Isaac told me in a telephone conversation others have brought cell phones into the institution by mistake, and they were taken away from them, and given back at the end of day. This appears to be escalating, possibly turning into a fiasco.
In addition, AFSCME has made this a black and white issue. These AFSCME union members would not have lied or even brought this issue of Isaac having his cell phone if Isaac had been white. Isaac made an honest mistake. He forgot to take his cell phone out of the inside pocket of his jacket.
In addition to this: I found out today my insurance with the new vendor may not cover my pre-existing medical problems. This pre-existing medical problem coverage is determined by one having insurance 60 days before the start of the new coverage. If a person has had medical insurance 60-days before starting insurance with Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is the insurance of the new vendor, then their pre-existing medical issues/problems are covered.
Because of the AFSCME strike on June 6, 2006 I have been without medical insurance over the 60-day limit. I could not get insurance from the previous vendor at Sheridan because of the strike. When the strike was over on September 6, 2006, I could not acquire the insurance from the previous vendor because I could not afford to have it taken from my check. Therefore, I have not had medical insurance in 9 months.
Therefore, I cannot acquire insurance from the new vendor that will pay for my pre-existing high blood pressure diagnosis; and subsequently, I will not have medical insurance to pay for my high blood pressure medication.
The AFSCME union members who falsified charges against Isaac may be guilty of a criminal act. This needs to be investigated by Internal Affairs of IDOC. My fight with AFSCME continues.
Update: January 18, 2007
January 18, 2007
Mr. Henry Bayer, Executive Director
AFSCME Council 31, AFL-CIO
29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Re: Isaac McDaniel
Mr. Bayer:
On or about January 17, 2007 Isaac McDaniel’s security clearance was pulled from the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Isaac brought his cell phone into the Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) by mistake. Sheridan acted correctly in taking Isaac’s clearance because of the clear violation of their policy. Sheridan did nothing wrong.
Isaac’s mistake was brought to the attention of IDOC by your present “card” carrying members of your bargaining unit at Sheridan. This was wrong. When Isaac went into his pocket, looking for his cigarettes, he pulled out his cell phone. This happened in front of 1 or 2 of your “card” carrying members. Your present “card” carrying members should have informed Isaac to take his cell phone back to his car immediately. It was a mistake. Instead, one of your “card” carrying members vindictively informed IDOC as if Isaac brought the cell phone in on purpose to let an inmate use it.
Isaac joined your union and was a “card” carrying member. During the strike of June 6, 2006 at Sheridan, Isaac joined his “card” carrying members on the strike line. When Isaac’s economic situation worsened, he had to cross the line to assure his financial security. The same people he sat on the line with turned him in to IDOC as if he intentionally violated their policy. Your “card” carrying members violate policy everyday.
May I remind you, I never joined your union during the strike of June 6, 2006. I have been contemplating my membership since Sheridan will officially become a union shop for the new vendor. I am unsure of this move now. Nothing has changed with the ideologies of your present “card” carrying members. Their memories are ever present in their actions.
Nevertheless, I received a letter dated September 29, 2006 from Attorney Scott Miller, AFSCME Counsel, stating in part, “As a bargaining unit member covered by AFSCME Council 31, Local 472 (Union), the Union hereby offers to represent you, free of charge, at the above referenced Illinois Department of Employment Security case…If you are interested in Union representation during the proceeding, please contact me at (312), 641-6060, ext, 4354, no later than noon on Thursday, October 5, 2006.”
Is Isaac getting the same response? Local 472 is still in place. Isaac was once a “card” carrying member of your union. I was never a “card” carrying member of your union, yet your union offered me assistance. Will your union advocate for Isaac? Will you leave him out in the cold? Is this the message you want to send to the world? I did not ask for representation from your union, yet your union offered its services because I was part of the bargaining unit at Sheridan. Isaac is part of the bargaining unit at Sheridan. Who will assist him? Or Is your union, at Sheridan, on a mission to destroy the people who did not follow it during the strike of June 6, 2006. This is typical. If your union does not represent Isaac in his issue, then your union does not represent the “total” bargaining unit members of the new vendor at Sheridan, as you proclaim and advocate and as I have suggested in other writings.
I did not contact your union requesting representation. The union lawyer contacted me advocating his representation. Does Isaac deserve the same? Do you condone what your “card” carrying members did to Isaac? Is this your justice to those who did not participate in your strike of June 6, 2006? If this is your union’s justice and plan for how you will operate at Sheridan, then everyone better look out.
Sir, I was right about your union all along. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. AFSCME, Council 31, Local 472, cannot be trusted. People should be able to have an opinion and belief, as I did, when not joining your strike of June 6, 2006. People should have an opinion and belief, as I do, contemplating joining your union believing we can put things and leave things, and bad feelings in the past. These opinions and beliefs should be honored by the honorable. Yet, I do not believe your union is honorable. Prove me wrong or right, as your “card” carrying members have with Isaac.
Isaac made a mistake. Isaac has been loyal to his employer and to your union, believe it or not. Isaac may have been a target to others because he joined your strike of June 6, 2006. It appears, and prima facie, that Isaac was a target of the people at Sheridan I so accurately described. I guess those that opposed your strike of June 6, 2006 are still targets of your “card” carrying members at Sheridan. This will make good news to all.
Isaac made a mistake. Your “card” carrying members make mistakes every day. I have been watching my back for the “knives” your “card” carrying people carry. Your union is vindictive as ever. It appears there will never be peace at Sheridan between those who are “card” carriers and those who do not. This is not a union I would be proud to join. A person cannot have an opinion. They must think like you, walk like you, and look like you. For Isaac, this is your justice. This is the only justice your union knows. This is the union I have been talking about. Your true face appears.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Update: January 2, 2007
While researching my issues for the upcoming litigation in Federal Court against AFSCME, specifically Local 472, I discovered a tactic this union is possibly pursuing with the new vendor. I believe this union is pursuing a “closed shop” with the new vendor instead of an “open shop.”
The term “closed shop” is used to signify an establishment employing only members of a labor union. The union shop, a closely allied term, indicates a company where employees do not have to belong to a labor union when hired but are required to join within a specified period of time in order to keep their jobs. In the alternative, an employment “open shop”, strictly speaking, is one that does not restrict its employees to union members or membership.
I am not sure why the new vendor would subject its employees to the strict standard of a “closed shop”, but it is worth investigating since it will impact my employment and salary. The new vendor taking a position of an “open shop” with AFSCME can be negotiated, especially since AFSCME does not want to adopt the doctrine of cultural diversity in its leadership or Board leading to fairness and equality for the employees (counselors) it plans to represent at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan).
Many states either by legislation or by court decision have banned the “closed shop.” In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Labor Act declared the “closed shop” illegal. Arguments in favor of the “open shop” are that forcing unwilling workers to pay union dues or agency fees is an infringement of their rights; that union membership is sometimes closed to certain workers or the initiation and/or agency fee is so high as to be an effective bar to membership; and that “employers” are deprived of the privilege of hiring competent workers or firing incompetent ones.
Presently, AFSCME does not have enough votes to call a strike against the new vendor if their demands are not met. If the new vendor allows AFSCME to have a “closed shop” it will be able to call a strike if their demands are not met.
In the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit it suggests a union becomes the exclusive bargaining representative for a group of employees when explicit voluntary recognition occurs by an employer who expressly assents to a union’s representation. See Jefferson Smurfit Corp., 331 N.L.R.B. 809, 809 (2000); or implicit voluntary recognition occurs when an employer’s statements or conduct clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that it has made a commitment to enter into negotiations with a union. See Nantucket Fish Co., 309 N.L.R.B. 794, 795 (1992). The NLRB has consistently held that merely reviewing authorization cards does not count as implicit recognition. See Jefferson Smurfit Corp., 331 N.L.R.B. 809, 809 (2000). Furthermore, the court notes that the NLRB’s decision is consistent with national labor policy, which favors the voluntary recognition of a majority union. See NLRB v. Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc., 647 F.2d 745, 750 (7th Cir.1981). AFSCME, specifically Local 472, does not have a majority union.
If the new vendor allows this “closed shop”, what is the agency fee? I will research this issue more closely and will provide a follow up report. The follow up report will encompass an analysis of other Illinois State agency contracts where AFSCME represents its employees, specifically, where there are non-union employees, such as the Illinois Department of Employment Security and the Illinois Department of Health and Human Services. There may be mitigating issues here.
The new vendor must acknowledge there is no one advocating for those who oppose this union’s cultural diversity disparity. We are left out of the loop for all practical purposes of negotiating a meaningful contract that includes all the people.
Update: December 30, 2006
As previously reported on this site: On December 20, 2006 Mr. Henry Bayer, Executive Director of AFSCME, responded to a letter I sent to him suggesting his collective bargaining unit for the counselors at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) is discriminating against others of cultural differences. This collective bargaining unit has no cultural diversity attached to its board members. There are no latinos or blacks sitting as Board members for AFSCME's collective bargaining unit at Sheridan. There may have been blacks on their Board when they first started the collective bargaining unit at Sheridan, but after this union's strike fiasco on June 6, 2006 the blacks that were apart of the bargaining unit declined their memberships. For this cause, new Board members of latinos and blacks must be present in the collective bargaining practice for it to have meaning of representing all the counselors at Sheridan to the new vendor. Why should the new vendor honor any proposal from AFSMCE's collective bargaining unit if it does not represent all the counselors?
Mr. Rob Fanti believes he does not have to put any "latinos or blacks" on "his" Board. I guess Mr. Bayer and Fanti believe they know how "lationos and blacks" think and what their needs are. The people who are on this Board bring information to their "respective" class members only. By the absence of latinos and blacks on this Board, there is not a dissemination of information about the proposal and any proposed union business to others who are not part of clique. Therefore, we should not have to pay any type of dues to this union.
This union's actions are certainly a norm for that part of our society who oppressed and discriminated against "blacks" for over 400 years. AFSCME's discrimination continues at Sheridan.
When I, as a black man, requested to be on their Board, Mr. Bayer responds: "If you sign a membership card, then you have the right to vote and to run for elected positions." This is an absurd answer. I do not need a membership card for this collective bargaining unit to represent me at the bargaining table with new vendor at Sheridan. Therefore, why should I need a membership card to be part of the bargaining practice at Sheridan. There is something wrong with this picture, and our society who allows this to happen.
There needs to be and must be stronger legislation against union activities as suggested in the writing "Union Corruption and the Law" by Phillip B. Wilson. There should be a public outcry about the way unions operate, specifically, outside the legal parameters of the law and common decency.
Mr. Bayer goes on to say "...Some local unions require a member to be in good standing for a year before becoming a candidate for office." I guess this means going along with the agenda of Mr. Fanti, who uses his members as pawns in a chess game. Bargaining unit members, be real clear of his intentions. If Mr. Fanti cared about "all" the counselors at Sheridan he would believe in cultural diversity. The only culture he is interested in is "his" own culture and their needs.
Mr. Bayer also states "...I'm not familiar with the Addiction Study Program Committee on which you sit, but in AFSCME members attain office by gaining the confidence of their co-workers and getting a majority of the vote." What kind of craziness is this? What Mr. Bayer really means if you have a one-way thought process you can be part of their team. This one-way thinking promotes my original discussion on why this collective bargaining unit at Sheridan does not want any "real" black men or women sitting on its board. This bargaining unit does not want real discussion of the issues. The Boards I sit on are clear of my intentions. My intentions promote fairness and consistency, not an alignment to the values and concerns of a particular agenda.
This bargaining unit believes they can make demands upon an employer to "take care" of them because they are employed by them. This is ludicrous. A person gets what they work for, no more, no less. A certain amount of a discipline's academic and experience gains power in negotiating for or having more or requesting more from an employer. You have to have something tangible to bargain with in these negotiations.
The people who sit on this collective bargaining unit Board have no idea what people of color need or want. These people have no idea what the needs are of social services. They come from their kitchens, Walmart, K-Mart or other disciplines or through nepotism demanding things because they have seniority "counseling" at Sheridan. Just because one has worked at Sheridan for 2 or 3 years as a "counselor" does not mean they know how to apply the techniques and theories of the counseling discipline. One may not learn from their peers who do not know social services, but rather from those who have the real experiences of social services and clinical knowledge of the subject matter. One certainly will not learn or know anything if they have certification credentials which come from falisified clinical supervisions.
A company is looking for "good service" meaning accountability. A person should not be paid and receive benefits just because they come to work. If one is not doing their work appropriately, the company should be able to take the appropriate steps to assure that services are being rendered appropriately and effectively.
Mr. Fanti and Mr. Bayer do not want to address this issue. They do not want a person like myself who would make them look at themselves before they construct a package to present to an employer. You cannot or should not tell a client to look at themselves if you are not willing to look at yourself. What Mr. Fanti and Mr. Bayer need to do is read "Union Corruption and the Law" by Phillip B. Wilson.
This is also posted on my other website at: http://click.townhall.com/
Update: December 22, 2006
To the anonymous e-mail person who believes I am a racist: I address racism. The remark I made about Dr. King and the possibility of being set up by AFSCME is only a trigger to get you focused on the real issue. The real issue is nobody cares about Mr. Bayer being offended. I am offended when decisions that affect my life have racial overtones. Why is it that when one addresses a racial remark, another believes the addresser is a racist? I am no more of a racist than you are. If you are not a racist then I am surely not one. On another note: as to this e-mail person, I am clear of where I work and who surrounds me. Please, do not get it twisted. I believe your little world has you twisted. Recidivism and reducing crime has nothing to do with the issues I am addressing. I am not going to waste anymore time on such a loose statement. Those who want others to think racism does not exist, are those who perpetrate it. Racism is alive and well. I will continue to address nefarious acts which have racial overtones attached to it. Wake up and smell the coffee. Racism has not died. It is still alive, trying to hide its ugly face. If we do not expose it, it will continue to flourish and continue to infect our country.
Update: December 22, 2006
I received a response letter from Mr. Bayer. In his letter he states "...I take offense at the implication that you are being mistreated because of your race...When the late Dr. Martin Luther King was slain in Memphis, he was there in support of an AFSCME strike." Maybe AFSCME set Dr. King up to be slain. Maybe Dr. King should not have been there. Nevertheless, why is it when a black person tells a white person he is being mistreated because of his race the white person always tells a story of how my best friend is a black man. Mr. Bayer needs to read some of Dr. King's writings.
Nevertheless, it all comes out in the rinse. I am taking my issues against AFSCME to Federal Court. Mr. Bayer has no clue to what I have been through with his union. Mr. Bayer is just protecting his own. See you in court Mr. Bayer.
Update: December 21, 2006
On or about December 18, 2006 I returned a call and talked to Attorney Charles E. Tucker of the United States Government, National Labor Relations Board about filing a charge against AFSCME in this matter. On December 21, 2006 I received the charge in the mail. The charge, as Attorney Tucker interprets my writing, does not address the issues. When I talked to Attorney Tucker I informed him I probably would not file a charge with his office because I will get better results this time by filing a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. This process will work better in addressing the issues. The discovery process will be mandatory.
For example, I can use the Landrum-Griffin Act, which is organized into five titles, that is, Title I contains the Bill of Rights for members of labor organizations; Title II requires reporting by labor organizations, officers and employees of labor organizations and employers; Title III regulates the use of trusteeships and limits the purposes for which a trusteeship may be imposed by a labor organization; Title IV regulates union elections, requiring they be held not less than every five years at the National level; and Title V outlines the fiduciary responsibilities. There are at least four disadvantages to filing an NLRB claim. First, NLRB powers are remedial. Second, the Board's role is to ensure that national labor policy is met, whether or not the union member enjoys an optimal outcome. Third, the findings of the NLRB could be binding in other litigation, and for this reason the plaintiff may want to choose to litigate in a different forum with more formalized discovery; and Fourth and finally, the NLRB is made up of political appointees whose rulings often change with presidential administrations.
Update: December 20, 2006
An AFSCME union representative commented on this writing. It appears the representative's thinking processes are very limited. This union breeds this type of animal. I would say this person probably has a 3rd grade reading and writing level. This person needs some counseling and education. Can an AFSCME representative provide an intelligent comment or answer to this apparent indifferent treatment? The person who makes this comment is probably a racist and cannot face the facts. Lets have an intelligent conversation, if you are capable of having one.
Update: December 16, 2006
I faxed a copy of this letter to the United States Government, National Labor Relations Board's Mr. Will Vance, Officer-in-charge. I requested a complaint form for filing a charge in this matter.
December 15, 2006
Mr. Henry Bayer, Executive Director
AFSCME Council 31, AFL-CIO
29 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Re: Local 472 – Board Membership and Equal Representation at Sheridan Correctional Center
Mr. Bayer:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am requesting action and information about AFCME Board Membership with Local 472, which is representing the employees (counselors) at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). AFSCME’s Local 472 is the bargaining unit for employees (counselors) of the new vendor at Sheridan. There are no African Americans, males or females, presently sitting on the Board bargaining for a contract with the new vendor, supposedly representing all the employees of the new vendor. I am an African American. Every present sitting Board member is white, yet they are supposed to represent African Americans. This has the appearance of unfair representation, with racial overtones.
I requested Board membership and was told I have to hold a membership card. Why do I have to have a membership card? Local 472 is in the process of bargaining for a contract with the new vendor, representing me as a member of their Local and I do not have a membership card? I do not have to have a membership card for Local 472 to represent me. Local 472 is the bargaining unit for all the Sheridan employees (counselors) of the new vendor, with or without membership cards, white and black.
There are no African American Board members. How can the African Americans who work for the new vendor be properly represented when they have no representation at the table? Why am I being denied the opportunity to be a Board member? Is it because I am black?
I have been told that I have no right to a vote since I do not hold a membership card, yet AFSCME represents me at the bargaining table. This not having a right to vote sounds familiar.
I have been told I have no right to be at a meeting held by AFSCME discussing the bargaining issues that are going to be presented, in my behalf, to the new vendor because I do not have a membership card.
I sent an e-mail to Mr. Rob Fanti requesting a copy of the proposed contract. Mr. Fanti has not contacted me, even though he has seen me numerous times at work. I guess I am not entitled to a copy of the proposed contract, even though each present sitting Board member, who is white, has been privy to this proposed contract.
If AFSCME can bargain for me at the table with the new vendor when I do not have a membership card, then I should have all the rights of similarly situated others who do have membership cards who are being represented. The proposal AFSCME is about to present or has presented to the new vendor does not have proper representation of all the employees of the new vendor.
I have heard that AFSCME is getting ready to bargain with the new vendor. AFSCME has withheld information about the bargaining practice from its non-cardholding members whom they purport to bargain in their behalf.
Also, when does voting take place for the Board members? Are the non-cardholding members exempt from the voting process? The last vote for Board members took place in November of 2005.
Therefore, I respectfully request consideration for Board membership with Local 472 as they represent the employees (counselors) at Sheridan. I respectfully request, from AFSCME, equal and fair representation at the bargaining table as a Board member, that is, there should be African Americans sitting on this Board discussing the issues that will impact the employment of African Americans since they are being represented by AFSCME.
I am familiar with Board membership. I presently sit on Kennedy-King College’s Addictions Study Program as a Board member. I have been a Board member with Kennedy-King for 7 years. I am a Board member of the International Institute of Black Addictions Professionals (IIBAP). I sit on IIBAP’s research committee. There is no one sitting on this Board holding academic standing and credentials such as what I have to offer. There should be no reason why I cannot sit on this bargaining unit Board to discuss and articulate the issues of employment. I have extensive knowledge of employment law. I have extensive knowledge of human/social services.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Mr. Henry Bayer, Executive Director (U.S. mail and fax delivery)
W. James Young, Attorney National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Catherine L. Struzynski, Esq., AFSCME Council 31 (fax delivery only)
Rainbow/Push Coalition
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
