Where to go from here

What a sad joke, I don't want my dues paying for lawyers to shut down this site.

The association doesn't ever tell us anything anyway. They have to be in bed with manglement.

I'm kinda of afraid to, but I am going to have to seriously reconsider getting out of it. A couple of carriers just retired who weren't in the ass., and another goes around and does whatever they want.

My adr or maybe dr now recently told me to worry about myself. I don't know, has to be manglement, heck they tell us we all have to be under evaluation, and I think most believe, maybe they are right, I don't know anymore.

Sad news this stinks
 
Rural Deviation said:
For them to waste members’ dues to pursue legal action for an individual that is only trying to help others and isn’t causing harm to any individual. It will not reflect positively around this craft and further cement the known fact that the national board is disconnected from understand the local level.

Furthermore, this is a conversation that has needed to be had at the national level for a long time.

They are possibly doing this because they feel the information being private is a value to dues paying members. By others freely sharing it devalues the benefit of paying dues.

So let’s get into the value of membership does not rely in being able to have information. The value of membership is the opportunities it gives you to step up and represent yourself and your experiences. As well as working with others nationwide to fight for a better future for this craft.

I for one will stand behind information should be open and free to all.

This union represents all that are a part of the rural craft. So no matter whether you are union or not should not hinder your ability to understand or perform your job because inform is treated as a commodity instead of something that could bring others together.

Educating those who lack understanding. Fundamentally creating a stronger craft whether they are union or not.
Click to expand...
Therefore, it is the policy of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) to investigate, at its discretion, allegations of violations by union officers and other representatives of their fiduciary responsibilities under section 501(a) of the LMRDA. The results of such investigations will be made known to interested persons as appropriate.
 
DB.Cooper said:
They don't want peeps to be knowledgeable.... they twist stuff, like saying 80% of carriers supported the last contract.... a BIG lie.... they see this site as a reality check on their BS, and they don't like that.... also, mngt doesn't like sites like this where peeps can gain knowledge to stand up for themselves.... as @mwellis32 said, NRLCA is just part of USPS mngt.... :oops:
Click to expand...
Am I really the enemy?
 
Surprise! said:
If it comes to a fight with the NRLCA the fight would be multiple costs. The NRLCA board is able to afford the fight because it is not on the individuals dime. The membership is paying for it. It is a situation in which one may win and still loose.

Economic
time spent
legal.
Click to expand...
512.810 DUAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia in commenting on the use of union funds and counsel in the defense of union officers charged with wrongdoing against the union stated:

“As a general proposition we think funds of a union are not available to defend officers charged with wrongdoing which, if the charges were true, would be seriously detrimental to the union and its membership. See, e.g., Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Cohen, 182 F.Supp. 608, 619-22 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff’d, 284 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 833 (1961). Cf. Witherspoon v. Hornbein, 70 Colo. 1 (Sup. Colo. 1921), involving officers of a corporation. The treasury of a union is not at the disposal of its officers to bear the cost of their defense against charges of fraudulently depriving the members of their rights as members. It is clear the complaint in this case charged individual officer defendants with conduct which was seriously detrimental to the interests of the International and to the rights of its members. And in deciding whether or not union funds may be used to defend such a suit the final outcome of the charges is not determinative; for if the charges have substance a sound resolution may be prevented by the very fact of dual representation during the process leading to a decision with respect to the charges. Different counsel would be required in this process. In other words, counsel who are chosen by and represent officers charged with the misconduct, and who also represent the union, are not able to guide the litigation in the best interest of the union because of the conflict in counsel’s loyalties. In such a situation it would be incumbent upon counsel not to represent both the union and the officers.”
 
This is just sad. I understand, maybe, putting up a disclaimer about not being responsible for the accuracy of info provided on site. But, if the Union had bothered to provide a national, responsive presence as many stewards demanded as far back as 1998, they wouldn't have to worry about incorrect content on a third party site. If they had simo,you stepped up and provided the platform the craft would have been in a better place I believe. Sad, they could have simply cut a deal to link to national site for reference material rather than be reactive putz's, yet again.
 
Gotrope said:
This is just sad. I understand, maybe, putting up a disclaimer about not being responsible for the accuracy of info provided on site. But, if the Union had bothered to provide a national, responsive presence as many stewards demanded as far back as 1998, they wouldn't have to worry about incorrect content on a third party site. If they had simply stepped up and provided the platform the craft would have been in a better place I believe. Sad, they could have simply cut a deal to link to national site for reference material rather than be reactive putz's, yet again.
Click to expand...
 
hunchback said:
512.810 DUAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia in commenting on the use of union funds and counsel in the defense of union officers charged with wrongdoing against the union stated:

“As a general proposition we think funds of a union are not available to defend officers charged with wrongdoing which, if the charges were true, would be seriously detrimental to the union and its membership. See, e.g., Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Cohen, 182 F.Supp. 608, 619-22 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff’d, 284 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 833 (1961). Cf. Witherspoon v. Hornbein, 70 Colo. 1 (Sup. Colo. 1921), involving officers of a corporation. The treasury of a union is not at the disposal of its officers to bear the cost of their defense against charges of fraudulently depriving the members of their rights as members. It is clear the complaint in this case charged individual officer defendants with conduct which was seriously detrimental to the interests of the International and to the rights of its members. And in deciding whether or not union funds may be used to defend such a suit the final outcome of the charges is not determinative; for if the charges have substance a sound resolution may be prevented by the very fact of dual representation during the process leading to a decision with respect to the charges. Different counsel would be required in this process. In other words, counsel who are chosen by and represent officers charged with the misconduct, and who also represent the union, are not able to guide the litigation in the best interest of the union because of the conflict in counsel’s loyalties. In such a situation it would be incumbent upon counsel not to represent both the union and the officers.”
Click to expand...
Mr. Stutts, stop depriving the members of their rights as members,
of reading sharing and discussing the rules, regulations and agreements that govern the daily requirements of work in the Rural Craft
 
I see other sites putting up materials without any big disclaimers.... I sorta have to believe they've just seized on whatever they could to go after a site they don't like.... js.... there are ulterior motives at play here, I believe.... :unsure: :censored:(n)
 
I really think the raw information is not their right to control.

The information they have laid out in a constructive way I think they do. The steward guide and the mail count guide for example.

How responsible they are to distrubute the information to non-members I am not certain. Are there other web sites that distribue some of this information? Have they received such threats?
 
Well, I am not going to assume just because P.T. received a certified letter from NRLCA lawyers that any legal action is imminent. Could be a scare tactic or perhaps not. "They have despised this site from day one. Is this site any legally different than FaceBook or Twitter ? You know, the other two online formats that the NRLCA now embraces and utilizes ? If someone prints out a Step 4 and takes it into work the next day to show management or a fellow worker is that person in violation of the law ? Whether the received letter is sincere or a bullying tactic , that letter would seem to go against the mission statement on the homepage of the NRLCA which reads

The purpose of this Association shall be to improve the methods used by rural letter carriers, to benefit their conditions of labor with the United States Postal Service (USPS), and to promote a fraternal spirit among its members.​


What would be next, a group of local carriers in an area meeting every week or so for educational yet unofficial meetings becomes something that draws the attention of the NRLCA and their legal team ? P.T. , just take a breath and allow yourself to process things and go from there. We all support you like you'll never know.
 
Why is it they think "their" information should not be made widely available???? Is it not also "our" information, as dues payin' members???? Who does this information belong to???? :unsure: ?‍♂️
 
This is down right disturbing and brings up a hell of a lot of questions that seriously makes me re-think the motives of the illustrious heads of the NRLCA. Perhaps it wouldn't have gotten to this point if the NRLCA wasn't so illusive in its willingness to share information with the people it is required by law to represent. If this is the action the NRLCA has decided to take, in my view it is no longer an entity that represents the people of the rural craft but an entity that ONLY serves to benefit their own self interests and clearly does NOT have the best interests of the people at heart. This action alone shows the level of corruption that the NRLCA has sunk to. It very strongly suggests and now threatens the people into believing that the ONLY way of proper representation is by becoming a member. This I believe is a violation of workers rights and should be reported to the NRLB immediately as a form of intimidation and bullying. FURTHERMORE the NRLCA has done what I feel is the bare minimum as required by law to try to adapt itself to more modern times and the pandemic in which a true effort has been made to keep in contact with its members paying or not and keep them informed and protected, a privilege that THEY themselves negotiated for as the exclusive representatives of the craft. Where are the internet Q&A's by the higher ups? Why is the website so outdated if we are paying dues? Why does it seem so difficult to get a correct answer to a question from the NRLCA? Why are efforts ONLY being made towards new hires to gain membership and not towards older members? And why are local units not promoting options to try to have socially distant gatherings such as virtual meetings for example? Federal, state and local governments, schools as well as many private businesses have ALL made efforts to try to adapt to the current social climate while the NRLCA has remained stagnate!

This website was a direct response to the NRLCA's inaction, effort, and ability to uphold the protections that it is required to uphold. If anything the NRLCA should be trying to investigate why this website has been so successful and look for a way for it to work with or incorporate it into it's folds as a method of communication.

Taken from the NLRB website:
Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

Is the NRLCA threatening or implying that all Rural carriers will be REQUIRED to join the union as a condition of employment as a rural carrier by the USPS and if an individual refuses faces the possibility of being terminated?

Is the NRLCA threatening or trying to claim that it is no longer an exclusive bargaining entity for the Rural craft?

This is a blatant intimidation tactic geared towards the people it represents and MUST be stopped immediately! Don't back down! PLEASE!
 
DB.Cooper said:
And this is how they're spending OUR dues.... paying lawyers to hassle and shutdown at truly wonderful resource for rural carriers???? :unsure: ?‍♂️:mad:
Click to expand...
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS AND OTHERS​

510.001 LMRDA, SECTION 501(a)

The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group.

510.002 LMRDA SECTION 501(a) INVESTIGATIVE POLICY STATEMENT

The Secretary of Labor has the authority under section 601(a) of the LMRDA to investigate "when he believes it necessary in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provisions of this Act (except title I or amendments made by this Act to other statutes). . . ." Section 601(a) also provides that "The Secretary may report to interested persons or officials concerning . . . any matter which he deems to be appropriate as a result of such an investigation."

​

How to File a Complaint with OLMS​



The vast majority of union officers and employees do their work diligently and without incident. Unfortunately, civil and criminal violations do sometimes occur and, when they do, the union is typically the victim. The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) enforces provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which promotes labor union democracy and financial integrity through adopting and enforcing standards for union officer elections and union trusteeships and safeguards for union assets.

Criminal Investigations​

OLMS criminal investigations involve:
  • The use or threatened use of force or violence to restrain, coerce or intimidate a member in order to interfere with or prevent the member from exercising their LMRDA rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

New Media

IMG_3172.png
730069489_17975446638117551_4559788224219441956_n.jpg
AMS Edit Book.jpg
Training Guide Pg. 11.jpg
Driver Stand Up Talk.jpg
IMG_5557.png
IMG_3405.jpeg
Screenshot 2026-06-16 203454.png
20260615_161949.jpg
20260615_093741.jpg
island.jpg
Preamble.png
Back
Top