Retribution

It is a strong argument for a state of retribution
hereafter, that in this world virtuous persons are
very often unfortunate, and vicious persons
prosperous. --Addison.

Meaning of RETRIBUTION

Definition:
1. [n] the act of correcting for your wrongdoing
2. [n] a justly deserved penalty

You have the right to collectively bargain, but not the right to do it on duty.

An employer may not threaten or penalize any employee in any manner because he or she supports the union, or promise the employee a promotion or better benefits if he or she stops supporting the union.

HE WHO GOES TO BED WITH ITCHY BUTT WAKES UP WITH A STINKY FINGER!


CONFUSCIOUS

HE WHO GOES TO BED WITH ITCHY BUTT WAKES UP WITH A STINKY FINGER!


CONFUSCIOUS

I'm confused !

You have the right to collectively bargain, but not the right to do it on duty.

An employer may not threaten or penalize any employee in any manner because he or she supports the union, or promise the employee a promotion or better benefits if he or she stops supporting the union.

That little blurb doesnt even address your point beside it does not say where you cited it so most liked you just made it up. Word of advice if your going to quote something please cite where you got it and keep it on point.

447.403 Resolution of impasses.--

(1) If, after a reasonable period of negotiation concerning the terms and conditions of employment to be incorporated in a collective bargaining agreement, a dispute exists between a public employer and a bargaining agent, an impasse shall be deemed to have occurred when one of the parties so declares in writing to the other party and to the commission. When an impasse occurs, the public employer or the bargaining agent, or both parties acting jointly, may appoint, or secure the appointment of, a mediator to assist in the resolution of the impasse. If the Governor is the public employer, no mediator shall be appointed.

(2)(a) If no mediator is appointed, or upon the request of either party, the commission shall appoint, and submit all unresolved issues to, a special magistrate acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on the appointment of a special magistrate, the commission shall appoint, in its discretion, a qualified special magistrate. However, if the parties agree in writing to waive the appointment of a special magistrate, the parties may proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the legislative body pursuant to paragraph (4)(d). Nothing in this section precludes the parties from using the services of a mediator at any time during the conduct of collective bargaining.

(b) If the Governor is the public employer, no special magistrate shall be appointed. The parties may proceed directly to the Legislature for resolution of the impasse pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(c) If the district school board is the public employer and an impasse is declared under subsection (1) involving a dispute of a Merit Award Program Plan under s. 1012.225, the dispute is subject to an expedited impasse hearing. Notwithstanding subsections (3), (4), and (5), and the rules adopted by the commission, the following procedures shall apply:

1.a. The commission shall furnish the names of seven special magistrates within 5 days after receiving notice of impasse. If the parties are unable to agree upon a special magistrate within 5 days after the date of the letter transmitting the list of choices, the commission shall immediately appoint a special magistrate. The special magistrate shall set the hearing, which shall be held no later than 15 days after the date of appointment of the special magistrate. Within 5 days after the date of appointment of a special magistrate, each party shall serve upon the special magistrate and upon each other party a written list of issues at impasse.

b. At the close of the hearing, the parties shall summarize their arguments and may provide a written memorandum in support of their positions.

c. Within 10 days after the close of the hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit a recommended decision to the commission and the parties.

d. The recommended decision of the special magistrate shall be deemed accepted by the parties, except as to those recommendations that a party specifically rejects, by filing a written notice with the commission and serving a copy on the other party within 5 days after the date of the recommended decision.

2. If a party rejects any part of the recommended decision of the special magistrate, the parties shall proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the district school board pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(3) The special magistrate shall hold hearings in order to define the area or areas of dispute, to determine facts relating to the dispute, and to render a decision on any and all unresolved contract issues. The hearings shall be held at times, dates, and places to be established by the special magistrate in accordance with rules promulgated by the commission. The special magistrate shall be empowered to administer oaths and issue subpoenas on behalf of the parties to the dispute or on his or her own behalf. Within 15 calendar days after the close of the final hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit his or her recommended decision to the commission and to the representatives of both parties by registered mail, return receipt requested. Such recommended decision shall be discussed by the parties, and each recommendation of the special magistrate shall be deemed approved by both parties unless specifically rejected by either party by written notice filed with the commission within 20 calendar days after the date the party received the special magistrate's recommended decision. The written notice shall include a statement of the cause for each rejection and shall be served upon the other party.

(4) If either the public employer or the employee organization does not accept, in whole or in part, the recommended decision of the special magistrate:

(a) The chief executive officer of the governmental entity involved shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special magistrate, submit to the legislative body of the governmental entity involved a copy of the findings of fact and recommended decision of the special magistrate, together with the chief executive officer's recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues. The chief executive officer shall also transmit his or her recommendations to the employee organization;

(b) The employee organization shall submit its recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues to such legislative body and to the chief executive officer;

(c) The legislative body or a duly authorized committee thereof shall forthwith conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations of the special magistrate;

(d) Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues; and

(e) Following the resolution of the disputed impasse issues by the legislative body, the parties shall reduce to writing an agreement which includes those issues agreed to by the parties and those disputed impasse issues resolved by the legislative body's action taken pursuant to paragraph (d). The agreement shall be signed by the chief executive officer and the bargaining agent and shall be submitted to the public employer and to the public employees who are members of the bargaining unit for ratification. If such agreement is not ratified by all parties, pursuant to the provisions of s. 447.309, the legislative body's action taken pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (d) shall take effect as of the date of such legislative body's action for the remainder of the first fiscal year which was the subject of negotiations; however, the legislative body's action shall not take effect with respect to those disputed impasse issues which establish the language of contractual provisions which could have no effect in the absence of a ratified agreement, including, but not limited to, preambles, recognition clauses, and duration clauses.

(5)(a) Within 5 days after the beginning of the impasse period in accordance with s. 216.163(6), each party shall notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as to all unresolved issues. Upon receipt of the notification, the presiding officers shall appoint a joint select committee to review the position of the parties and render a recommended resolution of all issues remaining at impasse. The recommended resolution shall be returned by the joint select committee to the presiding officers not later than 10 days prior to the date upon which the legislative session is scheduled to commence. During the legislative session, the Legislature shall take action in accordance with this section.

(b) Any actions taken by the Legislature shall bind the parties in accordance with paragraph (4)(c).

You have the right to collectively bargain, but not the right to do it on duty.

An employer may not threaten or penalize any employee in any manner because he or she supports the union, or promise the employee a promotion or better benefits if he or she stops supporting the union.

That little blurb doesnt even address your point beside it does not say where you cited it so most liked you just made it up. Word of advice if your going to quote something please cite where you got it and keep it on point.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 3#0447.503 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0447/SEC503.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0447-%3ESection%20503#0447.503)

Thanks for all that but I'm waiting for the movie.

447.403 Resolution of impasses.--

(1) If, after a reasonable period of negotiation concerning the terms and conditions of employment to be incorporated in a collective bargaining agreement, a dispute exists between a public employer and a bargaining agent, an impasse shall be deemed to have occurred when one of the parties so declares in writing to the other party and to the commission. When an impasse occurs, the public employer or the bargaining agent, or both parties acting jointly, may appoint, or secure the appointment of, a mediator to assist in the resolution of the impasse. If the Governor is the public employer, no mediator shall be appointed.

(2)(a) If no mediator is appointed, or upon the request of either party, the commission shall appoint, and submit all unresolved issues to, a special magistrate acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on the appointment of a special magistrate, the commission shall appoint, in its discretion, a qualified special magistrate. However, if the parties agree in writing to waive the appointment of a special magistrate, the parties may proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the legislative body pursuant to paragraph (4)(d). Nothing in this section precludes the parties from using the services of a mediator at any time during the conduct of collective bargaining.

(b) If the Governor is the public employer, no special magistrate shall be appointed. The parties may proceed directly to the Legislature for resolution of the impasse pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(c) If the district school board is the public employer and an impasse is declared under subsection (1) involving a dispute of a Merit Award Program Plan under s. 1012.225, the dispute is subject to an expedited impasse hearing. Notwithstanding subsections (3), (4), and (5), and the rules adopted by the commission, the following procedures shall apply:

1.a. The commission shall furnish the names of seven special magistrates within 5 days after receiving notice of impasse. If the parties are unable to agree upon a special magistrate within 5 days after the date of the letter transmitting the list of choices, the commission shall immediately appoint a special magistrate. The special magistrate shall set the hearing, which shall be held no later than 15 days after the date of appointment of the special magistrate. Within 5 days after the date of appointment of a special magistrate, each party shall serve upon the special magistrate and upon each other party a written list of issues at impasse.

b. At the close of the hearing, the parties shall summarize their arguments and may provide a written memorandum in support of their positions.

c. Within 10 days after the close of the hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit a recommended decision to the commission and the parties.

d. The recommended decision of the special magistrate shall be deemed accepted by the parties, except as to those recommendations that a party specifically rejects, by filing a written notice with the commission and serving a copy on the other party within 5 days after the date of the recommended decision.

2. If a party rejects any part of the recommended decision of the special magistrate, the parties shall proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the district school board pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(3) The special magistrate shall hold hearings in order to define the area or areas of dispute, to determine facts relating to the dispute, and to render a decision on any and all unresolved contract issues. The hearings shall be held at times, dates, and places to be established by the special magistrate in accordance with rules promulgated by the commission. The special magistrate shall be empowered to administer oaths and issue subpoenas on behalf of the parties to the dispute or on his or her own behalf. Within 15 calendar days after the close of the final hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit his or her recommended decision to the commission and to the representatives of both parties by registered mail, return receipt requested. Such recommended decision shall be discussed by the parties, and each recommendation of the special magistrate shall be deemed approved by both parties unless specifically rejected by either party by written notice filed with the commission within 20 calendar days after the date the party received the special magistrate's recommended decision. The written notice shall include a statement of the cause for each rejection and shall be served upon the other party.

(4) If either the public employer or the employee organization does not accept, in whole or in part, the recommended decision of the special magistrate:

(a) The chief executive officer of the governmental entity involved shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special magistrate, submit to the legislative body of the governmental entity involved a copy of the findings of fact and recommended decision of the special magistrate, together with the chief executive officer's recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues. The chief executive officer shall also transmit his or her recommendations to the employee organization;

(b) The employee organization shall submit its recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues to such legislative body and to the chief executive officer;

(c) The legislative body or a duly authorized committee thereof shall forthwith conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations of the special magistrate;

(d) Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues; and

(e) Following the resolution of the disputed impasse issues by the legislative body, the parties shall reduce to writing an agreement which includes those issues agreed to by the parties and those disputed impasse issues resolved by the legislative body's action taken pursuant to paragraph (d). The agreement shall be signed by the chief executive officer and the bargaining agent and shall be submitted to the public employer and to the public employees who are members of the bargaining unit for ratification. If such agreement is not ratified by all parties, pursuant to the provisions of s. 447.309, the legislative body's action taken pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (d) shall take effect as of the date of such legislative body's action for the remainder of the first fiscal year which was the subject of negotiations; however, the legislative body's action shall not take effect with respect to those disputed impasse issues which establish the language of contractual provisions which could have no effect in the absence of a ratified agreement, including, but not limited to, preambles, recognition clauses, and duration clauses.

(5)(a) Within 5 days after the beginning of the impasse period in accordance with s. 216.163(6), each party shall notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as to all unresolved issues. Upon receipt of the notification, the presiding officers shall appoint a joint select committee to review the position of the parties and render a recommended resolution of all issues remaining at impasse. The recommended resolution shall be returned by the joint select committee to the presiding officers not later than 10 days prior to the date upon which the legislative session is scheduled to commence. During the legislative session, the Legislature shall take action in accordance with this section.

(b) Any actions taken by the Legislature shall bind the parties in accordance with paragraph (4)(c).

Thats the State Statute in regards to Impasse Procedures, where in there does it say the Union cant speak in roll call after the Management has done so already. Point it out because I must have missed it???

447.403 Resolution of impasses.--

(1) If, after a reasonable period of negotiation concerning the terms and conditions of employment to be incorporated in a collective bargaining agreement, a dispute exists between a public employer and a bargaining agent, an impasse shall be deemed to have occurred when one of the parties so declares in writing to the other party and to the commission. When an impasse occurs, the public employer or the bargaining agent, or both parties acting jointly, may appoint, or secure the appointment of, a mediator to assist in the resolution of the impasse. If the Governor is the public employer, no mediator shall be appointed.

(2)(a) If no mediator is appointed, or upon the request of either party, the commission shall appoint, and submit all unresolved issues to, a special magistrate acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on the appointment of a special magistrate, the commission shall appoint, in its discretion, a qualified special magistrate. However, if the parties agree in writing to waive the appointment of a special magistrate, the parties may proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the legislative body pursuant to paragraph (4)(d). Nothing in this section precludes the parties from using the services of a mediator at any time during the conduct of collective bargaining.

(b) If the Governor is the public employer, no special magistrate shall be appointed. The parties may proceed directly to the Legislature for resolution of the impasse pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(c) If the district school board is the public employer and an impasse is declared under subsection (1) involving a dispute of a Merit Award Program Plan under s. 1012.225, the dispute is subject to an expedited impasse hearing. Notwithstanding subsections (3), (4), and (5), and the rules adopted by the commission, the following procedures shall apply:

1.a. The commission shall furnish the names of seven special magistrates within 5 days after receiving notice of impasse. If the parties are unable to agree upon a special magistrate within 5 days after the date of the letter transmitting the list of choices, the commission shall immediately appoint a special magistrate. The special magistrate shall set the hearing, which shall be held no later than 15 days after the date of appointment of the special magistrate. Within 5 days after the date of appointment of a special magistrate, each party shall serve upon the special magistrate and upon each other party a written list of issues at impasse.

b. At the close of the hearing, the parties shall summarize their arguments and may provide a written memorandum in support of their positions.

c. Within 10 days after the close of the hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit a recommended decision to the commission and the parties.

d. The recommended decision of the special magistrate shall be deemed accepted by the parties, except as to those recommendations that a party specifically rejects, by filing a written notice with the commission and serving a copy on the other party within 5 days after the date of the recommended decision.

2. If a party rejects any part of the recommended decision of the special magistrate, the parties shall proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the district school board pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(3) The special magistrate shall hold hearings in order to define the area or areas of dispute, to determine facts relating to the dispute, and to render a decision on any and all unresolved contract issues. The hearings shall be held at times, dates, and places to be established by the special magistrate in accordance with rules promulgated by the commission. The special magistrate shall be empowered to administer oaths and issue subpoenas on behalf of the parties to the dispute or on his or her own behalf. Within 15 calendar days after the close of the final hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit his or her recommended decision to the commission and to the representatives of both parties by registered mail, return receipt requested. Such recommended decision shall be discussed by the parties, and each recommendation of the special magistrate shall be deemed approved by both parties unless specifically rejected by either party by written notice filed with the commission within 20 calendar days after the date the party received the special magistrate's recommended decision. The written notice shall include a statement of the cause for each rejection and shall be served upon the other party.

(4) If either the public employer or the employee organization does not accept, in whole or in part, the recommended decision of the special magistrate:

(a) The chief executive officer of the governmental entity involved shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special magistrate, submit to the legislative body of the governmental entity involved a copy of the findings of fact and recommended decision of the special magistrate, together with the chief executive officer's recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues. The chief executive officer shall also transmit his or her recommendations to the employee organization;

(b) The employee organization shall submit its recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues to such legislative body and to the chief executive officer;

(c) The legislative body or a duly authorized committee thereof shall forthwith conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations of the special magistrate;

(d) Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues; and

(e) Following the resolution of the disputed impasse issues by the legislative body, the parties shall reduce to writing an agreement which includes those issues agreed to by the parties and those disputed impasse issues resolved by the legislative body's action taken pursuant to paragraph (d). The agreement shall be signed by the chief executive officer and the bargaining agent and shall be submitted to the public employer and to the public employees who are members of the bargaining unit for ratification. If such agreement is not ratified by all parties, pursuant to the provisions of s. 447.309, the legislative body's action taken pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (d) shall take effect as of the date of such legislative body's action for the remainder of the first fiscal year which was the subject of negotiations; however, the legislative body's action shall not take effect with respect to those disputed impasse issues which establish the language of contractual provisions which could have no effect in the absence of a ratified agreement, including, but not limited to, preambles, recognition clauses, and duration clauses.

(5)(a) Within 5 days after the beginning of the impasse period in accordance with s. 216.163(6), each party shall notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as to all unresolved issues. Upon receipt of the notification, the presiding officers shall appoint a joint select committee to review the position of the parties and render a recommended resolution of all issues remaining at impasse. The recommended resolution shall be returned by the joint select committee to the presiding officers not later than 10 days prior to the date upon which the legislative session is scheduled to commence. During the legislative session, the Legislature shall take action in accordance with this section.

(b) Any actions taken by the Legislature shall bind the parties in accordance with paragraph (4)(c).

You really need to get out in the world and get a life.

United States laws overrule any state law pertaining to labor practices if they are duly noted in its statutory definition. There are laws in the United States laws that pertain to Landrum-Griffin Act accordingly which pertain to Labor Management. By virtue of the Labor Management, Title 29, of Chapter 11, in the U.S. Code collection, a Bill of Rights has been established for equal rights for employees.

You asked me about freedom of speech on the job, well your answer is...

Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.

Freedom of speech and assembly

Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.


The last part of this paragraph, where I highlight in bold, gives any agency, as well as any private organization, the right to limit and/or disallow any discussion of union business which might otherwise interfere with the responsibility of the organization, as in this case BSO, to discuss union business. Therefore, any discussion of union business, like that in Roll Call could be dismissed and that person or persons could be placed through an administrative process which can be dealt with in accordance with polices and procedures therein established.


HOWEVER!

If and when union business is discussed on-duty in a manner that only one side of the agency is allowed to show, that means that only the brass is talking during our Roll Calls or otherwise about union business and makes it one-sided, then the gates are open for everyone to discuss the issue at that time only. Basically if your management brings it up, you have the right to discuss until your management tells you to stop and go away.

Unless you can show cause where there was a blatant disregard for union business, such as taking down bulletin boards, or reprisal for speaking out during union negotiations, and damages are inflicted to cause the loss of some momentary gain or otherwise, then those violations may violate numerous other U.S. codes, including the National Labor Relations Act and Florida Statutes 447, Public Employees.

However, if you are removed from a position because of your outspokenness, it does not necessarily entitle you to that position again. An employer has a lot of power when it comes to assignments, and they are ultimately responsible for them. Therefore, unless you are fired or something as nearly as serious as that, you might have a hard time trying to get back into a specialized unit.

The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.

United States laws overrule any state law pertaining to labor practices if they are duly noted in its statutory definition. There are laws in the United States laws that pertain to Landrum-Griffin Act accordingly which pertain to Labor Management. By virtue of the Labor Management, Title 29, of Chapter 11, in the U.S. Code collection, a Bill of Rights has been established for equal rights for employees.

You asked me about freedom of speech on the job, well your answer is...

Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.

Freedom of speech and assembly

Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.


The last part of this paragraph, where I highlight in bold, gives any agency, as well as any private organization, the right to limit and/or disallow any discussion of union business which might otherwise interfere with the responsibility of the organization, as in this case BSO, to discuss union business. Therefore, any discussion of union business, like that in Roll Call could be dismissed and that person or persons could be placed through an administrative process which can be dealt with in accordance with polices and procedures therein established.


HOWEVER!

If and when union business is discussed on-duty in a manner that only one side of the agency is allowed to show, that means that only the brass is talking during our Roll Calls or otherwise about union business and makes it one-sided, then the gates are open for everyone to discuss the issue at that time only. Basically if your management brings it up, you have the right to discuss until your management tells you to stop and go away.

Unless you can show cause where there was a blatant disregard for union business, such as taking down bulletin boards, or reprisal for speaking out during union negotiations, and damages are inflicted to cause the loss of some momentary gain or otherwise, then those violations may violate numerous other U.S. codes, including the National Labor Relations Act and Florida Statutes 447, Public Employees.

However, if you are removed from a position because of your outspokenness, it does not necessarily entitle you to that position again. An employer has a lot of power when it comes to assignments, and they are ultimately responsible for them. Therefore, unless you are fired or something as nearly as serious as that, you might have a hard time trying to get back into a specialized unit.

The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.


You seem like a smart man or woman, why not make a name for yourself on here?

Thanks for all that info...I'm still voting yes.....the contract will pass.

Thanks for all that info...I'm still voting yes.....the contract will pass.

If it was 1,1,1 you would vote yes. Go suck Lamecrappy's butt!

United States laws overrule any state law pertaining to labor practices if they are duly noted in its statutory definition. There are laws in the United States laws that pertain to Landrum-Griffin Act accordingly which pertain to Labor Management. By virtue of the Labor Management, Title 29, of Chapter 11, in the U.S. Code collection, a Bill of Rights has been established for equal rights for employees.

You asked me about freedom of speech on the job, well your answer is...

Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.

Freedom of speech and assembly

Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.


The last part of this paragraph, where I highlight in bold, gives any agency, as well as any private organization, the right to limit and/or disallow any discussion of union business which might otherwise interfere with the responsibility of the organization, as in this case BSO, to discuss union business. Therefore, any discussion of union business, like that in Roll Call could be dismissed and that person or persons could be placed through an administrative process which can be dealt with in accordance with polices and procedures therein established.


HOWEVER!

If and when union business is discussed on-duty in a manner that only one side of the agency is allowed to show, that means that only the brass is talking during our Roll Calls or otherwise about union business and makes it one-sided, then the gates are open for everyone to discuss the issue at that time only. Basically if your management brings it up, you have the right to discuss until your management tells you to stop and go away.

Unless you can show cause where there was a blatant disregard for union business, such as taking down bulletin boards, or reprisal for speaking out during union negotiations, and damages are inflicted to cause the loss of some momentary gain or otherwise, then those violations may violate numerous other U.S. codes, including the National Labor Relations Act and Florida Statutes 447, Public Employees.

However, if you are removed from a position because of your outspokenness, it does not necessarily entitle you to that position again. An employer has a lot of power when it comes to assignments, and they are ultimately responsible for them. Therefore, unless you are fired or something as nearly as serious as that, you might have a hard time trying to get back into a specialized unit.

The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.


So basically what your saying is that the Sheriffs Office is guilty of an unfair Labor Practice by going to the Districts ie: Pompano and Weston to push his contract abd banning the Union Reps from doing the same. Just another reason to Vote the Contract down. VOTE NO!!!!

United States laws overrule any state law pertaining to labor practices if they are duly noted in its statutory definition. There are laws in the United States laws that pertain to Landrum-Griffin Act accordingly which pertain to Labor Management. By virtue of the Labor Management, Title 29, of Chapter 11, in the U.S. Code collection, a Bill of Rights has been established for equal rights for employees.

You asked me about freedom of speech on the job, well your answer is...

Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.

Freedom of speech and assembly

Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.


The last part of this paragraph, where I highlight in bold, gives any agency, as well as any private organization, the right to limit and/or disallow any discussion of union business which might otherwise interfere with the responsibility of the organization, as in this case BSO, to discuss union business. Therefore, any discussion of union business, like that in Roll Call could be dismissed and that person or persons could be placed through an administrative process which can be dealt with in accordance with polices and procedures therein established.


HOWEVER!

If and when union business is discussed on-duty in a manner that only one side of the agency is allowed to show, that means that only the brass is talking during our Roll Calls or otherwise about union business and makes it one-sided, then the gates are open for everyone to discuss the issue at that time only. Basically if your management brings it up, you have the right to discuss until your management tells you to stop and go away.

Unless you can show cause where there was a blatant disregard for union business, such as taking down bulletin boards, or reprisal for speaking out during union negotiations, and damages are inflicted to cause the loss of some momentary gain or otherwise, then those violations may violate numerous other U.S. codes, including the National Labor Relations Act and Florida Statutes 447, Public Employees.

However, if you are removed from a position because of your outspokenness, it does not necessarily entitle you to that position again. An employer has a lot of power when it comes to assignments, and they are ultimately responsible for them. Therefore, unless you are fired or something as nearly as serious as that, you might have a hard time trying to get back into a specialized unit.

The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.


So basically what your saying is that the Sheriffs Office is guilty of an unfair Labor Practice by going to the Districts ie: Pompano and Weston to push his contract abd banning the Union Reps from doing the same. Just another reason to Vote the Contract down. VOTE NO!!!!

No. The Sheriff's Office is not guilty of unfair labor practices. They haven't been based on what is being described. They (Brass) just cannot simply share one-side of an issue. Meaning if they bring up an issue on-duty, the right for others to discuss the issue on-duty during the same forum is allowed until such time that it negates the responsibilities set fourth by contractual or otherwise obligations. Which means they can cut short any questions or concerns after they speak and thus requiring union members to gather off-duty to discuss union material.

Therefore, no union member has any right by law to discuss union material unless it is approved by management. If a deputy simply walks into a roll call to share union information and is told to leave, he has to leave.

The only way around this is to post information on a local bulletin board, which should be allowed in all district offices, in where shared union material is allowed, but does not create a strike or otherwise prohibit the masses from walking out or become in concert with the blue flu.

Any persons in an off-duty capacity can discuss whatever they want, including, but not limited to, free speech of picket signs, mailings, posters, private e-mails (non-agency related), etc. So long as whatever is protested does not violate state statues of an unlawful assemblies, harassment, stalking, etc. and would not otherwise harm the public or create an obstruction of public right of way without a permit, or any type of disorderly conduct.

As a law enforcement agency, the only aspect upon which to truly gather without any issue would be at a union hall. This is the accepted format of both sides.

I would not recommend putting union business on-duty in front of management because it not only infuriates management, but also forces persons who do not care about union business, or have no resolve thereto, to hear about union issues that would otherwise allow them to leave the room but cannot because they are mandated to be in roll call for their job.

If on-duty personnel wish to discuss union material, they may only do so based on policy and procedure, as personal discussions are not necessarily protected in the work place during working hours, especially for public employees. Therefore, public employees may be subject to penalties regarding policy and procedure violations if they exist.

Basically if you discuss union business, make sure you are not doing it in front of management and the people you are discussing the business with are not about to send a complaint to IA that you aren't doing your job, but rather just whining about the union business and getting no work done. Some non-members and members may include this as harassment in the workplace.

Because LEO Affairs exists, the forum here is the perfect opportunity to discuss union business. However, you cannot use the forum unless you are off-duty and basically somewhere other than work.


The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.

First of all I think this is your interpretation of the Statue not actual facts. I have read what you posted throughly and I dont agree with the interpreatation. Your comments about being afraid of managmenet and fear of being reassigned shows you do not have testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe you just do what ever your told. That sir makes you a lemming. There is NOTHING that I can see that specifically bans the union or its Reps from speaking in roll calls on any issue. Man you really drank the Lamberti Kool Aid, what flavor was it!!!

First of all I think this is your interpretation of the Statue not actual facts. I have read what you posted throughly and I dont agree with the interpreatation. Your comments about being afraid of managmenet and fear of being reassigned shows you do not have testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe you just do what ever your told. That sir makes you a lemming. There is NOTHING that I can see that specifically bans the union or its Reps from speaking in roll calls on any issue. Man you really drank the Lamberti Kool Aid, what flavor was it!!!Why is Lamberti allowed to discuss contract issues at roll calls, D-11,D-15,D-8. And Lt Obrien 2-days after Diperna got kicked out, spent 45-minutes telling the charlie shift that this is a good contract. The law states that if the employer opens discussion in reference to union business than it has to be open to both sides. This administration is breaking all the rules, because they have been doing it for 30-years. Now we have people standing up to them and they are running around not knowing what to do. It's great to watch but sad to see.

First of all I think this is your interpretation of the Statue not actual facts. I have read what you posted throughly and I dont agree with the interpreatation. Your comments about being afraid of managmenet and fear of being reassigned shows you do not have testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe you just do what ever your told. That sir makes you a lemming. There is NOTHING that I can see that specifically bans the union or its Reps from speaking in roll calls on any issue. Man you really drank the Lamberti Kool Aid, what flavor was it!!!

Let's get this straight. I did not spend hours doing research for you to tell me that I do not have facts. What I posted on here is actual law and my opinions are based on interpretation, which is no different than what a judge does.

I am all for having the PBA come speak at my Roll Call. However, they cannot legally be allowed to do so if it would otherwise negate our responsibility to our job. THIS MEANS!!! AND READ CLEARLY!!! This means that if someone were to come in and speak in Roll Call and we had 10 calls holding for service, we couldn't let those calls hold simply so we can hear what the PBA rep has to say.

Furthermore, management MUST approve anything that would otherwise negate our responsibility to the taxpayers!

Management can get away with it because they are ULTIMATELY responsible to the public, and that means the SHERIFF can say ANYTHING HE WANTS. He can tell you to sit in a chair for 8-hours and do nothing, and other than a few breaks and a meal, you'd have to do it or you'd be insubordinate.

Sure we could muscle this whole discussion on what if this and what if that, but the fact is and I cannot change fact, that no rep without express permission from management could get away with using roll call as a means to discuss union business.

However, if say the shift met up in the parking lot 15-minutes before roll call, then maybe that might be the gray area before you start actually working and being in an in-Service position. However, if a policy is enacted that prevents public employees using Sheriff's Office grounds to discuss union business with permission, then you might have to try the KFC down the street.

I am for the 5-5-5, and I hope Sheriff Lamberti gives it to us. However, we should not discount his actions for trying to save taxpayer dollars.

First of all I think this is your interpretation of the Statue not actual facts. I have read what you posted throughly and I dont agree with the interpreatation. Your comments about being afraid of managmenet and fear of being reassigned shows you do not have testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe you just do what ever your told. That sir makes you a lemming. There is NOTHING that I can see that specifically bans the union or its Reps from speaking in roll calls on any issue. Man you really drank the Lamberti Kool Aid, what flavor was it!!!

Let's get this straight. I did not spend hours doing research for you to tell me that I do not have facts. What I posted on here is actual law and my opinions are based on interpretation, which is no different than what a judge does.

I am all for having the PBA come speak at my Roll Call. However, they cannot legally be allowed to do so if it would otherwise negate our responsibility to our job. THIS MEANS!!! AND READ CLEARLY!!! This means that if someone were to come in and speak in Roll Call and we had 10 calls holding for service, we couldn't let those calls hold simply so we can hear what the PBA rep has to say.

Furthermore, management MUST approve anything that would otherwise negate our responsibility to the taxpayers!

Management can get away with it because they are ULTIMATELY responsible to the public, and that means the SHERIFF can say ANYTHING HE WANTS. He can tell you to sit in a chair for 8-hours and do nothing, and other than a few breaks and a meal, you'd have to do it or you'd be insubordinate.

Sure we could muscle this whole discussion on what if this and what if that, but the fact is and I cannot change fact, that no rep without express permission from management could get away with using roll call as a means to discuss union business.

However, if say the shift met up in the parking lot 15-minutes before roll call, then maybe that might be the gray area before you start actually working and being in an in-Service position. However, if a policy is enacted that prevents public employees using Sheriff's Office grounds to discuss union business with permission, then you might have to try the KFC down the street.

I am for the 5-5-5, and I hope Sheriff Lamberti gives it to us. However, we should not discount his actions for trying to save taxpayer dollars.

Obviously you know what you are talking about, but your answers aren't what people want to hear.

United States laws overrule any state law pertaining to labor practices if they are duly noted in its statutory definition. There are laws in the United States laws that pertain to Landrum-Griffin Act accordingly which pertain to Labor Management. By virtue of the Labor Management, Title 29, of Chapter 11, in the U.S. Code collection, a Bill of Rights has been established for equal rights for employees.

You asked me about freedom of speech on the job, well your answer is...

Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.

Freedom of speech and assembly

Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.


The last part of this paragraph, where I highlight in bold, gives any agency, as well as any private organization, the right to limit and/or disallow any discussion of union business which might otherwise interfere with the responsibility of the organization, as in this case BSO, to discuss union business. Therefore, any discussion of union business, like that in Roll Call could be dismissed and that person or persons could be placed through an administrative process which can be dealt with in accordance with polices and procedures therein established.


HOWEVER!

If and when union business is discussed on-duty in a manner that only one side of the agency is allowed to show, that means that only the brass is talking during our Roll Calls or otherwise about union business and makes it one-sided, then the gates are open for everyone to discuss the issue at that time only. Basically if your management brings it up, you have the right to discuss until your management tells you to stop and go away.

Unless you can show cause where there was a blatant disregard for union business, such as taking down bulletin boards, or reprisal for speaking out during union negotiations, and damages are inflicted to cause the loss of some momentary gain or otherwise, then those violations may violate numerous other U.S. codes, including the National Labor Relations Act and Florida Statutes 447, Public Employees.

However, if you are removed from a position because of your outspokenness, it does not necessarily entitle you to that position again. An employer has a lot of power when it comes to assignments, and they are ultimately responsible for them. Therefore, unless you are fired or something as nearly as serious as that, you might have a hard time trying to get back into a specialized unit.

The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.


So basically what your saying is that the Sheriffs Office is guilty of an unfair Labor Practice by going to the Districts ie: Pompano and Weston to push his contract abd banning the Union Reps from doing the same. Just another reason to Vote the Contract down. VOTE NO!!!!

No. The Sheriff's Office is not guilty of unfair labor practices. They haven't been based on what is being described. They (Brass) just cannot simply share one-side of an issue. Meaning if they bring up an issue on-duty, the right for others to discuss the issue on-duty during the same forum is allowed until such time that it negates the responsibilities set fourth by contractual or otherwise obligations. Which means they can cut short any questions or concerns after they speak and thus requiring union members to gather off-duty to discuss union material.

Therefore, no union member has any right by law to discuss union material unless it is approved by management. If a deputy simply walks into a roll call to share union information and is told to leave, he has to leave.

The only way around this is to post information on a local bulletin board, which should be allowed in all district offices, in where shared union material is allowed, but does not create a strike or otherwise prohibit the masses from walking out or become in concert with the blue flu.

Any persons in an off-duty capacity can discuss whatever they want, including, but not limited to, free speech of picket signs, mailings, posters, private e-mails (non-agency related), etc. So long as whatever is protested does not violate state statues of an unlawful assemblies, harassment, stalking, etc. and would not otherwise harm the public or create an obstruction of public right of way without a permit, or any type of disorderly conduct.

As a law enforcement agency, the only aspect upon which to truly gather without any issue would be at a union hall. This is the accepted format of both sides.

I would not recommend putting union business on-duty in front of management because it not only infuriates management, but also forces persons who do not care about union business, or have no resolve thereto, to hear about union issues that would otherwise allow them to leave the room but cannot because they are mandated to be in roll call for their job.

If on-duty personnel wish to discuss union material, they may only do so based on policy and procedure, as personal discussions are not necessarily protected in the work place during working hours, especially for public employees. Therefore, public employees may be subject to penalties regarding policy and procedure violations if they exist.

Basically if you discuss union business, make sure you are not doing it in front of management and the people you are discussing the business with are not about to send a complaint to IA that you aren't doing your job, but rather just whining about the union business and getting no work done. Some non-members and members may include this as harassment in the workplace.

Because LEO Affairs exists, the forum here is the perfect opportunity to discuss union business. However, you cannot use the forum unless you are off-duty and basically somewhere other than work.


The information provided above is based solely on research and my personal opinionated knowledge of fair labor practice laws.

So how do we get our message to those who don't come to the PBA Hall and don't read the bulletin boards? I am not about to stand in 100 degrees to sweat with a sign.

Thats exactly what the Sheriff and his Thugs are hoping for, youll just given and give in. VOTE NO and show him were not backing down!!!

First of all I think this is your interpretation of the Statue not actual facts. I have read what you posted throughly and I dont agree with the interpreatation. Your comments about being afraid of managmenet and fear of being reassigned shows you do not have testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe you just do what ever your told. That sir makes you a lemming. There is NOTHING that I can see that specifically bans the union or its Reps from speaking in roll calls on any issue. Man you really drank the Lamberti Kool Aid, what flavor was it!!!

Let's get this straight. I did not spend hours doing research for you to tell me that I do not have facts. What I posted on here is actual law and my opinions are based on interpretation, which is no different than what a judge does.

I am all for having the PBA come speak at my Roll Call. However, they cannot legally be allowed to do so if it would otherwise negate our responsibility to our job. THIS MEANS!!! AND READ CLEARLY!!! This means that if someone were to come in and speak in Roll Call and we had 10 calls holding for service, we couldn't let those calls hold simply so we can hear what the PBA rep has to say.

Furthermore, management MUST approve anything that would otherwise negate our responsibility to the taxpayers!

Management can get away with it because they are ULTIMATELY responsible to the public, and that means the SHERIFF can say ANYTHING HE WANTS. He can tell you to sit in a chair for 8-hours and do nothing, and other than a few breaks and a meal, you'd have to do it or you'd be insubordinate.

Sure we could muscle this whole discussion on what if this and what if that, but the fact is and I cannot change fact, that no rep without express permission from management could get away with using roll call as a means to discuss union business.

However, if say the shift met up in the parking lot 15-minutes before roll call, then maybe that might be the gray area before you start actually working and being in an in-Service position. However, if a policy is enacted that prevents public employees using Sheriff's Office grounds to discuss union business with permission, then you might have to try the KFC down the street.

I am for the 5-5-5, and I hope Sheriff Lamberti gives it to us. However, we should not discount his actions for trying to save taxpayer dollars.

Obviously you know what you are talking about, but your answers aren't what people want to hear.

Amen. Quote,"Why is Lamberti allowed to discuss contract issues at roll call.............. Um, uh , cause he is the Sheriff?? This is just a wag though.

First of all I think this is your interpretation of the Statue not actual facts. I have read what you posted throughly and I dont agree with the interpreatation. Your comments about being afraid of managmenet and fear of being reassigned shows you do not have testicular fortitude to stand up for what you believe you just do what ever your told. That sir makes you a lemming. There is NOTHING that I can see that specifically bans the union or its Reps from speaking in roll calls on any issue. Man you really drank the Lamberti Kool Aid, what flavor was it!!!

Let's get this straight. I did not spend hours doing research for you to tell me that I do not have facts. What I posted on here is actual law and my opinions are based on interpretation, which is no different than what a judge does.

I am all for having the PBA come speak at my Roll Call. However, they cannot legally be allowed to do so if it would otherwise negate our responsibility to our job. THIS MEANS!!! AND READ CLEARLY!!! This means that if someone were to come in and speak in Roll Call and we had 10 calls holding for service, we couldn't let those calls hold simply so we can hear what the PBA rep has to say.

Furthermore, management MUST approve anything that would otherwise negate our responsibility to the taxpayers!

Management can get away with it because they are ULTIMATELY responsible to the public, and that means the SHERIFF can say ANYTHING HE WANTS. He can tell you to sit in a chair for 8-hours and do nothing, and other than a few breaks and a meal, you'd have to do it or you'd be insubordinate.

Sure we could muscle this whole discussion on what if this and what if that, but the fact is and I cannot change fact, that no rep without express permission from management could get away with using roll call as a means to discuss union business.

However, if say the shift met up in the parking lot 15-minutes before roll call, then maybe that might be the gray area before you start actually working and being in an in-Service position. However, if a policy is enacted that prevents public employees using Sheriff's Office grounds to discuss union business with permission, then you might have to try the KFC down the street.

I am for the 5-5-5, and I hope Sheriff Lamberti gives it to us. However, we should not discount his actions for trying to save taxpayer dollars.

Obviously you know what you are talking about, but your answers aren't what people want to hear.

Amen. Quote,"Why is Lamberti allowed to discuss contract issues at roll call.............. Um, uh , cause he is the Sheriff?? This is just a wag though.

The Sheriff has the right to bring to his employees anything he wants to. He has the right to designate someone to do the same thing. He basically has a lot of power over what you hear on-duty as it pertains to union business. The Sheriff also can violate policies, because he can change policies, they are his policies, and does not have to abide by them whatsoever.

Policies written for employees are guidelines or rules that can be bended, broken, cut in half etc. The management would decide the fate of people who violate policy. If you feel you are treated unfairly, you need to hire a lawyer that practices labor law or utilize your union's lawyer.

How do we get around all this? Quite simply you can do a fact sheet. You can point out to the members to check out the bulletin board in your respective district or office. The fact sheet can contain things that may contradict things that you may have been told by the agency. You have the right to take a glance and learn about the status of your union.

There is just no way to say we have a right to address each other on-duty in roll call. The only way to do it is with express permission by management. Thus, if the Sheriff said, "Okay, fine, you guys want to talk a little during roll call, then go ahead, but you have 5-minutes." Then you would be allowed to do it on-duty.

However, history has shown that when management defies their employees and does not allow them to discuss union business, it is what an earlier post described as "divide and conquer." This is a strategy of war generals to keep order and maintain control of their troops.

What I think would make the message clear is that we all vote down the contract and let it go to a special master. Sometimes when the voices of the troops cannot be heard, it helps to have an outsider listen and learn why the importance of a raise would be so important. I am against our contract because it unfairly disadvantages newly-hired deputies and does not match the cost-of-living in the tri-county area. Keeping up with inflation is vitally important to increases. My estimates are at 18% by 2010. And...any contract that promises a 2% increase by the third year "IF" funds are available is basically jerking your chain.

PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

If this is true, then file a complaint with PERC. If you think the Sheriff is intent on lying to us, then file the complaint. If you think we had budget shortfalls and we have budget cuts that have to be made, then you might be going on deaf ears.

Do we have the money. I think we do. Do we see exactly what the Sheriff sees, probably not and we have no idea what he has to face. We just need to vote down the contract without all this BS about Sheriff lies and calling him names - that will not solve the problem.

We just need to vote down the contract and work with a mediator, special master, or whomever to make things right. Calling the Sheriff names or outing him as a liar is not professional and not necessary.

Just vote no and explain why with facts, not with name calling or finger pointing. I have the same feelings as you about voting no, but I am not going to be unprofessional about everything else.

PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

Did You watch the Video??? Lexler never said the Sheriff CANNOT use caounty money, she said She DOESN"T WANT HIM TO. But at the end, she said it is his money and he could do as he pleases.

PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

Did You watch the Video??? Lexler never said the Sheriff CANNOT use caounty money, she said She DOESN"T WANT HIM TO. But at the end, she said it is his money and he could do as he pleases.


THERE ALSO SEEMED TO ME TO BE ROOM FOR THE COUNTY TO THROW IN MONEY IF THE WATER BOILED.

WOW! Better get that blood pressure in check. First of all, the Sheriff CAN use county money to offset contract city expense. It's the law. He can't do the reverse as the Commisioners stated. They would LIKE contract cities to be cost neutral but agree they have no control over what the Sheriff does with his money. And why insult the Economist? Don't like the message? Yes he stated the Sheriff is on track to give back 50 million. That estimate was based on current spending trends and he said the number would likely go down. When you consider last year, the number was 33 million seems to me to be a reasonable figure. The 33 million is a fact so why call him a liar. Oh I'm sorry. Another person who has made up his mind and won't be confused by the facts. Hope you approach your calls/cases with a more open mind

PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

Keep drinking the Lamberti Kool Aid see where it gets you in November!!!Vote no and lets get what we deserve.

Remember:

Lamberti gave back 33 Million last year + 3%,3%,3%=VOTE NO!!!

Get your facts straight Jenne gave back 33 million last year, not Lamberti.




PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

Keep drinking the Lamberti Kool Aid see where it gets you in November!!!Vote no and lets get what we deserve.

Remember:

Lamberti gave back 33 Million last year + 3%,3%,3%=VOTE NO!!!

Get your facts straight Jenne gave back 33 million last year, not Lamberti.




PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

Keep drinking the Lamberti Kool Aid see where it gets you in November!!!Vote no and lets get what we deserve.

Remember:

Lamberti gave back 33 Million last year + 3%,3%,3%=VOTE NO!!!

Lamberti did NOT give back the money...Jenne did! More lies from the malcontents. Do us all a favor and QUIT! Youre an embarressment to the rest of us

Get your facts straight Jenne gave back 33 million last year, not Lamberti.




PERC states that the Sheriff may come to the District and sell his contract to the membership as long as the information is not false or misleading or a lie. So when the Sheriff came to Pompano and stated he couldnt give us a raise due to the fact he couldnt spend county money to supplement contract city contracts,that as we all know thats a lie. The Sheriff also stated his money is in separate pots and he cant move it around to fund raises, that has also been proven to be a lie. PERC rules further state that management may not give any false, misleading or make derrogatory statements about the Union or its Representatives which are untrue, misleading of a lie. That being said the Sheriff coming to Pompano and telling the Deputies they cannot work an alternate work schedule because the PBA wont allow is a lie and paints the PBA in a negative light. Then having Major Rogers go to Weston and verbally attack one there Reps would fall under making derrogatory statement about its representatives. Long story short the Sheriff is guilty of several unfair Labor Practices and has not been dealing with the PBA or the membership in good faith form the beginning. Please VOTE NO on this contract so we can show the Sheriff we do not appreciate his conduct and that we deserve better.

You are truly an idiot, you have been lied to and lied so many times you do not even know what the truth is anymore. You need to listen to the ENTIRE video of the county commission meeting that the PBA played. The comissioners say in one breath that the sheriff can do whatever he wants with his money.....THEY GO ON TO SAY......That he CANNOT subsidize the city's contracts with his money. So let me ask you, how is the Sheriff going to give anyone in a contract city a raise, if county money cannot go to subsidize the citys? Who has proven this to be a Lie??? Was it that fat moron that calls himself an Economist????? Who was hired by the PBA????? Who also estimated the Sheriff was going to give back 50 million......IF something stinks here it is the PBA and the mistruths that they have been spreading. Unfortunately there are so many morons here that they believe whatever they hear.

Keep drinking the Lamberti Kool Aid see where it gets you in November!!!Vote no and lets get what we deserve.

Remember:

Lamberti gave back 33 Million last year + 3%,3%,3%=VOTE NO!!!

Lamberti did NOT give back the money...Jenne did! More lies from the malcontents. Do us all a favor and QUIT! Youre an embarressment to the rest of us



Look at the news, Sheriff Bradshaw from PBSO is requesting a 36 million dollar increase (yes thats a 36,000,000.00 for you first grade drop outs). Our fearless leader wants to give more back this year. Yes SKJ did give back 33 million last year, but look at the facts presented to us by the forensic auditor that Sheriff Lamberti is on track to give back 55 million this year. Even if that not accurate, half would be close to what Bradshaws asking for an increase in his budget.

So to all you supporters of Sheriff Lamberti, yes the ones that donated money to his campaign, stop drinking the kool aid and crawl out from under the sheriff's desk. Sheriff Bradshaw will not allow his employees to donate to his campaign, maybe our sheriff needs to stop the buddy system and promote qualified people to lead this agncy out of the gutter. Instead of issuing knee pads to your staff, get some real leaders!!