Sticking It To The Man (I Hope)

Here's how we do it on the West Side....

December 15, 2005

To The Commisioner Of The Department Of Labor Standards And Relations-

I have been working in the legal industry for almost a decade as a bike messenger with a specialty in legal support and research. Therefore, I have a high degree of experience, and as such, in November of 2003, I applied for employment a company that had lost over 70% of its staff due to a walkout and client transfer/defection by a pair of office managers who had designs on seeing to the demise of said company.

Immediately after the walkout, I was hired to be a court liaison/researcher at the rate of $15 an hour as an independent contractor through what is a scam known as NICA (http://www.nicainc.com/). I was hired by the regional manager. At the time, I addressed some reservations that I had about the company vis a vis the business practices and policies of the company in the region that I was to be working in. Being in a desperate situation and needing skilled workers to provide advertised and promised services, the regional manager made a verbal promise to the effect of, "We will NOT continue these practices, and are 100% committed to being above board with ALL employees from this point forward."

As I was (somewhat) satisfied by this statement, I agreed to go to work with them as long as I would not be subject to any of the illegal and unprofessional practices aforementioned.

In the fall of 2004, we received a message via alphanumeric pager that there would be a mandatory meeting regarding business practices of this company. When I arrived, there was an attorney from the firm of Littler Mendelson, who stated that as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision, we would be converted to regular employees per this decision, and would be granted all due rights as employees that we had be denied under the NICA program.

So, did things get better? Sadly, no, they did not.

Less than a month after this meeting I received another page regarding another "mandatory staff meeting". This time, the company stated, in effect, "Due to a contraction in the legal support industry as a result of electronic court filing (ECF), online research, and a growing overall economic recession, we regrettably have to reduce wages by 10% for hourly employees and reduce commissions for all commission riders/drivers from 38% to 35%. This reduction is TEMPORARY, and due to be reviewed/revisited/revised in JANUARY OF 2005."

I negotiated my own deal on these terms- the court that I did 90% of my research in closed early one day of the week. I volunteered to take this day off, as this would represent a 20% savings in my pay without reducing my rate. And, if need be, I would be willing to go back to full time status if and when the need arose, and even be willing to be on an on-call status on my day off if I was compensated at a pro-rated rate for the time worked. This was agreed upon by the regional manager on a verbal basis, and I continued to work for the company on good faith that these terms would be abided by and honored.

I was satisfied with this promise until or around June of 2005. I moved out of the city that our main office was in May of 2005. As a result of this move, I was faced with having to pay up to $6 a day in commute costs- which added up to approximately $100 A MONTH simply to get to and from work. There is a program funded by the state that I live in called CommuterCheck that reimburses employers for employee commute costs in the form of tax deductions. I asked to have my commute expenses underwritten by the company by simply having said company apply for this write-off, and I was told that this was not an option by the human resources manager. When I enquired as to why this program wasn't in effect when the commute costs were paid for IN FULL by the company for all of the office staff I was told, "I don't know, that is at the discretion of the district manager, and these decisions are ultimately up to him. If you want this to be looked into, you need to speak to him directly."

Naturally, I wasn't satisfied with this, so I asked for (and received) a transfer to our satellite office in the city that I resided in. I was told, IN PASSING, WITHOUT WRITTEN NOTIFICATION AS TO JUSTIFICATION OR REASONING BEHIND THE PRACTICES OF THE COMPANY, that there was a possibility of my rate of pay being reduced by the payroll office (which is in a city over 400 miles from the city that I was hired in). I was told that I would "have a good word put in for me" to keep my current rate of pay preserved and protected, but no promises were made that this would be an option.

Upon receiving the first post-transfer payroll check, I saw that my rate had been summarily reduced, WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN OR SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY. I immediately protested this, as it was certainly going to cause me undue and unwarranted economic hardship. I was advised verbally it would be "looked into". This was in June of 2005. I have yet to receive a revised employment contract, and a justification of said action regarding my reduction in pay.

In October of 2005, I was told that the company would be hiring a second employee. I found out, anecdotally, that this employee was being compensated AT A HIGHER RATE OF PAY, regardless of experience or time in with the company. (I should add at this point that I was ultimately responsible for training of the new hire and advising him of all the terms and responsibilities of the position.)

In the same month, I received a payroll check that I attempted to cash at the bank upon which it was drawn. I was told by the bank teller that the check was invalid as a result of the check having been signed by an unauthorized signer ( who I was advised anecdotally was the brother of the previously mentioned district manager). This was brought to the attention of my immediate supervisor, who told me to call the district manager and "take it up with him". I responded by stating that I was not willing to do so, as it was his job to handle any and all employee grievances, AS THE PRACTICING OFFICE MANAGER, and to suggest otherwise was unprofessional and unbecoming to a person in his position.

Four days passed. I was STILL not paid, and under coverage of the following statute- Section 2065(a)(3) Labor Code. Reference: Section 2065, Labor Code, I was entitled to a FULL DAY'S PAY (four days, approximately 500) for every day that I did not receive remuneration for my prescribed duties.

I was finally sent, via Federal Express on overnight Saturday delivery (at a cost to the company of NO LESS than $38.25 per current FedEx rates)

a check that did NOT include the aforementioned damages dictated by the state.

I received a check on Friday, 12/9/05, for the preceding pay period. I was unable to cash it until 12/13/05. When I attempted to do so, the teller advised me that there was NO money in the account. I thanked him and left.

(As a sidebar, I should mention that as a result of the first bounced payroll check, my bank account (held by me since 2000) has been at a negative balance, and as a result of the practices of my bank, I cannot deposit a check, money order, or any such promise of transfer of funds without a nine business day hold being placed on said funds. This has caused me a great deal of economic and mental stress, and has resulted in an inability to pay my rent and other expenses.)

On 12/15/05, I called my office and spoke to a manager about my situation, and advised them that as a result of practices and/or oversights of the company and /or its agents, I was in a perilous economic position and that I would be unable to be at work for an undetermined period of time until these issues were addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, both economically and emotionally. I was advised at this point that the company had a policy of operating what is informally known as a "slush fund" to pay its employees: in that there are inadequate funds to cover the payroll account after a 72 hour period, as opposed to simply having a regular payroll account with a constant available balance of promised funds against wages owed. When I advised the informing party of the overt and extreme illegality of this practice, I was told that the party "knew it was wrong, but nevertheless, that is the way that the accounting department operates." In addition, I was advised that it was MY responsibility to send, via facsimile machine, a copy of the check in question AT PERSONAL EXPENSE, as I do not own a facsimile machine.

All of which brings me to the present moment. I seek to have the wages that are owed to me ($640.85), remuneration on a per diem basis for every day that these wages are not paid for the first and second bad payroll check the company provided ($108, less state and federal tax, for a total of approximately $972 as of 12/15/05), and, to send a message to responsible parties, damages in the sum of $50,000 for the economic and emotional hardship I have suffered as a result of their callous treatment of the welfare of their employees. not to mention their flagrant disregard of local, state, and federal laws and statutes.

Sincerely, XXXXX XXXXXXXX

---------------------

I know that there are a more than a few law students on this board that could (ahem) possibly advise me on this...and so, in advance, thank you for any and all input...feel free to PM me with any and all comments you may have.

Discuss.

Here is some of the transcription the NLRB court record-

B. The Meetings of November 25 and 29

According to bike messenger Jeff Webb, about 1-1/2 weeks after he signed his authorization card on November 16, he, like Washington, received a pager message advising him of a company called employee meeting to discuss the independent contractor issue. The meeting was actually held on Saturday, November 25. Thus, the pager message which he received probably occurred within a day or so after the Union’s election petition was filed on November 21.

Webb surreptitiously tape-recorded most of the meeting, although the meeting continued after the tape ran out. Webb authenticated both the tape and a typescript of the tape. I have reviewed the typescript, comparing it with the audio, and have determined it to be reasonably accurate. Both are in evidence; see General Counsel’s Exhibits 5 and 6.

Tait announced that Respondent had decided that its employees would join the National Independent Contractor Agency (sic). He said that Respondent’s owner had determined that his only alternative was to go with NICA, which could supply substitute insurance which would allow Respondent to remain in business. He painted a picture describing the dire consequences an accident might have, not only on the messengers, but on the Company as a whole if a large judgment were entered against it. He concluded by saying, “I find myself being here for another 20 years, this is where I’m gonna our raise my children, pay my mortgage. I want to ensure that I’m going to have a job next year, 5 years, and 10 years down the road. The only way I can do it, the way I see it, is to convert to NICA. I don’t have a choice. That is the way the ownership have decided to handle their insurance.�

The typescript also shows that Tait told the employees that Respondent’s owner, Elisha Gilboa, had determined that he could no longer afford to pay for workers’ compensation insurance. He asserted that workers’ compensation insurance was so costly that it didn’t leave Respondent with a sufficient profit to remain in the industry.

He then introduced a NICA representative, who on this record was only named “Bob.� The NICA representative sought to explain what the conversion to independent contractor status would mean to each of them and explained the benefits of NICA membership. He embarked upon an explanation of what NICA was, how it operated, and what benefits it offered to its members. He explained that for a weekly fee of $19.75, NICA offered its independent contractors occupational/accident insurance coverage.[8] It also would serve as a payroll agency, directly paying the messengers biweekly based upon Respondent’s contributions to NICA’s payroll system. Membership also allowed for assistance with each member’s State and Federal tax returns, allowing for a withholding to make the quarterly payments to the tax agencies. It also offered assistance in preparing the annual tax returns.

Toward the end of the meeting, biker/court researcher Chris Young asked Tait if the employees were being required to convert to independent contractors because the Company was afraid of the union drive. He also asked Tait if the conversion was due to the Company’s fear of the organizing drive at the competitor, Express Network. Young testified that Tait answered, “[Y]es,� to both questions. Webb, Votour, and Roberts all corroborate him. By that time Webb’s tape had run out. Tait never denied the accuracy of their testimony.

A second meeting was conducted on Thursday, November 29. Webb surreptitiously tape recorded it as well. The meeting was conducted by Elisha Gilboa and he introduced Tom McGrath as the owner of NICA. Gilboa amplified what Tait had said before. He repeated that insurance was the primary reason for the conversion. He also tried to persuade the couriers that conversion was to their advantage, claiming that in many cities he had couriers who worked for more than one company, implying that the same flexibility would be available and beneficial to the San Francisco staff. There was a short debate regarding whether that would be allowed, or whether what Gilboa was saying was inconsistent with what Tait had said earlier. It soon became clear that Respondent wanted the messengers to be available to Respondent to the exclusion of outside work; it would continue to pay them showup time to force them to be on hand when Respondent needed them. According to Gilboa, no one would lose any pay in this changeover.

At one point, an employee began a discussion concerning whether they could sign the independent contractor agreement with language of reservation, such as “under duress� or “under protest.� The employee explained that they had been given no time to make the decision. Gilboa replied that he did not want them to sign under duress, going on to say, “No, what I would really like . . . my colleagues is [sic] to explain to [you] and hopefully be able to convince you. If I don’t accomplish that, then you can make a decision or you can tell me, ‘You know it did not convince me, I don’t buy what you’re selling me. I don’t care [for] what you want. But I will sign it anyway’ or you can tell me, ‘No, I don’t want to sign.’ And then you will go and work for a different company . . . then it’s okay.� An employee responded: “So, we’ll get fired if we don’t sign it, is [that] what you’re saying?� Gilboa replied: “Yes.�

Another employee[9] then interjected, “So we’ll get fired if we don’t sign it, well, I already got fired once this week. Again, one week later here I am again. That’s a shame.� Gilboa then went on to say, “It’s on the same issue. We need for our peace of mind. I need to make sure that I can provide insurances. Right is right. If something going to happen to you, and you’re not part of NICA in a legally [sic] the way. Unfortunately, we don’t have insurance to cover you. It’s a matter of life or death for [the San Francisco] office.�

C. Christopher Atkinson

Christopher Atkinson was a bicycle messenger and process server who had worked for Respondent during 1999 and early 2000. While with Respondent he had performed process serving, court filings, and performed court research. In January 2001, in the course of his subsequent employment with another firm, he had run into Meredith Crawford as she served as the in-house at Lillick & Charles. They had previously worked together both at another firm and for Respondent. She had been his boss at the other firm and was very familiar with his capabilities. She told him that she thought he would be the perfect person to replace her at Lillick & Charles, as she expected to be transferred to another law firm. They had several telephone conversations about this subject and on January 26, 2001, he telephoned her in a continuation of that discussion. During the call Crawford told Atkinson that the Company wanted him and asked how much money he would be willing to take. They haggled. He jokingly said that he wanted $30 an hour, to which she responded that she didn’t know about that much, but half that would be fair, $15 an hour. Eventually, they settled on a salary of $2300 per month plus a percentage of the gross of the Lillick business.

She told him that he would need to dress well and train for a week on the computers at the office and another week at Lillick. She told him he was to report to the office at 9 a.m., Monday, January 29, 2001. He agreed.

On that Monday, he reported about 15 minutes early. He spoke first to Romana Macalinao who told him to wait. About an hour later, David Tait came out and asked him to wait some more. Eventually, Tait told him that they were extremely busy and he did not have anybody to help train him. Tait asked him to come back tomorrow or the next day, saying, “We want to get you started the next day or two, but we can’t—we just don’t have enough extra people to get you on a computer right now.�

That same morning, January 29, 2001, an article had appeared in the San Francisco Daily Journal, concerning the organizing drive at Express Network. It suggested that union organizing may have caused Express Network to have gone out of business a week earlier. In addition, the article included a photograph of Maria Atkinson, Christopher’s wife. Also a bike messenger, she is shown posing on her bicycle. The cutline under the photograph says that she had been spat upon by the Express Network dispatcher. The story recites employee claims of harassment because of their union organizing efforts and further observes that Maria Atkinson had reported the spitting incident to the NLRB.

Respondent did not call Atkinson back to complete the hiring process. Atkinson heard nothing further until he called Crawford about 3 days later. He testified that Crawford “sounded like she was very angry, and she said that they did not want to hire me because of our—they thought that I was involved with the Union. They saw my wife’s picture in the Journal, and they didn’t want to get involved with anybody that had union ties.� Atkinson responded that he didn’t have any union ties and that his wife had just happened to get her picture taken.[10] He asserted that the article didn’t have anything to do with him at all. His appeal was to no avail. He realized then that he had been dismissed on the very day that he had appeared for work.

Tait denied any knowledge of union organizing elsewhere in the industry in San Francisco. He also denied any knowledge of stories on that subject printed in any local newspapers. His denial is rejected as entirely improbable. Furthermore, he was most unimpressive on the witness stand with regard to this matter. His presentation was clipped and defensive. I find that he not only was aware of the organizing at Express Network, I also find he had seen the Daily Journal article on the morning it was published. That newspaper is a mainstay for the legal profession in the Bay Area. Indeed, I further find it was that article which caused Tait to stop dealing with Chris Atkinson that day.

D. The Meeting of April 19, 2001

Both Tait and the members of the union organizing committee had their own reasons for wanting a meeting in mid-April 2001. Tait had heard that some employees were unhappy with the NICA situation and were considering a strike. The organizing committee was concerned about the recent discharge of bike messenger Sandro Mascarenhas. As a result, about 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2000, Tait conducted a staff meeting. There was some misunderstanding concerning the purpose of the meeting and who the attendees were supposed to be. Members of the union organizing committee were present, thinking they were going to be discussing the Mascarenhas discharge and they were initially concerned that nonmembers of their committee were also present.

Most of the meeting was surreptitiously recorded by court researcher Charles Annen on a voice-activated microcassette recorder. Both the cassette and a typescript are in evidence as General Counsel’s Exhibits 13 and 14. Shortly after the meeting, Annen gave the cassette and the recorder to union organizer Jerry Martin. Shortly afterwards, Martin began listening to it while sitting in his personal vehicle. He was interrupted by a cellular telephone call. Unfamiliar with the operation of the device, he mistakenly set it to “record,� instead of turning it off. As a result, a portion of the meeting was recorded over by the cellular conversation. That portion also appears in the typescript. It is readily separable from the meeting itself.

As can be seen from the typescript, beginning on the bottom of page 2, Tait has some issues with the employees. He says he didn’t want to call the meeting, but had heard through the grapevine that he had a disgruntled labor force. He said that made him “nervous.� He observed that he knew people were still having issues with the NICA independent contractor situation, but said there was nothing he could do about it. He did not want the “meeting to go down that road,� observing that the matter was in litigation. He said, “t’s in the courts, nothing you say to me or I say to you, is going to change anything ‘cause my owner is going to stand hard where he is regardless. This whole company can shut down tomorrow and he is not going to change his fuckin’ mind.’� He asserted that further discussion of the topic would be a waste of time.

He then said he believed some other issue was bothering them. “What bothered me, from a management point of view, was that my labor force was going to strike without calling me up and saying, ‘Hey, Dave, we got an issue, do you feel like listening to us or should we just tell you to fuck off and strike.’ . . . You give me that phone call, I’m going to respond. I’m going to sit down and I’m gonna give you that time . . . . But I’ll tell you that I got upset enough to the point, if my labor force ever wants to strike without trying to settle the differences with me first and giving me that respect, you might as well consider it your last day of employment. I’m not going to put up with that shit. . . . I wouldn’t treat you that way and I don’t expect you to treat me that way.�

He continued in a similar fashion:

Now [if] we have a meeting about something that is your concern and we can’t settle it and you feel adamant and you feel strong and you still decide to strike, there may be a soft part in my heart, if I see any validity toward your concerns. But if I feel that you’re just creating problems and you’re a burden to me, the inevitable is going to happen. We are not a union organized company. We are not. I know some of you want, or all of the want it to be, but the bottom line, we are not. The word strike amazes me because you can’t strike if you aren’t the union. [interrupted by an employee who disagrees.] Well, you can if you want but I mean . . . . Yeah, I mean you can call it a strike. I mean you can call it anything you want. But the bottom line is I will terminate anybody and everybody who strikes. I’m 100 percent prepared to do so. I’ve got three companies in the city, willing to back me up. Do my work, yes, bicycle messengers included, already set up. I got five drivers coming in tomorrow from one end. Five drivers coming from another end. I could fly up a truckload of messengers . . . . You guys are not going to disrupt my business. It’s not going to happen. I’m raising a family, I’m paying a mortgage, I got car payment. So do ten or twelve other people in this office. I’m not going to allow somebody to fuck that up, without giving me the opportunity to resolve the issues verbally in the meeting first. So I was upset, I have aired it to you guys, you understand why I got upset? The floor is yours, why the hell are we striking?

At this point there was some commentary from the floor that related to the discharge of Mascarenhas and whether it was appropriate to have noncommittee members present. Eventually, the conversation turned to Tait’s claim that he had never heard of the union organizing committee until the day before when he had been asked to go down to the union hall. When an employee asked what was wrong with that, Tait replied, “What’s wrong with that? I’ll tell you the same thing that’s wrong with you asking my employees or labor force or management to leave this room. This is my company. I run it. There is no Union. I am the last say in this office.� An employee then asked if they were being paid for their time at the meeting, cajoling Tait to “meet us halfway.� Tait replied, “[M]eeting you halfway is giving you the opportunity to salvage your job right now in this meeting. Because you can walk out this door. You guys can all unite together and strike. Tomorrow, next day, next week, next month, bottom line, what you created, a jobless day. That is what you create. Every single one of you.� An employee asked if Tait had just threatened to fire them and he responded, “Absolutely, absolutely.�

Tait then tried to turn the matter in a different direction asking an employee (presumably Charles Annen) if he had threatened to strike. The employee responds that he had not and another employee asserts that he didn’t even recollect anybody ever using that word. A third employee said, “We didn’t even use that word. What are you talking about?�

Tait then claimed to have a list of eleven people in his back pocket and said, “[Y]ou guys are harassing them.� That was disputed vociferously. When challenged, Tait refused to reveal who the employees were, saying it was probably members of the committee who were committing the acts he was hearing about. When told that the entire committee was there in the room, he tried to say that it was some other committee. (“Not necessarily your committee. Whatever committee.�) Tait went on:

I don’t know how the union works. They tell me I’m on the organizing committee of the Union and I don’t know all . . . and the technical terms, if we wanted to throw them out right now we could use, IC, labor force, we could use employees, we can use fire, we can use terminate contract, . . . . You[‘re] taking this to [a] level that it doesn’t exist at. This is not a union company. This is an “at will� company that hires employees by the California state law “at will� and subcontracts to independent contractors. That is what this company does. If an independent contractor purposely prevents, or does something malicious to affect my business during the day, that person will no longer get jobs from us. That is why Sandro was fired.

Tait then asserted that Mascarenhas had been fired because he turned down work because it didn’t pay enough. He contended Mascarenhas had attempted to make his own schedule.

Tait repeated that he minded being threatened with a strike without being asked for his input. The employees responded once again that they had not ever threatened to strike. Tait claimed it was so well known he had heard about it on airplane 500 miles away. He then asserted that Jerry Martin had told him that, momentarily misspeaking and using the name of a celebrity, daring the employees to call Martin on the phone, asserting that Martin had told him the day before that a strike was imminent.

The meeting started to break down over accusations of lying, but an employee, using a speaker phone, was almost immediately able to reach Martin. Martin’s voice is heard saying that he had told Tait that a “work action� was imminent, but had never use the word strike. The phone conversation was then terminated. Tait accused Martin of changing his words. There was a short disagreement over what the phrase “work action� meant and Tait accused the group of “playing a game.�

The conversation then became a little more civil and turned to Mascarenhas’s situation again. Once more, Tait addressed employees expressing the right of independence in the way they chose to work. Alleging that refusals to work were disrespectful, he said, “This is a professional place of work. If you come in and tell us that you are going to work, we expect you to work. Not what you want to do, but what we want you to do.�

He repeated that there was harassment coming from the union people and that he was attempting to protect others from that harassment. “As long as it’s the Union versus Management and anybody who sides here or sides there, is an outcast one way or the other. I won’t have that.� This resulted in a debate between Tait and Annen concerning whether the discussion of unionizing qualifies as harassment. Tait then said that his primary interest was to protect the Company and that was the reason he had made his arrangements with other companies to obtain cover in case of a strike. He concluded: “The owner [Gilboa] . . . if the courts came down, the owner would tear the fuckin’ door down.�

Tait swung his commentary to independent contractor status. He said, “[Gilboa’s] company does business this way [using independent contractors] in four states, nineteen other offices; it’s all explained in the court literature. It’s all backed up by case precedent. This is the way we do business. We are not going to lose the fuckin— hearing, regardless. At that time that you guys were asked, correction, you were employed, asked to be [ ] independent contractors. What did the president of the company say? . . . if you don’t want to work here, I will pay you until you go and find another job.� Some employees argued that Gilboa had not said that. Tait maintained that he had, but went on to say he would “supersede� what Gilboa had said, offering anyone who had been employed prior to the NICA changeover, 2 weeks’ pay to go find another job. He even offered to call competitors on behalf of anyone who took him up. He then pointed to the three leaders and repeated the offer. He continued:

We are not forcing you to work at this company. I will do everything I can, that will make it as easy as possible. I don’t have to set up that account with Road Rage [presumably one of the deductions under the NICA contract]. I don’t have to do that. Its a fuckin pain in the ass to monitor that and take it out of you guys’ check. I do it as a convenience for you guys. I don’t have to pay the wages I pay. I still can get employees in here. I don’t have to be . . . I don’t even have to have this fuckin meeting with you guys, I can just let you guys do whatever . . . I can just fire everybody. . . .

Someone urged Tait to calm down. He went on: “I just want to have a happy work environment. I know the labor issue with NICA is your huge issue. We know it’s in the courts. God bless the courts if they can somehow get you guys back in here, the fuckin– Union comes in here and the doors stay open. God, let’s go forward . . . I don’t give a fuck. That is the way the owner runs the business. It don’t matter how much pressure you put on me or the industry, people never change. He will shut the door before he changes.�

An employee asserted that Gilboa was “absolutely scared� of the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s Union and Tait responded, “Of course he is.� The employee then said the ILWU was an honorable outfit. Tait responded that he had his marching orders and he couldn’t do anything about it. There follows a short discussion concerning Mascarenhas and his perceived unwillingness to recognize what a good deal he had. At that point the tape is interrupted by the previously mentioned cell call received by Martin.

When the tape again takes up the meeting, Tait is discussing the accident insurance under NICA and the deductions connected to that. They also speak of some other matters related to the NICA agreement. Eventually, Tait said that the employees could pursue it,

ut let’s be sure that we do, like Chris says, conduct a business properly so that we have a business to work for. And God forbid, that the courts end up closing us down because my owner is pigheaded. The courts are pigheaded . . . . It will end up in another worst-case scenario or even sooner. Once the NLRB thing winds up, let’s say two out of every three cases that go to the NLRB sides with the Union. Gee, I wonder why . . . then [the] NLRB issues an order, for compliance, for union organization, blah, blah. That order is not enforceable in California. Not enforceable. Oh, they bring that order to us and we say “fuck your order� and then they have to file their petition and their judgment. Oh yeah, ask Jerry [Martin]. They might have [to] take their petition into federal court. Federal court overturns one of every three NLRB hearings—because the NLRB is obviously, prejudice[d] towards labor issues. The court is not a prejudicial entity. It hears both sides of the story and one out of every three NLRB [orders] gets turned over in federal court. And that is where we are going to end up. And that goes on for years. So we’re a couple of years from here. We’re months with the NLRB, but I got news for you, it ain’t over there.

The meeting ends with Tait again making the 2 weeks’ pay offer if anyone who had been forced to become an independent contractor wished to quit. He assured everyone that he was a good guy and would not mistreat anybody.

Yeah. I hate it when shit hole companies have shit hole pratices. I had a guy try and send me tax forms for a year i didnt work for him. I simply cleared that shit up by threatening him. I dont think that my tactics would work in your situation. Best of luck to you.

And now i sleep.

dont wanna read....anyone want to overview that?

i can i get a no homo for sticking it to the man

he hopes

Originally posted by Future Droid@Dec 16 2005, 06:11 AM

dont wanna read....anyone want to overview that?

Quoted post

The company I work for is shady. They have already lost one court case that went to the US Supreme Court regarding unfair business practices. They were FORCED into compliance by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) under threat of the owner of the company having to serve jail time for contempt of court.

However, I have recieved two rubber payroll checks in the past month. This is not to mention the 10% pay reduction I recieved without written or verbal notification.

Therefore, I am taking them to court even though I am aware that, even if the court decides in my favor (and this is a slam-dunk case if I ever saw one), I will most likely not see any money for some time, if at all, as the company has a history of losing court decisions by default as a result of simply not appearing in court when sued. The same applies to them paying damages.

Think of them as Leona Helmsley, and me as one of the "little people".

Sorry for the long posts, but I thought that some of the law students on this board could possibly advise me in this.

If it bores you, don't read it. Simple.

mayeb you should have gone in a law forum

Cash, we know each other. Think about a friend of yours that got wrapped recently. We talked about that...

I can't elaborate further. I need to stay (somewhat) anonymous, so once you realize who I am, don't say anything here.

i dont know you

you are dead to me...

hes santa

sounds interesting

all the best to you

^Thanks.

I'm filling out my DLSR and unemployment insurance forms as we speak.

Unedr state law, if your employer fails to pay you on time, you qualify for unemployment, Two times, and you get to go to Disneyland. On them, of course.

to the drug dealers

http://www.roxydoll12.com/games/coolstuff/drugs.html