APWU Wins Another National Level Arbitration Award

Arbitrator Goldberg found USPS violated ‘POStPlan’ MOU

06/07/2017 – The APWU scores another victory today, defending postal employees in the union’s bargaining unit. Arbitrator Goldberg issued an award in a national-level case over what remedy was due for the Postal Service’s failure to staff ‘POStPlan’ offices following an original award on September 5, 2014 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated afterward.

The APWU and the Postal Service agreed that after December 22, 2014, the ‘POStPlan’ Remotely-Managed Post Offices (RMPOs) open 4 or 6 hours a day would be staffed with bargaining unit clerks, as well as replace Postal Support Employees (PSEs) in Level 18 offices with career employees. Long after the agreement, Postmaster Reliefs (PMRs) were still working in 4 or 6 hour RMPOs across the country and Level 18 offices reported still using PSEs instead of career employees.

The Postal Service admitted to their widespread violations of the ‘POStPlan’ MOU. Arbitrator Goldberg held that the USPS owed the bargaining unit for all the hours improperly worked by PMRs and PSEs.

“This is an important award for the protection and expansion of Clerk Craft work,” said President Dimondstein. “This keeps management’s feet to the fire, holding them to the agreements they make with the APWU.”

“Although it was another great win for the APWU, the Postal Service’s continual willingness to blatantly violate the contract indicates a serious problem with the integrity of Postal Service management that together we must continue to address” said Clerk Craft Director Clint Burelson.

Arbitrator Goldberg held that the Postal Service must make whole all postal employees in the Clerk Craft bargaining unit who were denied craft work as a result of the USPS’ failure to follow the POStPlan MOU.

“Much thanks goes to Assistant Clerk Craft Director Lynn Pallas Barber, who served as the case officer for the grievance,” Burleson stated. “Also to Assistant Craft Director Lamont Brooks, Industrial Relations Director Vance Zimmerman and attorneys Mindy Holmes and Jason Veny.”

105 total views, no views today

J.P. Morgan Chase Pulls NBC News Ads Over Megyn Kelly’s Interview With Alex Jones (Report)

5:31 PM PDT 6/12/2017 by the Associated Press , THR Staff

Kelly has defended her decision to feature the ‘Infowars’ host on her NBC newsmagazine amid criticism from the families of Sandy Hook victims.
J.P. Morgan Chase has pulled its advertisements from NBC News in light of Megyn Kelly’s upcoming interview with Infowars host Alex Jones, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The company has decided to remove all of its TV and digital ads from all programming on the network until after the show airs on Sunday, according to the paper.

Kelly has defended her decision to feature Jones on her NBC newsmagazine despite taking heat Monday from families of Sandy Hook shooting victims and others, saying it’s her job to “shine a light” on newsmakers.

Critics argue that NBC’s platform legitimizes the views of a man who has suggested, among other conspiracy theories, that the killing of 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012 was a hoax. The network released a brief portion of the interview, which is scheduled to air on Sunday.

Kelly, who interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin on the June 4 premiere of Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly, said on Twitter that President Donald Trump has praised Jones and has been on his show. Since many people don’t know Jones and his views, Kelly noted the importance of explaining them. NBC hasn’t immediately commented on the criticism.

J.P. Morgan Chase’s chief marketing officer tweeted Monday that she was “repulsed” that Kelly would “give a second of airtime someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes.”

Nelba Marquez-Greene, whose 6-year-old daughter Ana Grace was killed at Sandy Hook, said she fears that giving Jones exposure would encourage his followers who have harassed her and others. “You can’t just put him in a box and say he’s just a character,” Marquez-Greene said. “He’s really hurting people.”

A year ago, a New York City man who was a follower of Jones was sentenced to probation after approaching a sister of slain Sandy Hook teacher Victoria Soto during a charity road race and angrily claiming the shootings never took place. On Facebook, Soto’s family said the “incessant need for ratings at the cost of the emotional well-being of our family is disgusting and disappointing.”

A writer for the conservative website Red State, Andrea Kutz, wondered, “What is Megyn Kelly thinking?”

“I’m a news and politics-engaged individual,” said Kutz, “but I don’t care to watch interviews with liars of either Putin’s or Jones’ ilk. These interviews aren’t interesting even in the abstract.”

In the interview clip released by NBC, Kelly said to Jones, “When you say people faked their children’s deaths, people get very angry.” When he tried to change the subject, Kelly said, “That’s a dodge.”

After the interview had been taped, Jones denounced it on Infowars as “fake news, in my view.” He said he expected a “rigged” report because a day’s worth of interviews will be boiled down to an 11-minute report. “They’re scared of what we’re covering,” he said. “They’re scared of what we’re doing.”

Jones also described Kelly as not feminine, cold and robotic. “I felt zero attraction to Megyn Kelly,” he said.

Among Kelly’s social media critics was Shannon Watts, the founder of the anti-gun violence group Moms Demand Action, who suggested that Kelly “turn your light off and let him back under the refrigerator.”

111 total views, no views today

D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

What to know about the latest lawsuit against Trump
Attorneys general for D.C. and Maryland filed a lawsuit against President Trump on June 12, alleging that he violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by retaining ownership of his company as president. (Video: Amber Ferguson,Jenny Starrs/Photo: Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)
By Aaron C. Davis June 12 at 10:47 AM
Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

[See the lawsuit filed Monday]

But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health.

The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges “unprecedented constitutional violations” by Trump. The suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the president “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors” and has undermined the integrity of the U.S. political system.

A look at President Trump’s first year in office, so far
Scenes from the Republican’s first months in the White House.
“Fundamental to a President’s fidelity to [faithfully execute his oath of office] is the Constitution’s demand that the President … disentangle his private finances from those of domestic and foreign powers. Never before has a President acted with such disregard for this constitutional prescription.”

The suit could open a new front for Trump as he navigates investigations by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and congressional committees of possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

[Democrats plan resolution to demand Trump divest from his business, but chances of passage are slim]
If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps will be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said. To fully know the extent of Trump’s constitutional violations “we’ll need to see his financial records, his taxes that he has refused to release.”

Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president’s apparent conflicts seriously.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said.

What you need to know about Trump and the Emoluments Clause
D.C. and Maryland plan to sue President Trump for violating a little-known constitutional provision called “the Emoluments Clause.” (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
The constitutional question D.C. and Maryland will put before a federal judge is whether Trump’s business holdings amount to violations of parts of the Constitution known as the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses.

To guard against foreign countries gaining sway over the new republic’s ambassadors in the late 1700s, drafters of the Constitution prohibited any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

In another part of the Constitution, framers sought to prevent a president from favoring one state over another, forbidding him from receiving any gift or emolument from a state and, instead, only the compensation approved by Congress.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is the latest and most significant legal challenge to Trump over the issue of emoluments. The first was filed in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a D.C.-based watchdog group. In March, a D.C. restaurant sued Trump, alleging the new Trump International Hotel in D.C. benefits from unfair advantages because of its close association with the president. And last week, a group of Democratic members of Congress said they plan to file suit soon. Each, however, has faced legal hurdles over standing to sue the president.

[The official who let Trump keep his government hotel deal explains herself[

In the Trump administration’s most detailed response yet, the Department of Justice filed a 70-page legal brief on Friday arguing the CREW lawsuit should be dismissed. The administration said Trump’s businesses are legally permitted to accept payments from foreign governments while he is in office. The filing held up the lack of past complaints — going all the way back to farm produce sold abroad by George Washington — to assert that market-rate payments for Trump’s real estate, hotel and golf companies do not constitute emoluments as defined by the Constitution.

Racine and Frosh, however, argue Trump’s violations are on scale never seen before and that both D.C. and Maryland are being adversely affected by the Trump hotel near the White House.

After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.

As a result, the hotel may be drawing business away from the taxpayer-owned D.C. convention center and one in nearby Maryland subsidized by taxpayers, Frosh and Racine argue.

Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said jurisdictions such as the District and Maryland are among the “most perfect plaintiffs” to sue over emoluments because they have a say in making sure the Constitution is being enforced.

“In the emoluments clauses, we have these ancient air bags that were placed in the Constitution by the framers that are now being deployed,” said Eisen, whose nonprofit has been advising the District and Maryland on their suit. “Trump is the framers’ worst-case scenario; a president who would seize office and attempt to exploit his position for personal financial gain with every governmental entity imaginable, across the United States or around the world.”

On the domestic side, the suit alleges Trump has received unconstitutional financial favors from the U.S. government. It says the U.S. General Services Administration, which handles federal real estate, wrongly allowed Trump’s company to continue to lease the Old Post Office building, where Trump built his D.C. hotel, even though a clause in the contract said no elected official could remain on the lease.

Despite promise, Trump’s business offers little information about foreign profit] [

The GSA initially said Trump would have to fully divest from the hotel after the election. But after Trump proposed increasing GSA’s budget, the suit says, the agency issued a letter saying Trump was in full compliance.

The suit also alleges that Trump is violating domestic emoluments by creating a situation in which states feel compelled to compete for Trump’s favor, perhaps by offering zoning exemptions, waivers or other benefits to help his businesses.

After initially saying the Trump organization would not pursue new deals while he was in office, Trump’s sons announced last week that the company would begin building a network of new hotels in mostly red states that he won in last year’s election.

The suit by D.C. and Maryland says the two jurisdictions are faced with an “intolerable dilemma”: to either go along with the Trump Organization getting special treatment, including possible lost local revenue, or “deny such requests and be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis states and other government entities that have granted or will agree to such concessions.”

The District and Maryland file the suit at great peril, Racine and Frosh allege, because the two have a disproportionately large percentage of federal workers and could be acutely affected by federal budget cuts that Trump could seek as retribution.

But Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As one of the original states that approved the Constitution, Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that had required its governors not to take any gifts from foreign governments or other.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Eisen said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

[While in White House, Trumps remained selling points for ‘very special’ Philippines project]

Racine and Frosh say that unless Trump is reined in under the emoluments clause, Americans can never be certain that, “underlying his travel ban, withdrawal from the Paris Accord climate deal or proposed tax cuts,” he is acting in the country’s best interest and not his own.

Strict adherence to the emoluments clauses, D.C. and Maryland argue, ensures “that Americans do not have to guess whether a President who orders their sons and daughters to die in foreign lands acts out of concern for his private business interests; they do not have to wonder if they lost their job due to trade negotiations in which the President has a personal stake; and they never have to question whether the President can sit across the bargaining table from foreign leaders and faithfully represent the world’s most powerful democracy, unencumbered by fear of harming his own companies.”

The suit seeks an injunction to force Trump to stop violating the Constitution, but leaves it up to the court to decide how that should be accomplished.

99 total views, no views today

Conservative David Frum: If Trump fires Mueller he should write ‘I’m super guilty’ in the sky over the White House

Tom Boggioni
12 Jun 2017 at 23:01 ET
Appearing in a panel discussion with MSNBC host Laurence O’Donnell, conservative David Frum said President Donad Trump’s threat to fire special counsel Robert Mueller would be a tacit admission that he is guilty.

With Trump ally Newt Gingrich calling for the firing of Mueller, Frum said Gingrich might enjoy that type of “apocalyptic” governance but it would be devastating to the White House.

“The independent counsel law was allowed to lapse last century because there were doubts of constitutionality,” Frum explained. “The special counsel is now under the president because people argued that the president could be trusted to investigate himself. If that turns out not to be true, then you are into political remedies of the most dire kind.”

“Maybe Newt Gingrich would welcome that because it’s kind of an apocalyptic scenario and he enjoys those,” Frum continued. “I don’t want to sound like I have the limited imagination you condemn, but if Trump fires Robert Mueller he might as well hire a sky writer to trace in smoke over the White House, ‘I am super guilty.’”

96 total views, no views today