Many Union members don't seem happy with supporting the DNC ["Right-to-work supporters frequently point to unions' political spending, which is massive and goes largely to Democrats, when arguing that mandatory union dues unfairly force members to fund candidates and causes with which many disagree."] (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-bank-the-left-has-come-to-love/article/2574176)
Also, it seems that there is some kind of hinky business going on with the carbonless paper, and some kind of health and safety complaints. (from the email) "If warnings are planned for the NCR paper and related claims resolved, let me know by this afternoon . "
I checked the MSDS sheet for NCR-Carbonless paper and it's just plain weird looking;
The MSDS sheet suggests potential airborne hazards, but doesn't list the hazardous chemicals or toxins, but in the Toxicological section it does list dermal or inhaled entry routes.
Stuff not adding up with this one.
Edit: Ah HA! I read further into the email, and this is the primary complaint, which jives with the sketchy MSDS sheet; "The unions have purposely allowed now millions of current and former members to work with, use and be exposed to NCR paper they knew could cause serious adverse health effects, disabilities, birth defects, cancer and death and have purposely not given warnings going back to 1990 solely in order to collect and use union dues for high salaries for officers and political events such as the current Presidential campaigns."
Edit 2 Brenda Smith is Associate Professor, School of Social Welfare at State University of New York at Albany and from the LinkedIn profile (which I can't view at work) she was/is AVP of Investment and Banking at Amalgamated Life Insurance
Edit 3 I found a document from the CDC on Carbonless Copy Paper which indicates that there are indeed know health reactions to some of the chemicals. From re-reading Smith's email, it looks like she is accusing the DNC and Union of knowingly ignoring reported health risks and disability claims. I suspect the reason is that if they admit to the disability claim they would be conceding the chemicals do indeed pose health risks to staff, which in turn would open the door to countless additional aw suits.
I'm still not sure of why she is drawing a direct line to DNC involvement though, so perhaps some fellow 'pedes can look further into that?
well here's the same stuff on wikileaks - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55711
Here is a dig from the old TD on reddit from user "dontkillmehillary" - may not be of interest right now
I've done a quick bit of research on this one, and here is what I have so far;
[In 2012, the DNC borrowed $15M from Amalgamated Bank.] (http://freebeacon.com/politics/dnc-owes-bank-15-m/)
[As of 2015 they still owed the Bank $1M] (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/5/hillary-clinton-super-pac-1m-in-debt-to-union-tied/)
Many Union members don't seem happy with supporting the DNC ["Right-to-work supporters frequently point to unions' political spending, which is massive and goes largely to Democrats, when arguing that mandatory union dues unfairly force members to fund candidates and causes with which many disagree."] (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-bank-the-left-has-come-to-love/article/2574176)
Also, it seems that there is some kind of hinky business going on with the carbonless paper, and some kind of health and safety complaints. (from the email) "If warnings are planned for the NCR paper and related claims resolved, let me know by this afternoon . "
I checked the MSDS sheet for NCR-Carbonless paper and it's just plain weird looking;
The MSDS sheet suggests potential airborne hazards, but doesn't list the hazardous chemicals or toxins, but in the Toxicological section it does list dermal or inhaled entry routes.
Stuff not adding up with this one.
Edit: Ah HA! I read further into the email, and this is the primary complaint, which jives with the sketchy MSDS sheet; "The unions have purposely allowed now millions of current and former members to work with, use and be exposed to NCR paper they knew could cause serious adverse health effects, disabilities, birth defects, cancer and death and have purposely not given warnings going back to 1990 solely in order to collect and use union dues for high salaries for officers and political events such as the current Presidential campaigns."
Edit 2 Brenda Smith is Associate Professor, School of Social Welfare at State University of New York at Albany and from the LinkedIn profile (which I can't view at work) she was/is AVP of Investment and Banking at Amalgamated Life Insurance
Edit 3 I found a document from the CDC on Carbonless Copy Paper which indicates that there are indeed know health reactions to some of the chemicals. From re-reading Smith's email, it looks like she is accusing the DNC and Union of knowingly ignoring reported health risks and disability claims. I suspect the reason is that if they admit to the disability claim they would be conceding the chemicals do indeed pose health risks to staff, which in turn would open the door to countless additional aw suits.
I'm still not sure of why she is drawing a direct line to DNC involvement though, so perhaps some fellow 'pedes can look further into that?
I have no idea, ran across this on another dig. hoping someone takes this one and runs with it.