Oh, here we go again! There is a federal law that allows the government to opt out of a contract all together!<quoted text>
I know 100% for sure you haven't asked a councilor about union contracts.
You see you can't touch or take anything away from a contract unless you want the city to be sued for millions of dollars.
The union would have to agree to it.
That is a federal labor law, sorry.
#22 Oct 29, 2013
#23 Oct 29, 2013
I am stalking Kevin Lynch does anyone know where he is at?
#24 Oct 31, 2013
hes on top of Jtn
#25 Oct 31, 2013
Oh, really? And which law is that? Tell us. You are so completely clueless. You shoot your mouth off without any idea of what your talking about. Your mouth is just a big sewer pipe connected to your mosquito-sized brain. For good or bad, any changes to a contract have to be bargained and the City Council doesn't have any part in those negotiiations. By law. What an idiot you are. Did you make it out of second grade?
#26 Oct 31, 2013
NO ! Sorry dumb shit. Ask a fellow councilor. You did do that right?
Contracts cannot be broken, ever.
#27 Oct 31, 2013
The federal government protects unions during what is called “bargaining”. It is just the opposite of what Lynch thinks. The city has to ‘bargain” in what is called “good faith”.
Sorry Lynch, the councilors do not get to view the contents of a contract it is against Federal law. They only see the dollar amounts.
Only the Mayor, Department head and the Union officers negotiate or otherwise what is officially called “collective bargaining”.
Once the Mayor and the Department head reaches an agreement with the Union it is basically a done deal but the city bylaws state it must be voted on by the city council which is really just a technicality.
When a contract is approved it is called “Ratified”.
The council doesn’t really have that much power to reject the contract afterwards because before negotiating starts the council will have a “Vote of Confidence” in the Mayor’s ability to negotiate. This is also a legal binding vote. If the Mayor does not get a “Vote of Confidence” this will delay negotiations and is a win for the Union. The union can have a lawsuit against the city for NOT “bargaining in good faith”.
In other words they are stating whatever the Mayor agrees upon that they have given the Mayor a PRE-APPROVAL that they will also agree with the Mayor no matter what the outcome is.
The Union on the other side of what is called the “Table” always gives a “Vote of Confidence” in their union officers to “bargain in good faith”.
If the council ever rejects a contract then the Union can have a major lawsuit and it will be an expensive loss for the city. It could cost the city millions of dollars.
The only time the council MAY get to see an article in the contract is IF the members want to change the wording of the article, but it doesn’t pertain if the dollar amount changes though only if the wording changes.. This is called “Opening up the Contract”.
The union members have to vote to “open up the contract” and trust me this is never done to keep councilors and other peeping eyes such as yours from seeing the articles.
Once an article is in the contract it is there forever UNLESS the Mayor wants to change it. The union has to agree to changing it or removing it and the union will ALWAYS get something in return.
Lynch this is why there is entire course in college for “Collective bargaining with Unions” in the business, political and law degree programs. If the Mayor doesn’t know what they are doing and reading (the wording is very technical) then the city will lose millions of dollars in fines and penalties.
#28 Oct 31, 2013
To keep it simple so you will understand. FEDERAL LABOR LAWS are in place to protect employees NOT the employee.
Early in the industrial era employers were taking advantage of their employees and punished them if they joined a union. So FEDERAL LABOR LAWS are in favor and protect the UNIONS not the local government.
So the city is an employer and if they break the FEDERAL LABOR LAWS which also covers and protect the unions and their contracts they will be breaking FEDERAL LAWS and will be sued by the employees.
#29 Oct 31, 2013
The Mayor could have eliminated/made null and void the FPD contract under Federal law. The citizens pay for public safety needs. The FPD is failing as the state police and the Feds have had to cover the public safety needs for Fitchburg.
Along with major corruption the Mayor has an absolute right to null and void the Union contract as a matter of public safety interests.
The Tasca incident and then my situation along with police working with drug dealers is more than enough evidence to null and void the FPD contract. Plus there is a law under the Patriot act that allows the Mayor to null and void the contract.
You are wrong. In Rhode Island the Mayor utilized such laws to force the Union to make major changes.
You need to know how to play hardball. The FPD has failed public safety needs of the citizens of Fitchburg in other words they have not held up their end of the bargain!
Under the Federal law I believe only 40% of existing officers can be rehired at most under this law which makes a lot of sense.
The Union sign is also in violation of public safety and the FPD contract with the city.
#30 Oct 31, 2013
There are many incidents of evidence tampering, destruction of police reports, improper behavior concerning detainees, a serious decrease/lack of drug arrest when the city is overrun with drug deals. No finger printing of Murder scenes, improper detective work and the list goes onward! Allowing EMTs to handle evidence.
#31 Oct 31, 2013
The council does have a voice. I believe that there may be something concerning the Tasca files which involves the Chief and the Mayor.
Agreeing not to disclose is a violation of the law in and of itself especially where she used the publics money to investigate and then called the Tasca guy a criminal thief.
And then the Tasca guy admitted to the improper use of comp time at a very large scale throughout the department to the point the Mayor stated a accounting log was changed! This is serious business.
Yes, the Mayor dropped the ball but why?? What happened? Did they have dirt on Demoura and Wong? This is the consensus and this is when the City council can definitely step in!
#32 Oct 31, 2013
I, myself can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the FPD completely severed the communities trust!
As a council I would suggest for the city council to vote a lack of confidence concerning the FPD. Then request for the Mayor to apply the appropriate Federal laws to null and void the FPD contract. Then explain the rules of the city being held by law to not be able to rehire more than 40% of the current officers.
They all would need to reapply and a new contract would be laid out. We may have to hire an outside police force to police the city. The number of lawsuits due to unethical police work is a major factor.
There is absolutely no accountability within the FPD in policing their own force. They spend the publics money by the tens of thousands to enact cover ups of illegal activity by many members of the FPD.
#33 Nov 1, 2013
Hey loser don't like the city leave, the FPD is very qualified to arrest criminals, they arrested you didn't they
#34 Nov 1, 2013
What federal law are you talking about? Please cite it. I won't hold my breath. As usual, you make this stuff up and throw it out in the hope that someone will believe that you know what what you're talking about. But no one ever does.
And "the Mayor has an absolute right to null and void the Union contract as a matter of public safety interests?" What on earth is this? The sentence doesn't even make sense.
And the Patriot Act? "In violation of public safety"? Lynch, you just make stuff up in that crazy mind of yours and then think that it actually exists.
The only thing that can affect a union contract is if a city files bankruptcy. While Detroit has, no city in Massachusetts has filed for bankruptcy since Fall River did it in 1929. Even when the state appointed financial control boards in Chelsea and Springfield the union contracts were not voided.
You are not telling the truth. You never tell the truth.
#35 Nov 1, 2013
Once again, Kevin, you are talking nonsense. The paragraph above is based on your contention that you were wrongfully arrested and that you are some kind of master detective. Which everyone knows is just not true.
#36 Nov 1, 2013
You can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" You have had 2 1/2 years to prove all of your charges about the FPD, the sheriff, the court, the mayor, et al. You haven't. No one has believed you because everyone knows that you are delusional, don't tell the truth and make things up. You have had over four years to prove your contention that the RMV is unconstitutional. You haven't because in addition to not telling the truth about your run-in with them, you are just plain wrong. You have had 21 years to prove that your manslaughter conviction (Don't start. a guilty plea is the same as a conviction.) incarceration was wrong and somehow politically motivated. You haven't.
Your usual response to these criticisms is to ask if someone believes it's OK to falsely arrest people or file false reports. It isn't. But none of that ever happened in your case.
If you sincerely believe that the City Council should take a no confidence vote in the FPD, file a petition with the City Clerk to ask them to do so. Even someone as crazy as you has that right. But you won't. Because then everyone, not just Topix readers, would have to chance to see just how crazy and untruthful you really are.
#37 Nov 1, 2013
No. The Mayor could not void a contract. She would be breaking the Federal Laws.
This isn't about playing hardball. This is about being a law abiding entity.
This is why you always get into to trouble. You always cannot go do whatever you want even though you think it is right.
Stop worrying about what you think and start looking at the legal aspects of any situation.
You won't find yourself behind that beat up sliding heavy metal door if you start doing that.
#38 Nov 1, 2013
No. YOU think that the FPD is failing. Not us. Don't include the rest of the city in your thoughts.
The State police is in every city. Do you know why they have troopers in the city?
Because they have a STATEWIDE gang unit. Everyone has seen the undercover trooper in the black pickup.
Do you know why there are troopers in marked cruisers in the city?
Because they HAVE to patrol any state road or highways. Rte.12, Rte.2A, Rte.31 is not a city roadway.
Do you realize if our local police pull over and write a ticket for a moving violation that the STATE receives the revenue from the ticket, NOT the city?
The city only receives revenue on parking tickets. Nothing else.
#39 Nov 1, 2013
Lynch, I see you tried to shave a year off your jail sentence in todays paper. Along with pointing out that some of your co-defendants were found not guilty. Which means you must have been wicked guilty. But wasn't there also a 1 or 2 year sentence for something else you got credit for? What was that crime?
#40 Nov 1, 2013
Lynch the Federal government PROTECTS the workers and that includes city employees, unions and their contracts.
The Federal government does not allow a city to void a contract. Maybe you think the city has this power they don't.
The city is looked upon by the Federal government as an employer just like they look at private sector employers.
The city does not have any special powers to void a contract.
Sorry, Lynch, I know you want to be councilor just because you want to see the contracts, BUT you don't get to see them. Even the councilors in office now only see the dollar amounts.
Unless you want to sue the Federal government you will never see the contents of a contract.
Being a Mayor or Councilor does not mean that they become the BOSS of the city employees and can do whatever they want to.
A councilor really has no legal power at all. Our city bylaws state we have a council that is the only reason.
Ask our city attorney. He will tell you if the council does not vote in favor of a contract after the Mayor has agreed with the union the city will be sued by the union and the union will win.
Only the Mayor has legal authority in the city and that is limited as she HAS to follow federal laws concerning employees.
Why do you think she has a degree in business, law and political science? You have to know the laws.
#41 Nov 1, 2013
Yes, the FPD is failing. Your department does not make the necessary arrest. I was at both safety meetings. I applaud a certain group of officers but as quiet as it gets even you know the ones that are corrupt.
The drug dealers circle the college neighborhood streets and sell drugs, you cannot say that you do not see them.
There is a new pill drug dealer and you cannot tell me you guys do not who it is as their customers park illegally and at all times of the night.
And we all know who the guy in the black truck is as we seen a major drug dealer throw a bag of trash onto his truck when he stopped. The night of the shooting there was a black truck with lights on at the site of the shooter.
We have been told which cops are on the take of drug dealers. Other drug dealers state that they grew up with all the FPD.
There is nothing illegal concerning such relations as that is normal. Nut this is why I support officers from outside of Fitchburg.
The State police have been very visible within Fitchburg for awhile now, Thank God! They make many of the arrest and they confiscate many guns.
The FPD told a room full of active citizens that they use decoy cars and a detective knocks on the drug dealers door when they first get a tip of drug sales. Anyone that can think for themselves knew that this was a lie especially this group which watches the drug activity and reports its goings on constantly detail for detail.
The group requested for the DARE program or a similar program to be implemented and they were brushed off by the community officer. Gun buy back was also brushed off. It is obvious that there is a self interest only behavior within this department.
Yes, Keith Bourne and a few officers within his group are proactive. The sign that was posted was not professional and was actually self defeating.
We have to use the OT and massive holiday pay account for additional officers. But as I stated when there were 92, the economy was good in the state but not in Fitchburg as crime was also very high. It is management, mutual respect between the FPD and the community is vital. Officers have to be told that they are being watched all the time by the public.
In fact, I know keith Bourne is physically aggressive. He needs to get control of that. I like Keith Bourne and I feel that he is a very good police officer. There are many very good police officers on the FPD. My point is that if it is under 40% then there is a problem which it is at present.
I think Keith would make a good Chief. The new officers are good for Fitchburg but we must keep them away from the bad officers. Someone in the FPD knows what group of officers that I am talking about. I agree with putting these bad officers in West Fitchburg and in other rural areas where there is little crime as they are out of the way of the professional officers.
Add your comments below
|Charlie Baker for governor||5 hr||Motorized Mayhem||10|
|A change of culture at Fitchburg Police Dept. -... (Nov '10)||8 hr||J Edgar Lynch||268|
|Lynch request for court case to be brought forw... (Jul '13)||16 hr||Running out of Time||53|
|Main street proposal will set Fitchburg back 40...||Sun||Lynch for Mayor||17|
|Wong takes chiefs job||Sun||Jnt||5|
|MA Who do you support for Governor in Massachusett... (Oct '10)||Sep 28||Malden Resident||1,167|
|Woman's husband likes to wear pantyhose - Senti... (Jul '08)||Sep 26||Keeping an Open Mind||47|
Find what you want!
Search Fitchburg Forum Now