WEATHER »

Comments by JoeHill

Previous | Page 2 of 10 | Next

Posted on January 1 at 9:21 a.m.

Y'all who disagree with my analysis of the DC Circuit miss the following points:

1. The Court ignored the actual facts and evidence in the record, and actually stated that they need not opine about the individual unfair labor practices found by the NLRB.

2.In the course of #1 above, they abandoned the deference they are supposed to afford administrative agencies like the NLRB, which they acknowledge and then don't follow.That deference is how Republicans (and Democrats) are supposed to treat administrative agency decisions on review, especially when they are, as in this case, clearly supported by substantial evidence in the record.The court instead invented a new legal concept, as in Bush v.Gore, to get to the preordained result it wanted to reach.

3. They ignored their own precedent and that of SCOTUS on the issues of First Amendment protection against NLRA rules for a newspaper publisher, and on the protected nature of a boycott, which they stated was protected activity, some 20 years ago.

4. In doing 1, 2, and 3, they acted as "activist" result-oriented judges, which is not the way Republicans say their appointed judges are supposed to act. This reveals the decision for the corrupt product that it is, if 1, 2 and 3 weren't enough.

On Wendy's Win

Posted on December 25 at 11:20 p.m.

The point of the NLRB cases is not about the content of the paper, but about a court looking for a reason to help out an outlaw employer, even when its own lawyers were not up to the task of defending it. The unfair labor practicescommitted by Wendy & Company are standard labor law violations; you just don't ordinarily see so many committed by one employer in a relatively small workplace. And one of the NLRB members who agreed that the N-P had committed the multiple violations was a Republican management lawyer appointee.

The DC Circuit reached beyond the comprehensive evidentiary record and the confines of precedent from SCOTUS and its own annals to help out a miscreant employer, in unprecedented fashion. The only thing missing from McCaw's First Amendment defense was evidence: the NLRB found, relying on evidence, that the reasons for which the eight reporters were discharged were either pretexts (i.e., lies to cover up anti-union motivation) or retaliation NOT for alleged attacks on managerial prerogative, but for protected activity. McCaw's half dozen lawyers mustered not a shred of evidence to contradict that conclusion, and Steepleton admitted that all of the reasons for firing the eight were contained in the letters he wrote and gave to them. None of those letters said word one about McCaw's purported concern about threats to her editorial prerogatives. So the First Amendment was a "post hoc" defense cooked up by lawyers who didn't bother to prove it.

People sucking up to Wendy claim the NLRB is biased; all of the judges favoring Wendy thus far have had an "R" next to their names, and as noted above, one Republican NLRB member voted in favor of the employees and union. Republicans are supposed to believe in the force of precedent, but these three pretended the Supreme Court's ruling saying newspapers had to obey labor law, and the DC Circuit's precedent saying employee boycotts are protected, never happened. These judges' hostility to unions, collective bargaining and the NLRB, and willingness to bend over backwards to help employers and discard the deference they're supposed to show to NLRB rulings, have been demonstrated time and again. This decision is a travesty of justice, nothing less.

On Wendy's Win

Posted on December 25 at 9:47 p.m.

maven, All NLRB appeals may be determined in either the DC Circuit or here the unfair labor practices occurred, which in this case would be the Ninth. The N-P was able to do some "forum-shopping", and chose the DC Circuit, known for its anti-NLRB, nti-union hostility and its 2-1 ratio of R's to D's.

On Wendy's Win

Posted on December 24 at 10 p.m.

This case was never about private property rights; there is not one word about that in the DC Circuit case. What it was about was McCaw trying to destroy the union and banish its supporters, which is supposed to be illegal in this country, as it has been for more than 75 years; the First Amendment offers no special defense or protection for newspapers, as the Supreme Court declared in 1937. And as I note above, the DC Circuit, including two members of the panel who decided this case last week, stated in 1992 that boycott activity is protected by the same federal labor law. What this Court did was decide, for the first time ever, to unprotect activity that has long been held protected, and expand the First Amendment to turn it into a weapon by which newspapers can lash out against union supporters, rather than just use it for protection against government encroachment into what it may or may not publish.That is the very definition of judicial activism, which conservatives are not supposed to practice, but often do in the name of anti-unionism. Regardless of what the law dictates.

On Mark One for McCaw

Posted on December 21 at 12:59 p.m.

@JohnLocke It is NOT illegal for employees to advocate boycott of their employer; it is in fact activity protected by federal labor law. Indeed, two of the three members of the same cynical panel that decided the News-Press case this week said as much in a case they participated in 20 years ago. The fact that they didn't even refer to their own precedent that was squarely against the result they wanted to reach -- which was cited to them by the parties and would not have escaped their notice -- shows the political character of this decision.

Moreover, the panel deliberately and consciously distorted (and omitted certain of) the facts, equally to suit their preordained purpose.

On Mark One for McCaw

Posted on December 19 at 10:21 p.m.

The point of the NLRB cases is not about the content of the paper, but about a court loking for a reason to help out an outlaw employer, even when its own lawyers were not up to the task of defending it. The DC Circuit reached beyond the comprehensive evidentiary record and the confines of precedent from SCOTUS and its own annals to help out a miscreant employer, in unprecedented fashion. The only thing missing from McCaw's First Amendment defense was evidence: the NLRB found, relying on evidence, that the reasons for which the eight reporters were discharged were either pretexts (i.e., lies to cover up anti-union motivation) or retaliation NOT for alleged attacks on managerial prerogative, but for protected activity. McCaw's half dozen lawyers mustered not a shred of evidence to contradict that conclusion, and Steepleton admitted that all of the reasons for firing the eight were contained in the letters he wrote and gave to them. None of those letters said word one about McCaw's purported concern about threats to her editorial prerogatives. So the First Amendment was a "post hoc" defense cooked up by lawyers who didn't bother to prove it.

People sucking up to Wendy claim the NLRB is biased; all of the judges favoring Wendy thus far have had an "R" next to their names, and one Republican NLRB member voted in favor of the employees and union. Republicans are supposed to believe in the force of precedent, but these three pretended the Supreme Court's ruling saying newspapers had to obey labor law, and the DC Circuit's precedent saying employee boycotts are protected, never happened. These judges' hostility to unions, collective bargaining and the NLRB, and willingness to bend over backwards to help employers and discard the deference they're supposed to show to NLRB rulings, have been demonstrated time and again. This decision is a travesty of justice, nothing less.

On Mark One for McCaw

Posted on June 8 at 10:46 p.m.

SezMe, I don't share your understandable pessimism. Wendy's just about at the end of the road with the Roberts case, and she's not going to be able to escape NLRB enforcement for that much longer. I for one, plan to be alive and kicking when the reporters are asked to return, and management -- maybe even new management -- is compelled to mend its law-defying ways.

On Dog in the Manger or Mangy Dog?

Posted on June 7 at 9:36 p.m.

The News-Press was definitely hurt by its own misdeeds over the last six years. Local newspapers should have done better, not worse, than urban papers have done, since they provide a commodity -- local news -- that isn't readily available, and it had been dominant until management decided to attack its own newsroom, and then lie about what they'd done under oath to the NLRB.

As for the reporters who were illegally fired, threatened, and surveilled, and who have not been able to get any collective bargaining protection because of management's blatant violations of federal labor law, Wendy's comeuppance is still in the offing as several cases (from which Cappello has been relieved) wind their way through the system.

On Dog in the Manger or Mangy Dog?

Posted on June 2 at 5:40 p.m.

Nick, any chance of posting the complaint?

It seems likely that: 1) Cappello tried to resolve the undoubtedly long-standing mounting arrears and was not successful; 2) McCaw will hire another high-priced firm to defend her delinquency, so 3) will she charge Cappello with malpractice, since Cappello hasn't been very successful in many of his various defenses (and no doubt has actually collected millions from her in the course of his representation), and she is allergic to accepting any responsibility whatsoever for all that has befallen her as a result of what she's done?

On Barry Cappello Sues Wendy McCaw

Posted on February 24 at 1:19 p.m.

Well said, Pagurus! McCaw revels in her ignorance and arrogance, flaunting her power and defying (by delaying) justice. But as MLK said, the arc of history bends toward justice, and here's a small measure of it.

On Editor Wins, McCaw Loses

Previous | Page 2 of 10 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: