Vicky Bradshaw's EEEC

Why that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones should not be confirmed by the Senate

Terminated Lawyer Fights Back Against Agency
by Marie Anne Hogarth, The Recorder.
“...political appointees have colluded with employers to water down worker protections in an underhanded way.”
Well, why doesn't someone take a hard look at the decisions and actions of republican political appointees Victoria Bradshaw, Jose Millan (before he was banished to the kiddie college), Donna Dell (she's gone, too), and that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones? Let's line up all of their decisions and put them into three columns: unrelated, employer, and employee. This can go a long way towards transparent accountability.

“Robert Jones, the state Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement's new chief counsel, put him [Locker] on paid suspension and ordered him out. A state peace officer followed Locker home and seized his laptop”
What does this action tell me? That wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones had the option to intimidate or low-key it. He chose the option of intimidation. Abuse of position, abuse of authority? Probably. The actions of a bully? You decide.

“…poked fun at the Schwarzenegger administration over its proposed "emergency" regulations on meal and rest breaks”
When Arnold and his DLSE lackeys (Bradshaw, Dell, Millan, et al) concurred that these much-needed regulations were an 'emergency,' then that allowed the DLSE lackeys to bypass the normal implementation process of rule-making. In their ever-growing pattern of rescinding incompetent decisions, i.e. take-backs, Arnold's DLSE lackeys rescinded their idiot 'emergency' [workers taking their meal periods posed an 'imminent' {issuance of emergency regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act} threat to life, health and safety] rules ten days after they tried to walk it in through the back door! If it was truly an emergency, then why didn't they have the stones to argue their case? In another pattern of their competence, they throw something on the wall to see if it sticks, hoping it will not be challenged. When they are challenged, they run away like scared rabbits or lose in court. Idiot decisions that should have been never formulated waste time, money, and resources. Once again, the taxpayers got shafted. Instead of working of something constructive, they are drafting inept policies or losing in court...not very productive & costing the taxpayer money - in time and resources.

“Jones bristles at the suggestion he is anti-worker.”
Is it possible for someone to ‘bristle’ with joy?

“Jones sent a memo prohibiting DLSE staff from public speaking,”
Why is that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones issuing “no speak” memos to DLSE lawyers? Why does that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones have such a stiffy for stifling DLSE employees’ free speech?

“Jones has since rescinded the ban”
Why is wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones issuing a 'no-speak' memo and only rescinding it when it’s about to be challenged in court? How come that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones did not have the stones to justify issuing his memo in court? What kind of cowardice is that? Can I send him a memo stating that he's an A-hole and then rescind it right before I'm punished for discourteous treatment? After all, I took it back; aren't take-backs allowed like Jones' no speak order? If he can do it, then I can do it, right?

I’ve been in public service for a very long time…do you know how many memos I’ve issued that have been rescinded? ZERO, NONE, ZILCH. From what clown store did Secretary Vickie Bradshaw get this guy? Do you know what the act of Robert Jones rescinding his memo tells me? It tells me that this guy likes to shoot without aiming, hoping that some of his bullsh*t will not be challenged. Do you think Victoria Bradshaw ever admonished Robert Jones for writing such a jack-ass memo? Doubt it, because the memo had no other purpose than to squelch DLSE attorneys from public speaking. How many other memos has that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones rescinded?

FRAUD, WASTE, and ABUSE. How much time and how many resources were spent dealing & resolving a memo that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones should have never issued in the first place? That wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones should pay a bill to the taxpayers in the exact amount that was spent dealing with his rescinded memo, from beginning to end. If this genius doesn't have the brains to think through a memo, then signs it, sends it and subsequently rescinds it, then he should pay a price (i.e., be held accountable) for his mistake to the taxpayers, albeit "unintentional" (yeah right).

I suggest that Victoria Bradshaw strip Robert Jones of his computer keyboard and return him to the pencil and eraser…just in case he cannot think through his next BIG IDEA. What a tool. It seems that this guy does nothing but destroy DLSE morale, reduce DLSE productivity, and decrease DLSE efficiency. In other words, he's leaving this agency WORSE than how he received it. That's not a good sign of the agency's future with this guy at the helm. Can someone please print this out and send it to those who are in charge of his confirmation hearings?

67% that this blog continues FOREVER

Now let me explain:

1 out of 3 = the DLSE terminates me, and then the blog expands into uncharted territory.

1 out of 3 = the DLSE loozes their injunction appeal, and the blog continues.

1 out of 3 = the blog stops/comes down on its own.

Eventually, I will have the necessary time to really devote myself to this thing I call transparent accountability. I'm fairly certain that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn. got named by someone REALLY pissing off a guy named Howard Jarvis.

If the DLSE truly doubts my motivation, then Vicky Bradshaw should allow Robert Jones and her other big-brains to continue to play their little reindeer games. If there's a 67% chance of winning blackjack at Vegas, then should I bet large?

At DLSE, they're legally not required to...

tell someone why they are under a DLSE investigation [that's their argument/justification], but their legal mumbo jumbo made no mention of their deliberate attempt to disguise the basis for their investigation. In the real world, when someone writes a statement and knows it to be false, that's called a lie.

When Lupe Almaraz wrote the memo and justified the DLSE's disruption of public service by pulling the DLSE employee out of work and into their investigative meeting on the basis of "job performance," it was a big, fat lie. Lupe Almaraz is not some probationary office clerk who just fell off the turnip truck. Lupe Almaraz is the Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner, and he lied when he wrote that his investigation wanted to delve into a DLSE employee's job performance. It would have been better for his credibility (and liability) had he just wrote nothing and ordered the employee to the meeting.

Liars, Cheats, and Thieves: what pleasant and professional leadership we have here, don't we?

Another DLSE Fraud, Waste, and Abuse issue? What a shocker.

Why does Assistant Chief Labor Commissioner Greg Rupp collect peace officer pay and peace officer retirement? Why does the DLSE have seven peace officers, yet there are little or no criminal convictions and/or arrests stemming from peace officers conducting criminal investigations? Why does Lauro Cons collect peace officer pay and peace officer retirement while working for the DLSE’s Labor Compliance, i.e., Public Works? Public Works can barely bust out an administrative debarment, much less a criminal investigation, so why is the supervising desk plant wearing a gun? Big picture here: this is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. These wanna-be cops (even) make arrests? Do they conduct DLSE criminal investigations that lead to criminal prosecutions? They carry guns and handcuffs & earn a retirement package of 3% of pay for every year of service and can retire at 50 years of age? WTF? Normal state retirements are 2% of pay every year of service of service and can retire at 55 years of age.

Do you think Deputy Chief/Assistant Labor Commissioner Lupe Almaraz is holding Assistant Chief Greg Rupp accountable for his peace officer productivity, demanding to know why supervisor Lauro Cons needs a gun to work a desk job? Do you think Lupe Almaraz really gives a rat’s ass about wasting taxpayer dollars on paying DLSE peace officers good money & retirement who don’t make arrests, which don't conduct criminal investigations that don't lead to criminal convictions? Why does the DLSE have three supervisor cops, three cops, and one cop manager? The DLSE has one supervisory peace officer for every regular DLSE peace officer…isn’t that a little top-heavy? Isn’t that a little wasteful, given the lack of criminal investigatory progress by these seven peace officers? The DLSE has Deputy Labor Commissioners (DLCs), Industrial Relations Representatives (IRRs), and Management Service Technicians (MSTs) who are doing the same job and not receiving the same benefit. Hell’s bells, the DLSE could give Public Safety pay (2.5% of pay percent for every year of service) to DLCs, IRRs, and MSTs because their job is law enforcement. Unfortunately, the ones that really do the work get screwed; no big surprise at Labor Standards.

If you’re really interested in what the DLSE peace officers do, the submit a Public Records Act (PRA) request to DLSE Headquarters and request the following:
1) For the last four (or two) years, Daily Activity Reports (DARs) for DLSE peace officers Greg Rupp, Pete Tuminia, Lauro Cons, David Dorame, Lee Pearson, Frank Capetillo, and Gary Stoffels.
2) For the last four (or two) years, Number of case files assigned to DLSE peace officers Greg Rupp, Pete Tuminia, Lauro Cons, David Dorame, Lee Pearson, Frank Capetillo, and Gary Stoffels.
3) For the last four (or two) years, Criminal convictions stemming from DLSE investigations conducted by DLSE peace officers Greg Rupp, Pete Tuminia, Lauro Cons, David Dorame, Lee Pearson, Frank Capetillo, and Gary Stoffels.
4) The personnel & training records of DLSE peace officers Greg Rupp, Pete Tuminia, Lauro Cons, David Dorame, Lee Pearson, Frank Capetillo, and Gary Stoffels.

Since Lupe is a regular reader of this blog, he is free to hit the "comment" button, identify himself, and post any verifiable, peace officer efficiency statistics. Fish do stink from the head, don't they?

Examine the decisions made by individuals rather than on the play of great impersonal forces

A DLSE manager made the decision to investigate a blogger and cloak it under the guise of job performance. They had no job performance questions, and took about two seconds to proceed directly to the blog.

A DLSE manager (or attorney) made the decision to permanently remove someone from state service when this person was on a bona fide workers compensation injury. When common sense didn't enter DLSE's thought process, a Dept. of Personnel Administration judge directed them to reinstate the employee.

A DLSE manager thought she could sway the US Supreme Court, and not one of the nine Justices agreed.

A DLSE manager knew of the allegations of US Mail being destroyed, and nothing was done to stop it, much less prevent it. No change in procedures, no nothing.

A DLSE manager who can barely walk (much less run), carries a loaded firearm into a DLSE office and shoves it into a desk. Does Lupe Almaraz order a Fitness for Duty evaluation? Nope. This DLSE manager's health seems to be getting worse as time passes, and Lupe Almaraz continues to do nothing. Inaction is an action.

Which allegation is more serious, destroying the US Mail or blogging?

The totality of DLSE management competence can be summed up in what they hold near and dear to their fact-finding missions. They known about the allegation(s) of a DLSE employee destroying the US Mail for quite some time, and do you know what they did to the person who made the allegation? The DLSE made that person's life so miserable that she left the DLSE and transferred to another agency because they accused a protected member of the DLSE clan. The irony is that this person (the one who transferred) still works under one of Victoria Bradshaw's bureaucracies, so if they really wanted to investigate the allegation, they could.

The sad news is that they will not, "cause injury to themselves in conducting an investigation where they cannot protect their own." To date, I don't know of any investigation that Greg Rupp started where it cast the DLSE in an unfavorable light; he's somehow managed to lynchpin all of his investigations on individuals. But then again, he and Vicky Bradshaw go way back. Funny how he's where he is (Assistant Chief) and she's where she is (Labor Workforce Development Agency Secretary).

The DLSE is aware of the allegations plaguing their department, yet they choose to investigate a blogger. They choose to spend money, time, and resources in wasting the court's time with issues of blogging versus which DLSE employee is destroying the US Mail. Why was the US Mail destroyed? It got to be too much work for a DLSE employee that didn't want to do their job. Incoming mail sometimes has money, checks for employee's wages, checks for settlements, or checks for penalties. Sometimes, the mail has appeal requests and those requests have statutory deadlines. I was told that unopened mail was thrown away and destroyed. That's a federal offense, but oh well-the DLSE wants private journals, demanding personal diaries.

Maybe Labor Commissioner Robert Jones cannot comprehend which does more damage to the public: investigating the destruction of US Mail or investigating a blogger. This guy's an attorney? Wasn't this the same guy who sang the "Let's take really good care of the public" song at the Van Nuys training a few months ago? Internal damage control/spin doctoring/CYA does not equate to providing the best service to the public.

"Are you gonna stand there and bark all day or are you gonna bite?"

So Richard Munoz and Lupe Almaraz are hell-bent on terminiating this blogger from state service. They're just taking orders from above, as they don't earn the coin to make decisions on their own. Well, that defense didn't work at Nuremberg, and it shows a lack of personal accountability & responsibility...what a surprise at Labor Standards. DLSE Regional Manager Susan Nakagama is on the record, giving sworn testimony that she signed and issued a memorandum to Christopher Lotts, but she didn't author it! What kind of horsesh*t is that? That's the status quo at DLSE: no accountability, no responsibility.

If Lupe's peeps are complete morons and push this into Lupe testifying under oath, then he'll give up those that made him do what he did. I don't think that the word 'perjury' is in his vernacular, and don't ask me about Anthony Mischel. If Lupe was half the man that he thinks he is, then he should "advise" those above him that the DLSE is doing this or that right or wrong (we can't go after an employee's personal diaries), and the DLSE can better spend their time elsewhere. If he's not "Deputy Chief" enough to stand his ground, then he's just as guilty as the dolts who are pulling his puppet strings. I really don't think that Lupe has the kind of stones to tell his higher ups what they do not want to hear; after all, he's on probation, so he's gotta walk the line of being a Yes Man. He had the chance in June to settle this, and it was partly his job to ensure that his puppeteers understood what was around the corner should they push.

The DLSE wanted private diaries, and what they got was a temporary restraining order.

The DLSE wanted a different judge to hear this case, and what they got was a delay in the date to hear this.

The DLSE wanted to disobey a court order and continue their interrogation of the Blogger, and what they got was potential notification of a contempt of court charge.

Here's the big question: what lawyer told Lupe to go forward with this? When did the DLSE think that their actions are above common sense, much less constitutional law? Why is so much money, time, and resources being wasted by the DLSE to fight such a losing battle? Is there any way the judge can force the DLSE attorneys to personally reimburse the State of California for such a flagrant misuse of state funds? How is this different than stealing DLSE office supplies? It doesn't take an entire workday to steal office supplies. Anthony Mischel and Richard Munoz might as well rent and watch the dvd, "The Verdict," and list it as part of their workday under 'research.' It's a crime to practice law without a license, but is it a crime to have a license without practicing law? The keyword being "practicing."

Taxpayer money: it would be faster if Office of the Director-Legal Unit just burned taxpayer dollars...

that way, at least they would not be wasting time. What we have here (the historic function of OD-Legal) is a waste of both time and money: throw in the waste of resources, and you have a Hat Trick. Their bogus make-work missions consist of keeping a DLSE attorney fired, attempting to terminate a Deputy Labor Commissioner, and tried (and subsequently failed via OD-Legal beagle Anthony Mischel) to enforce some chickensh*t AWOL charge that (even) the Dept. of Personnel Administration (DPA) threw out the door. Historically, the DPA sides with management 90-95% of the time, so I'm sure Anthony Mischel is still licking his wounds on that one.

Anthony Mischel is the same OD-Legal attorney orchestrating most, if not all of the Employee Disposals. I have no problem with getting rid of bad eggs, but Mischel seems to have a hardon for tossing out those that do not kiss ass (not a state civil service mandate, BTW). One would hope that Vanessa Holton, Chief Counsel of OD-Legal, would get off her rump and start doing something productive with that her department. One would also think that if Vanessa didn't have the cognitive skillset to make OD-Legal more productive to better serve the People of California, then Labor Secretary Victoria Bradshaw would light a fire under Vanessa Holton and give her the proper motivation. With the plethora of labor law violations happening in California, is internal politics consuming most of OD-Legal's time, money, and resources? Can anyone imagine a firm like Latham & Watkins wasting time, resources, & money on having a special unit designated for high-profile/sensitive cases, only to find out that those special lawyers' special cases are to terminate their own employees?

Unfortunately, it seems that the People of California are stuck with Vanessa, Vicky, and Anthony: self-serving tools who think nothing of spending taxpayer dollars in a manner that best suits their needs and not the People of California.

While we waste the State Personnel Board's time with that DLSE attorney termination, let's also disregard directives from the CA Superior Court

When a court order says ten pages is the max, it does not mean twenty-five pages; it means ten pages. Failure to comply with the simplest of directives implies that a more complex directive might become greatly confusing, thus conducive to noncompliance.

Unless specifically stated, a court order does not dissolve on its own, especially when the court order says, "...pending further order from the court..."

These DLSE courtroom antics merely demonstrate their failure to comprehend issues and resolve problems. Now I understand why Anthony Mischel whispers into Richard Munoz's ear. Maybe Munoz needs better hand-holding, or maybe Anthony Mischel will slither out from the shadows and step up to take charge of this DLSE quagmire. Mischel has a bit of breathing room, pending the DLSE attorney termination appeal (more on that later).

The DLSE recently incinuated that they intend to bypass the courtroom directive and interrogate the Blogger after August 3rd. The Blogger's attorney sent Munoz a letter explaining the consequences of failing to abide by such a courtroom directive. If Munoz and Mischel think that there actions are above a court order, then the Blogger will soon receive a Personal & Confidential letter by Lupe Almaraz. They now have two options: obey the court directive or not. It reminds me of an old saying, "When walking on eggs, don't hop."