Current internal DLSE investigations within one office...and DLSE has a whole lot of offices....

1. Civil Rights Office investigation against Deputy Labor Commissioner II Jim Jackson, something about Jim asking about the type of car that Deputy Labor Commissioner II Vicki Tamoush drives.

2. Deputy Labor Commissioner II Jim Jackson's request for an investigation to Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz and No-Senate-Confirmation-Needed Robert Jones regarding unfounded allegations made against him.

3. DLSE's dumbsh*t investigation (and office disruption) into the blogger's indentity...despite the fact that these pretards have known since June, 2006.

4. Deputy Labor Commissioner I Bruce Broadwater's taped confessional, courtesy of Lee Pearson interview & DLSE investigation of blogger, that when Assistant Chief Greg Rupp tried to fire Broadwater almost 10 years ago...he hasn't been promoted since.

5. Recent Deputy Labor Commissioner III examinations results a travesty of the civil service exam process, currently appealed and investigated, but DLSE won't investigate this since they are the ones that broke the rules. They wanted the game to be rigged so they can promote their favorites.

Jones and Alvaraz cannot tie up (even) one loose end; it seems that all they do is reproduce problems. What should be relatively small problems almost always escalate into something bigger. They're not problem solvers, they're not problem fixers, and it looks like they're just problem makers...by making the original problems worse.

To those that post comments anonymously...

Posting anonymously assures candor without fear of retaliation. For the record, I have NEVER posted a comment. If I have something to say, I will simply make it a separate post.

If your comments are not on point and just your way of venting, then start your own blog and vent. Don't say that so-n-so is a bitch or that so-n-so has retarded children; this has nothing do to with improving Labor Standards. I enjoy reading comments that contain useful and pertinent information, so don't turn me into a parent that must supervise inappropriate comments.

Will Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones continue to ignore these Spanish Wage Claim Hearing statistics?

Wage claim cases are processed per Labor Code Section 98 et al. Hearing Officers are not authorized to intentionally delay cases requiring foreign language translation, and they are certainly not authorized to delay cases so that translator/buddies can make extra money. What about those state-issued checks that were issued for translating services on those 33 Spanish cases in July, 2005? Here are some interesting stats..

Deputy Labor Commissioner II Vicki Tamoush,
June, 2005
non-Spanish Hearings: 43
Spanish Hearings: 0
Total Hearings: 43
Percent Spanish: 0% (that's 0 out of 43)

July, 2005
non-Spanish Hearings: 11
Spanish Hearings: 33
Total Hearings: 44
Percent Spanish: 75% (that's 33 out of 44)

Approximately 10% of Santa Ana's wage claims require the services of Spanish translator, so (even) during an abnormal month where Santa Ana received DOUBLE the amount of normal Spanish wage claims...that statistic would only jump to 20%...it would NEVER jump from 0% to 75% unless there was divine (or in this case, Hearing Officer) intervention. These statistics cannot be mathmatically explained, so where the hell is the Civil Rights Office, and why aren't they investigating this evidence? The Dept. of Industrial Retaliation: protecting their favorites and crucifying their unfavorites.
LABOR STANDARDS HAS NO LABOR STANDARDS.

Robert Jones to underlings: CMS delayed, excuses included..

Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones needs to do only one thing half-ass, not two things. He should either be the DLSE Acting Labor Commissioner or the DLSE Chief Counsel. This way, only one area of DLSE is infected and not two. CMS won't jump-start on January 16th: good thing for Robert Jones that he won't be answering pesky Senate confirmation questions. Going through those Senate Confirmation process and having to explain those meal & rest period lawsuits, the torpedo job on Miles Locker, the 1st Ammendment attacks on the blogger, the failure to install safety glass for DLSE personnel in Santa Ana, and let us not forget the multi-million dollar fiasco called CMS would be frightening! Robert Jones needs to go back to the basics, like trying to accomplish little tasks like fixing tiny problems before escalating into big problems. He can't fix the big stuff; it's either too complicated or beyond his skills.

"Acting" Director John Rea: please simplify the tasks assigned to Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones. Start him on small, easy stuff that builds confidence (confidence can help psychologically [that means mentally]). Once he's demonstrated that he can succeed in the little tasks, then build on that success with more challenging tasks. It looks like he's been stumbling, so help pick him up. You can start by fixing CMS, but you're probably too busy (still) trying to convert DLSE Legal into OD-Legal...your very own tower of power.

People living in glass houses really should not throw rocks...

Deputy Labor Commissioner (DLC) II Vicki Tamoush makes it a habit of complaining: sometimes it's about someone turning up the volume of the state computer assigned to her, sometimes it's about someone leaving transfer bulletins on her desk, sometimes, it's about fellow DLC II James Jackson (allegedly) asking about the type of privately-owned vehicle she drives. In any event, she does a lot of complaining. I have not (even) started with the attorneys who have made formal complaints to Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones. To sum it up, a lot of state time is spent dealing with her complaints; state time that could (possibly) be better spent of serving the People of California.

Now that Vicki Tamoush's name has been acknowledged by the DIR's Civil Rights Office, maybe they will take a serious look at her very own business practices. Maybe they will review the financial benefit to the Spanish translator that Hearing Officer Tamoush enjoyed using, maybe they will look at certain specific months when this translator is available to Hearing Officer Tamoush, and maybe they will review the possible discourteous and inefficient treatment the public has suffered as a result of Hearing Officer Tamoush's case hearing selection schedules...

Mindy is a full-time teacher and a part-time Spanish translator. She translates for Vicki Tamoush when school is not in session: typically in July and November. It appears that Hearing Officer Tamoush really prefers to hire her friend Mindy to translate at $45.00 per hour. Imagine all of the wage claims in Santa Ana that need Spanish translating, and one can see how much earning potential Mindy can make when Hearing Officer Tamoush selects her for most, if not all of her translating...not that Mindy is available for all of Vicki's hearings. From what others have told me, Hearing Officer Tamoush intentionally selects the majority of her Spanish-translation cases mainly during those months where her friend Mindy can work them. This has been status quo with the DLSE since 2005, so that's 07/05, 11/05, 07/06, and 11/06.

So what's the big deal, you ask? Cases should be heard in the order they are received. It's quite possible that Hearing Officer Tamoush abused her discretion, the trust placed in her, and the responsibility she had in the proper and efficient service to the People of California. For her to have channeled Spanish cases into those months is a two-fold crime: the Spanish people must wait for only those months, and the non-Spanish people cannot get their cases heard during those months when Mindy is available to translate for Hearing Officer Tamoush.

The DIR and DLSE managers read this blog on a daily basis, and they have also known about Hearing officer Tamoush's coincidental hearing schedules. Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz received an anonymous complaint about this same issue, and he has been trying to cover this up by having someone else do the Hearing Officer schedules: Lupe has played this very low-key, but he someone cannot get around the fact that there are all those checks with Mindy's name on them. That's a paper trail that just won't go away. It would be real interesting to see how many checks Mindy received by the state, for what amounts, and what were the dates of those checks.

What more needs to be done before the DLSE actually investigates something that truly affects public service? The problem isn't Mindy; she does a great job. The problem is with the one that delayed justice to those that should have received it in their proper order...justice delayed is justice denied. Is it necessary that this blog entry be printed out and mailed to Telemundo. La Opinion, and/or Univision? Will the DLSE investigate and take action against a Hearing Officer that's been shown to offset Spanish cases just so that her translator friend can receive a financial benefit? What happened to the civil rights of those Spanish speakers that had to wait for a July or November wage claim hearing with Vicki Tamoush? If I had to predict the DLSE response, it would be circle-the-wagons and sweep it under the rug.

FRAUD, WASTE, and ABUSE: just another day at DLSE.

Why is the DIR Civil Rights Office using non-Civil Rights Office staff to conduct their investigation via email?

Why is the Civil Rights Office ordering a DLSE supervisor to ask questions about some employee asking about some other employee's car parked in an off-site location?....WTF???

Unless the car was spray-painted with racial/gender/nationality stuff pertaining to the Civil Rights Office, then I'm clueless as to why the Civil Rights Office is using non-Civil Rights Office personnel (the DLSE supervisor) to do their dirty work.

Once again, I present a DIR waste of time, resources, and money. This is Page 1 of 2.

Why is the DIR Civil Rights Office using non-Civil Rights Office personnel to conduct investigations via email?, Part II

This is Page 2 of 2.

That Santa Ana office email has generated the most comments in the shortest amount of time (click this link to view comments)

Click this link to be cyber-linked to the comments section of the post dated 01/05/07. This post has generated many emotions, and it seems that many have come out to support Mr. Jackson, and some have come out to identify "areas of concern" regarding Ms. Tamoush.

Here's my thing: Jorge has been a player in this game for awhile. I doubt that he would initially broadcast his investigation via email (to everyone but Jim), as that is frowned upon by the investigating community. So what is the other explanation for his email? One of the commenters hit it, and Jorge (probably) wanted to show Ms. Tamoush that he acted, but then the question remains....who made such allegations against Mr. Jackson, was there anything other than the mere accusation, and why was such action taken based only upon an accusation?

In the end, the decision must be weighed: how much time should be spent on such an issue as it relates to the proper and efficient service to the public.

another DLSE investigation requested: will Lupe Almaraz & Robert Jones ever conduct a proper inquiry? Will they continue to use their own methods?

So yet again, another employee requests an investigation via communication to DLSE Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz and "Acting" Labor Commissioner Robert Jones...they are only the two top-bananas at DLSE. Start the stopwatches, as Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz and Acting Commissioner Robert Jones have been placed on official notice that a DLSE Hearing Officer is requesting investigative assistance. When will Lupe & Robert initiate this, how long will it take, and can their bureaucratic journey arrive at its proper conclusion before Arnold runs for President?

Since Lupe and Robert have taxpayer funds to waste by having Senior Special Investigator Lee Pearson ask DLSE staff about this Blogger's identity (when they've known about it since June, 2006), then I'm sure that they will waste no time in ignoring this employee's request. After all, Hearing Officer Jackson has only been a loyal civil servant for the last 30 years, why should they bother treating him with professional courtesy?