Saturday, March 19, 2011

First Group affiliates pay $4.3M settlement|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Concerns raised over some of Hello L.O.’s comments

Jeri Ellsworth video depecting the stupidity of Trimet management gets 20,000+ views!

Oregon Coast must prepare for repeat of the Great Cascadia Earthquake of 1700 (links)


Plan to support Japan pushes stock futures up

Reports Of “Harmless” Radiation Reaching California Are a Whitewash


Outside the Box TV covers the JTTF PROTEST 3-10-11


Hello Jay-

Appreciate your time and open mindedness in this procedure.
Here is the National Labor Relations board ruling.
Pay particular attention to this section please:

"The NLRB complaint also alleged that the company maintained overly-broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting, and communications between employees, and that it had illegally denied union representation to the employee during an investigatory interview shortly before the employee posted the negative comments on her Facebook page.

Under the terms of the settlement approved today by Hartford Regional Director Jonathan Kreisberg, the company agreed to revise its overly-broad rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions. "

Original link to the NLRB:

AP story about it:

And here is the video itself, {NO PUBLIC VIEWING ALLOWED}

You will see the video is critical of Neil MacFarlane̢۪s attempt to change our health care coverage. I am clearly using this video to illustrate our abusive working conditions, and discussions such as this are protected under the NLRB ruling. There was obviously no "intent" to create any sort of disrespectful workplace for the person whose voice is in that video

I also contend that Trimet's internet's rules are most definitely "overly broad" and need to be more specific in nature.

All the discussions and letters were about my PHYSICAL PRESENCE when filming at Trimet.
There was never any mention or hint that public domain material (such as over the air dispatch communications) were part of that agenda.

Anybody can listen and publish an over the air communication, whether it be police, fire, or Trimet.

How can I can I obtain "express permission" when I have no idea who it was on that dispatch call?

To this day I have no idea who that was.
Thanks for your consideration into this matter.


MARCH 18 from al m on Vimeo.


MAX DANCING!-(not my videos Trimet, leave me alone!)


As the meeting with Jay got going, it became apparent that he had been convinced that I had been “warned” to get express permission before “making” an audio or video recording of any Trimet employee.

I then endeavored to explain to him that “making” meant my physical presence at the workplace with my camera, on or off duty.  He was under the impression that “making” means using any visual or auditory file where ever it may appear, including public domain material.

I then attempted to explain that there had never been any discussion around my use of public domain material until the letter from Robert Romo, where he made the statement “that is incorrect”.
The first letter had absolutely no reference to public domain material, but Jay seemed to think that “making” means posting anything, weather I personally made it or not.
“I am responsible for anything I post on my blog” is what I remember him saying. And if I post anything that uses pictures etc without permission then I am violation of HR202. (I continue to believe that this is absolutely not legally enforceable but that will require a court action)

I also tried to reference the HR investigation, which clearly delineated “scope” of policy with its ultimate ruling.
A-Not on Trimet equipment
B-Not on company time.
C-Not protected information.
D-I did not represent myself as speaking for Trimet.

Jay was not interested in any of that.
We wrestled back and forth about these issues. By the end of the meeting it did appear that he had opened up his mind to my point of view. He requested further information, which I have sent to him
So we will see, Jeff Ackerson seemed to think it went as well as could be expected, and he thinks Jay is a good judge of facts.

Hopefully he will be right.


Rules, train orders, and more