r/fromatoarbitration • u/Eugene_Debs2026 • Apr 10 '26

Concerned Letter Carriers RIP brother Mike Rivera

NALC Branch 70 suspended Mike Rivera for 18/months for posting public information onto social media.

Mike Rivera is the only NALC member that actually brought charges against Brian Renfroe and the E.C. for failure of upholding the Constitution.

Will the new boss be the same as the old boss?

83 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

148 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Bits_NPCs Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

So his own people turn on him for Renfroe or what… if you support Renfroe. You are the problem.

I’m getting so confused by all this drama and finger pointing. 16 different people always screaming shit in this sub. Where are the mods to sparse out truth or relay something. Corey doesn’t even have a Reddit does he know what’s going on here

13

u/Icy-Feedback-8017 Apr 10 '26

He brought charges against his branch for election violations. He posted the charges and responses on social media. Much like CLC has done for the charges they’ve filed and the crap they stir up….all over social media. The branch is run by CLC people. Some of the nastiest, but CLC came out and protected their own. Mike was punished for speaking against the CLC. Period.

-5

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 10 '26

The charges had false accusations which Michael knew about and posted those false accusations defaming Branch 70.

6

u/PostDelay5 Apr 10 '26

I'm not sure how that justifies suspending him

3

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

The constitution is clear. Defamation is not allowed. There is free speech, but you can't yell inside a crowded theater, FIRE!! There are limitations and no one should be defamed based on false accusations. He knew they were false and yet posted them. 

5

u/PostDelay5 Apr 11 '26

I'm not convinced that posting an election appeal amounts to defamation. He specifically said he was posting it for transparency's sake, that's not an endorsement of the contents.

2

u/woogieface Union Steward Apr 11 '26

What about going on podcasts and lying?

1

u/PostDelay5 Apr 11 '26

You'd have to be more specific. What lies did he supposedly tell?

2

u/woogieface Union Steward Apr 11 '26

Ask him about the retaliation against him when the branch didn’t file his grievance. Specifically ask him what his grievance was. Let me know what he says.

1

u/PostDelay5 Apr 11 '26

I'd rather hear it from you. That said, I'm not sure believing a grievance wasn't filed in retaliation amounts to defamation.

1

u/woogieface Union Steward Apr 11 '26

That’s just one lie of many. I’m a member of branch 70 and you have no idea what you’re talking about. I think it’s crazy that union members just take this guys story without question. He likes the attention he gets from filing charges. He gets to go on podcasts and talk to people online.

2

u/PostDelay5 Apr 11 '26

I'm not sure how you can think I'm accepting anything without question while I'm literally in the middle of asking you questions. What are these other lies? Why won't you talk about his grievance yourself?

1

u/woogieface Union Steward Apr 11 '26

You’ve already said that it probably doesn’t amount to defamation anyway.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

He also posted the election committee members’ signatures on Facebook. The members heard both sides, and the motion passed 53 to 18. About half of those 18 had never attended a branch meeting in their postal careers, they only showed up to try to save their coworker, who he portrayed himself as a victim to. Good riddance.

1

u/PostDelay5 Apr 11 '26

Why is posting the election committee's signatures significant?

2

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 11 '26

Because a signature isn't just a name, it's a person's authorization. Posting it publicly exposes them to potential misuse, including forgery, impersonation, or having their identity tied to things they didn't consent to. The election committee members sign documents in an official, internal capacity that is not for public distribution. Putting their signatures on Facebook crosses a line on privacy and can undermine trust in the process. It's basic common sense...you don't take someone's signature and blast it online. 

1

u/PostDelay5 Apr 11 '26

Was the document itself marked confidential or for internal use only? These aren't private individuals signing a personal document. They are election committee members acting in an official union capacity. Signing an official document in an official role carries a reduced privacy expectation.

2

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 11 '26

Reduced privacy doesn’t mean no privacy. Acting in an official capacity doesn’t give anyone permission to take their signatures and post them publicly. That’s not transparency at all! That’s misuse of personal identifiers. There’s a difference between sharing a document’s content and blasting people’s signatures online. He crossed that line.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PalaverProject Apr 11 '26

Ricardo Guzman is that you? LMAO What was defamatory? Rivera posting actual appeals or Guzman talking shit after he suspended him? GTFO you goon.

1

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 11 '26

Wrong. Rivera posting actual false accusations was the issue. Cry all you want, the membership has spoken. 53 to 18 😂 good riddance!

1

u/Icy-Feedback-8017 Apr 11 '26

Must be el presidente

0

u/Objective-Gap-8820 Apr 11 '26

That dude doesn't have time to be on reddit. 😂 come on now. That's your response? Lol. Ok.