QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Skip to Messages


Postal Clerk Discussions

^     All messages            20225-20240 of 20240  20209-20224 >>
82% Retired
08:02 PM ET (US)
/m20234 Stew That was an almost perfect post. Everything you said was perfectly true except, "And if you get up to leave and they don't let you, you have been arrested so calmly repeat your request." Postal managers do not have the power to arrest. If you are on-the-clock, you must follow supervisors instructions or be subject to discipline. You do not have to answer any questions, but you have to sit and listen. The postal advocate failed to mention three very forms that you may be asked to sign and acknowledge you understand what your rights are under different circumstances. (1) Miranda. That means it is criminal and you do not have to say anything. You can have a lawyer... (2) Garrity. Comes from Garrity v. New Jersey. Basically Miranda without the lawyer. (3) Kalkines. Under certain circumstances, an employee can be forced to make incriminating statements/answer questions that could incriminate them or face further discipline. However, the trade off is nothing the employee says can be used in a criminal proceeding. It can however, be used in any administrative proceeding that could result in discipline up to and including removal. You might want to read Kalkines v. The United States.
Stoopid Goobers
12:04 PM ET (US)
United you stand. Divided you fall. Doesn't sound like you guys are standing up to a bully. Where is this happening at?
Deleted by author 12-06-2017 06:35 PM
Stoopid Goobers
11:06 PM ET (US)
... and you excel at dropping to your knees for Trump.
Terry Strong
07:41 PM ET (US)
Sounding dumb. ..what X-stew excels at.
05:52 PM ET (US)
I forgot to mention that they may say right off 'this is an official discussion'. Contract says that an OD is not discipline so you cannot invoke Weingarten or nothing. Just sit there and look dumb if you want.
05:20 PM ET (US)
At work, that's right---you cannot.

I doubt any PO boss is gonna start off and tell you 'this chat may lead to discipline'. If so, you then can invoke Weingarten---they must get you a union rep before you chat, or stop talking, or reschedule till they can you a rep. If they keep talking, asking stuff without doing any of that, then they cannot use any info you give them against you. You cannot invoke the 5th and refuse to chat till you get a lawyer because the SC said we have Weingarten instead. And you must ask for a union rep, they do not have to offer.

Usually they'll say you must talk, must co-operate with their investigation. Or else. They may put a paper out telling you to sign, a 'sign-up sheet for the record to show you all met', but which really is a waiver of your Weingarten rights. Do not sign anything with no rep.

If they ask a bunch of questions and you suddenly feel that it has turned personal and you're now the target, you can then decide to invoke Weingarten at that point. Don't raise you voice, just ask for a union rep. And if you get up to leave and they don't let you, you have been arrested so calmly repeat your request.
03:04 PM ET (US)
I was told I can't invoke the 5th because I wasn't under arrest. Read your rights you can invoke the 5th if you are being interrogated...any conversation in that shithole is an interrogation, not to get personal and point a finger at anybody offering advice but when I am sitting in that room and being bullied I will beat the shit out of the person sitting across from me with whatever I can get my hands on. probably doesn't sound rational but the post office made me irrational.
Edited 10-16-2017 03:05 PM
01:09 PM ET (US)
"If you know anyone who was harmed by my original article on their 5th Amendments rights, and then they didn’t read my retraction the next day, please have them contact me and I’ll provide my “apology”.

It's not my job or anyone else's job to fix your mess. A moral ethical person would have done all possible to mitigate foreseeable harm. I'd have published a retraction, sent out alerts, and done everything humanly possible so no one suffered for my error given the fact that not only did you publish it, you told them they should put in their wallet and defy PO investigation on your say so! How wrong can you possibly be? Your behavior's the difference between a union steward and pseudo lawyer. We care, you just pretend to.

And I don't know how I missed this. Given you don't care to know the distinctions between the 5th and Weingarten, not between clerks and carriers, I had to ask who thinks like that? A boss! Not saying you ever made it past 204-B, but your arrogance and ignorance screams mgt! Hell even your alternate login in 'real PMG' says what you wished for.

And you're happy you got kicked off those other boards, and your old ad got printed where you might get more clients. Any press is good press huh? Only thing missing from that blatant ad is you holding a bag of money with the words 'Call me today!'

You no longer refer to yourself as 'a representative in administrative law'. Why? Was that part of the charge that made you go dark, something like 'practicing law without a licence'?

11 whole years in PO? Everyone here knows people who left PO that early. Reason was never good.
Postal Employee Advocate
08:35 PM ET (US)
m /20229
The image you posted is merely a screen shot of my stagnant web page. It would have been added by either Tom or Lu when I submitted my article on Restricted Sick Leave or Deems Desirable. I did not add that screen shot to my article when I submitted it. So, no, it’s not an ad that I posted or paid for. Nevertheless, thank you for posting it. You probably helped people find me.
With regard to PEN and Rick Owens, he didn’t want me to post any contact information, which he viewed as advertising. Clearly, he’s a capitalist and is primarily interested in making money on his web site over providing accurate advice and information. I provided expert advice on the EEO forum without charging anyone a dime. He couldn’t see that having an expert on his forums would actually bring more activity, thereby increasing traffic. The more traffic he has, the more he could charge for advertisers. When I tried to explain that to him, he deleted my post. I’m not going to pay him, or anyone, for the privilege of giving others free advice. There are plenty of other postal-related web sites that are more than happy to post my articles and participation in discussion forums.

m /20230
I grow weary of having to keep responding to your misinformation and nonsensical posts. Reread my post about my objection to the Joint Statement. I said that I opposed it at NALC national convention. I said nothing about whether the Clerk craft agreed to it or not. Putting words in my mouth seems to be the best that you’ve got.
If you know anyone who was harmed by my original article on their 5th Amendments rights, and then they didn’t read my retraction the next day, please have them contact me and I’ll provide my “apology”. Of course, there is no one that was harmed, and your contention is merely self-righteous speculation.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I presented oral argument to the Special Panel (I’m sure you have no idea what that is) against the agency’s Chief Managing Counsel; which I won. My name is connected to many EEO and MSPB decisions, currently contained in their legal publications. So, you’re probably right, I shouldn’t represent anyone legally ever.
08:01 AM ET (US)
No I saw that too. Just had to wait for your next pile of excuses. Several things:

First, it's inexcusable you could ever have had made that huge an error. Inexcusable! Weingarten is day 1 education for all stewards and yet to claim to have been a union official! There's a clear lie there. Since it was decided in 1975, it's not possible for me to accept you ever even worked for any federal agency. It's the kind of error a poser trying to insinuate himself into a group would make like not knowing APWU never signed that Violence Statement. How the hell can you be in PO for more than a day and yet not know both those things? Answer: you can't. And not hold himself out to be someone we should believe in and send money to.

Second, no one can easily catch all those poor souls who have clipped that, and carry it with them to this very day as you so arrogantly instructed them to do. But you totally owe it to them to do to try! I mean, you laid down those errant words as if you distilled them from many legal decisions yourself. What an ass! So the very least you could do is put out a public notice that you regret how wrong you were, tell them to throw it away, and offer to make whole anyone who got in trouble for following your bone-headed advise. That's what the situation calls for. Honesty and responsibility---2 concepts foreign to you.

Third, you used to post your name and phone number. And called yourself an "Administrative Law Representative". What? No cell #? No address? Clearly trolling as hard as you can to recoup all those clients you lost when you were forced to go dark for describing yourself as an "Administrative Law Representative". HA! As if you could represent anyone legally ever. Another public apology is mandatory for that too.

Now if you do all those things, you still won't be welcome here by me. You should not have to be told to do these things. An honest honorable person would have made those corrections with no delay at all. And most important, would not try to take advantage of postal workers by pretending to have nothing but our best interests at heart. You sure got an odd way to do that huh? Misrepresent yourself, get whacked for it, but still hide out where you hope to grab clients without those who caught and whacked you will not notice. Dishonorable and disgusting.
Stoopid Goobers
07:55 AM ET (US)


Click image to enlarge.

Well, would you look at this, he used to advertise here but now he doesn't.

Why pay for advertising when you can come here and pretend to be a nice guy here just trying to help out those in need. This is why Rick Owens kicked him off of the Postal Employee Network forums when he boldly stated he wasn't gonna pay anyone to advertise his services. Imagine that.

Now tell us again how you don't financially benefit from your offered services.
Edited 10-09-2017 08:10 AM
Stoopid Goobers
07:30 AM ET (US)
PEA - You are not here looking to offer free advice but are actively trolling for business. These forums are provided by PostalMag.com and if you weren't looking for a free ride to troll for clients you would advertise with them. Anything less is dishonorable and representative of your true character. The reality is you are trying to gain finacially from your time spent here without paying your way. Quit being a freeloader trying to drum up business. You stand to profit from your efforts. Your motives are far from altruistic.

Those are the facts.
Edited 10-09-2017 07:34 AM
Postal Employee Advocate
12:31 AM ET (US)
You’ve gone to some extraordinary lengths to try to discredit me, including providing deceptive and incomplete information. The article/forum response that you’ve taken time to research, was supplemented the very next day with a correction. Therein I stated, “Proving that I don’t know everything and am still a student, I’ve been schooled regarding how the 5th Amendment applies to federal employees when they are being interviewed during an official investigation. Under certain circumstances federal employees DO have to waive their 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination in administrative matters.” And in a more recent post I pointed out that the lesson I learned was to research my subject matter more carefully before I wrote an article.
If you found the article I wrote about 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination, why didn’t you also cite the correction I made the very next day? It’s because you are a deceptive mis-information agent. I was able to admit that I was wrong right away and corrected it. To me, it’s more important to give the most accurate information possible, rather than try to insist that I’m right, no matter what. You seem incapable of ever admitting that you’re wrong.
I’d also like to comment on your absurd assertion that I don’t know what Weingarten rights are. Weingarten does not prevent you from self-incrimination. It only permits an employee to have a union steward present if a management interview could possibly lead to discipline. However, I can’t tell you how many people have informed me that their steward just sits there like a lump. Some stewards don’t even bother to take notes during the interview.
As for your objection that I use “law” in my title, reveals that you have no idea what administrative law is. There’s nothing in administrative law that an attorney can do that I’m prohibited from doing. In fact, the more you post, the more you reveal how little you really know. It’s probably best that you keep your views to yourself and allow people to believe that you’re an idiot, rather than express your views and prove it.
02:50 PM ET (US)
/m20225 Why you are not to be trusted or believed.

You claim to have been a union official but are ignorant of Weingarten, something a day one steward would know. You tell craft members they can invoke the 5th but that is 100% wrong and could lead to removal.

And then you sign as below, using the word 'law' when you've no right to do so as I'm sure you were told, thus the one year of 'going dark'. Just imagine all who followed your words and not only tried to invoke the 5th, but as you told them to do, cut this speech out and have it on them to be a purported shield. You can try to backtrack now but that won't help anyone who does as you told them to do.

<iJ.R. Pritchett,
     Administrative Law Representative
     (208) 254-9196

cut here
“Since you have advised me that my responses could result in discipline or removal from the Postal Service, I invoke my 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination, and respectfully decline to respond to any questions.”
fold and place in wallet or purse/i>
Edited 10-08-2017 02:51 PM
Postal Employee Advocate
06:59 PM ET (US)
To Stoopid Goobers,
“He should be competent enough to defend himself.” I’ve done that several times and had three of you gang up on me. You even accused me of being “dishonorable”, remember that? But as soon as someone else stands up for me (thank you Rivkah) you infer that I can’t defend myself.
The real problem is that you, and the other two (X-Stew & mulligan2), are offended when I call you out on your misinformation campaign.
I must confess that I am a bit confused when you assert that you’re “Just pointing out some basic facts.” Could you enlighten us a little further exactly what “facts” you’ve been pointing out? All I’ve seen from you so far is personal attacks and suppositions. Your posts have been completely devoid of any actual “facts”.
^     All messages            20225-20240 of 20240  20209-20224 >>

Print | RSS Views: 772246 (Unique: 125425 ) / Subscribers: 51 | What's this?