Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

Ted
What will be done with workers from companies whose workers vote to become unionized.....Good Point anon.

That would be the point of some Organizing....for that rare company. Still however, there need be a bit of specific Journeyman type upgrades for the newly signed Company men, their critical staff....super's, foreman, PM' etc as to the way Unions are run, a bit of Labor History, Benefits Programs, differing views toward safety, quality etc. and the UBC does not give them that....it's more of have at it. Then we are left to deal with the leftover attitudes of a foreman or super perhaps who didn't vote to go Union.

All Councils should have evaluations on the Organizers & the return we get in man-hours for each, at a minimum every 2-years, no more. Has he or she turned any Contractors? If so, what is the benefit to the rank & file....it has to be quantifiable and there has to be accountability, another words - a cost/benefit analysis as to their actual contribution.

As far as PLA's with a base $7.54 an hour reduction to wages & bennies....I am for the men. The CBA's are afterall a "contract". The UBC through Spencer has no right to issue Unilateral Changes withe the Contractors he shares the same bed with (hope they change the sheets) without bargaining to impasse - period.

When there is no BARGAINING, there can be NO IMPASSE, hence it is illegal under the NLRA & via Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, on top of that, there comes an additonal $2.13 per Hour Unilateral Wage Freeze by Spencer, that too is illegal per the aforementioned item.

So Frank Spencer just illegally gave away $9.67 per man-hour on PLA Projects via autocratic fiat....another words via the decree granted by Doug McCarron under his unfettered DICTATORSHIP......directly under the Nose of the U.S. Attorney while the NYCDCC is inder a Federal-Civil RICO Consent Decree??

Anon, there are many, many ways to structure PSA's or PLA's without giving a nickel of the rank & file's pay away. Where were the negotiations with the Project Owners & Developers, the Design Teams, Structural Engineers, Architects, MEP designers to package their services, coordinate structural designs, perform value engineering and have a Master Plan phasing of like Projects?

When did they discuss crticial path scheduling of these jobs, shift work, acceleration of scheduling and manpower loading given the vast unemployment for all trades and the lower material costs in this downturned economy? I saw none of that discussed and people have to ask why?

From what I saw, the BTEA drove the negotiating process & none of this was even considered. Right away - it was the old boys club going, how can we take advantage of these clowns right now....let's take it off the back of Labor....their dopes, they'll buy it.

Guess what they did....re: no real world business experience or competence exhibited by the fearless leaders of NYCDCC here....just caved, sold the guys out. And why you ask, because their fat checks keep coming in no matter what they do. Funny, didn't see any other Trade Union in NYC caving in on any wage or benefit concession in the PLA's posted on the BTEA site but the Carpenters.

You glossed right over those points...didn't even touch them. Why?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

listman
"I think we are all aware of the chasm between our so called leaders and..............."

Are you aware of the chasm between everyone on this site and yourself !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

John Musumeci
Administrator
I’ve linked the Order of the District Court signed on May 26, 2009, pursuant to which the District Council operates the job referral system and out of work list.

You may recall that it reinstated Paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree, regarding the requirement of prior notice of certain actions being provided to the government (including changes to the bylaws, and procedures relating to the job referral rules).

Further, the RO must receive prior notice of any proposed change to the District Council bylaws, rules, policies or practices pursuant to Paragraph 5.b.i of the Stipulation and Order (which gives the RO the authority to veto any such proposed change pursuant to the criteria set forth in Paragraph 5.b.iii).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

listman
In reply to this post by anon
My hope is you remain sad.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

listman
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
and an additional 17 percent, representing one-third

Isn't this what Thomassen comtemptious act set out to do. Gain ground to eviscerate the OWL 50%
The remedy is to leave the 50/50 unbalanced????
CJ
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

CJ
In reply to this post by listman
Listman, your response to Anon, made me smile.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
Anon - your age, lack of experience & wisdom is now showing through. You cannot address what you know nothing of. Go get some real experience with a competent GC or CM, learn to listen more, talk less and then you may learn something from the older & wiser men around you & here at this blog.

You would not last in management for any length of time with your attitude and antics.

Report Card - ANON

Does not play well with others, Does not listen, Does not respect his elders, Does not learn from his mistakes, Does not Follow Direction.

Potential - could be tapped, pending above & attitude change.
Probability for Advancement - On hold, review in 12 months
Maturity - lacking

This is constructive crtiticism & it is your choice. Time will tell if you heed solid advice.

ps - before you post things like this, forget the encyclopedia, that will not help you. Utilize the internet & spend some time researching & studying the things posted where your lacking in experience/lnowledge. You will learn a lot.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

Ted
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
John,

I found the 67% rule interesting in that the Company can still up the precentages via skills manipulation.

Also noted, page 6, Item 7 - Judge Haights Order on maintaing the status-quo on the Current CBA set to expire in June 2011....to remain in full force & effect, pending review with the Court.

Question - Why has R.O. Walsh not addressed the PLA $7.54 Wage & Benefit reduction which the Council handed to BTEA & the Owners/Developers & Contractor Associations?
Same holds for the $2.13 Unilateral Wage Freeze by Frank Spencer.

Per this 2009 OWL Ruling & contempt order against Thomassen & the Council, seems to me that the Judge made the Order amply clear. Are they simply ignoring it at will or have subsequent appeals & rulings issued forth from the new Judge? What did I miss?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
Anon - will you be my sponsor...come on get me on board, hook me up with a decent company full package....nice condo with a view too...That was in jest.

Now, explain to me why you seem to back the Council all the time if this is what they allow to go on. NYCDCC is a private, non-profit labor Organization. Once you follow the proviso to NLRA Section 8(a)(3), the 30 day rule before requiring Union Membership or Financial Core (Agency Fee Payer status) and satisfied same....NYCDCC can exclude all others in preference to their own members first.

New York is not a Right to Work State (RTWS) - period, thus the exclusion is allowed. Mobility Clauses within CBA's and the new program of Full Mobility via & through newly chartered Interior Systems Locals are a clear violation of statute/law.

The UBC's one NLRB Board precedent in UBC Local 43 aside. That was a set up/test case proffered & put forth by McCarron, Spencer & the rest of the goon squad. NLRB Board decisions when issued in direct contravention to known statute & law do not invoke pre-emtion within the Federal system, nor do they over-rule State Law where states have not become RTWS. That which is not specifically called out in the US Constitution is left to the States. RTWS or Non-RTWS legislation is one such item.

If you are concerned for all the men & woman within NYCDCC & the preservation of their right to employ their members first, over & above all others, why not challenge this practice. File a suit in State Court & put your name on it - pro-se. Then run with it - win it & you'll get plenty of votes for office...you'd be a shoe-in, a star. Never mind Walsh or excuses, do the homework, research it, develop the causes of action, prayer for relief, back it up with legit citations of laws violated, caselaw in support of the argument and send it in, file it.....this is a winner & should be a no-brainer for a sharp kid like you.

Apply your energy here, you can win this case hands down.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
Anon - did you drop your report card in a puddle, the dog ate it?

Back to the same tired old modus-operandi, reposting others works....c'mon kid, can't you do better than this & the immature insults....it's seriously time for you to grow up....you could be man.

You could not hold a candle to the the guys here which you regularly disrespect and insult - the field or white collar side, or with the legal affairs. I have watched them run circles around you, on all sides, all fronts and yet you persist running  your mouth.

Bottle fed, not enough hugs & kisses when a kid or were simply abused, so now to feel good, you abuse & torment others. Either way, go get some help. Call CAPS, maybe they can find you a good shrink & you can hit print on all these blogs & posts.... and bring your answers too.......the shrink will say kid, we need to see you for the next 18-months, 2-days a week, get you on the right med's.

p.s. Labor Organization facts - see posts in support of Mr Dorrough.....let it go, you were proved wrong there and prior to that multiple times.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

Ted
ANON - I DO NOT CARE WHAT POSITION STATEMENTS YOU MAKE, OR FOR THAT MATTER THE ONES THAT THE COUNCIL HACKS MAKE.....NO ADHD HERE. THESE ARE THE CASES.

MR. DORROUGH WAS CORRECT - THE LAW IS WHAT IT IS, AND IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, LIES ASIDE, CHICANERY, GAMES OR YOUR NEVER ENDING SEMANITCS....
___________________________________________________________________________

LABOR ORGANIZATION & TRUST FUNDS:
49 Oregon Teamsters Security Plan Office 119 NLRB 207 (1957), 118 NLRB 987

"The Board asserts jurisdiction over Local Unions as "Integral parts of a Multi-State Enterprise", and on the basis of the annual "Inflow" or "Outflow" of Initiation Fees & Per Capita Taxes to their Parent or International Union......"thus, accord with Oregon Teamsters, the Board asserts Jurisdiction over a Local Union where the Local was "an integral part of a mulit-state Labor Organization" consisting of its parent International and 500 Affiliated Locals, and these Locals remitted dues and fees in excess of $250,000 a year, including more than $40,000 from the Local involved". 52
___________________________________________________________________________

The ruling above did not come down until the US Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court & remanded this case back to the NLRB Board for correction in accordance with their decision in 353 U.S. 313 Office Employees v. Labor Board (1957) shown below....

Subsequent to the remanded/corrected decision & post LMRDA passage in 1959, the NLRB Board also made the Ruling, excerpted below:
___________________________________________________________________________

"During fiscal 1959, the Board was faced with the question whether an employer could validly enter into a Union Security Agreement with an individual who had been certified under section 9(c) as the statutory bargaining agent of an employee unit". 74

"The question turned on whether the individual with whom the employer contracted was a "labor organization" for the purpose of the union security proviso of section 8(a)(3) and as such was entitled, and subject, to its privileges and obligations. A majority of the Board held that the definition of "labor organization" in section 2(5), construed in the light of its legislative history, is sufficiently broad to encompass an individual, as the one here, as bargaining representative". 75 (citations omitted....Anon, look it up)

The std. is simply this....any labor organization when acting as an employer....this can be one person and as the Sup. Ct. settled in Office Employees v. Labor Board it most definitiely includes Labor Unions and the Locals within those very Unions, predicated upon annual inflow & outflow of initiation fees, per capita taxes paid to their parent or International Union and is applicable to individuals as well. The Monetary std's were set by Jonesboro Grain (see progeny past these timeframes for updated amounts).

Without the per capita tax generated from, by & through the Locals Anon....all Regional Councils & the International would cease to exist. They do not manufacture or produce goods or products and the services they claim to offer are nothing more than a giant smokescreen called job justification. Without the men in the field doing the work, they all cease to exist - they do not have jobs.

The UBC International & the Councils operate so far outside the purviews of the NLRA, as do all the Funds nationwide, that they should be dissolved by an act of Congress or simply brought to task via criminal RICO charges against all International Officers & all 38 EST's in a concerted & targeted sting operation. The UBC International as an organization is the MOB, legitimized by the DOL!
___________________________________________________________________________

ANON - YOU ARE EITHER WITH THE MEN, OR YOU ARE WITH THE CROOKS....AND CONTRARY TO YOUR DRIBBLE, YOUR MANUFACTURED BELIEFS DO NOT USURP SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT - END OF STORY
___________________________________________________________________________


U.S. Supreme Court
OFFICE EMPLOYES v. LABOR BOARD, 353 U.S. 313 (1957)
353 U.S. 313
OFFICE EMPLOYES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 11, AFL-CIO, v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 422.
Argued March 28, 1957.
Decided May 6, 1957.



1. When a labor organization engaged in multistate activities takes on the role of an employer it is an "employer" within the meaning of 2 (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Act applies to its operations the same as it would to those of any other employer, and the National Labor Relations Board has the same jurisdiction over labor disputes between such a labor organization and its employees as it would have in the case of any other employer. Pp. 313-318.

2. In this case, the Board's refusal to assert jurisdiction over labor unions, as a class, when acting as employers was contrary to the intent of Congress, was arbitrary, and was beyond the Board's power. Pp. 318-320.

98 U.S. App. D.C. 325, 235 F.2d 832, reversed and remanded.

Joseph E. Finley argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Dominick L. Manoli argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Stephen Leonard and Fannie M. Boyls.

Samuel B. Bassett and Clifford D. O'Brien filed a brief for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, et al., as amici curiae, urging affirmance.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the attempt of the petitioner, Local 11 of the Office Employes International Union, AFL-CIO, to represent for collective bargaining purposes the office-clerical workers employed at the Teamsters [353 U.S. 313, 314]   Building in Portland, Oregon. These office-clerical employees were engaged by the various local unions and affiliates of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL. Local 11 filed a series of unfair labor practice complaints with respondent, National Labor Relations Board, charging in substance that the Teamster group 1 had interfered with the Local's effort to organize the office-clerical workers in violation of 8 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2 The primary question is whether with respect to their own employees labor organizations are "employers" within the meaning of 2 (2) of the Act. 3 Since we decide this question in the affirmative a subsidiary question is posed: Whether the Board may, by the application of general standards of classification, refuse to assert any jurisdiction over [353 U.S. 313, 315]   labor unions as a class when they act as employers. The Board here refused to assert any jurisdiction, and the complaints were dismissed. 113 N. L. R. B. 987. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 235 F.2d 832. The importance of the jurisdictional questions involved caused us to grant certiorari in the interest of the proper administration of the Act. 352 U.S. 906 . We believe the Board erred when it refused to take jurisdiction and thus, in effect, engrafted a blanket exemption upon the Act for all labor unions as employers.

We shall not deal with the merits of the unfair labor practice complaints. As to the jurisdictional question, the findings indicate that there are 23 workers employed by the various Teamster organizations at the Teamsters Building. They are paid by the Teamster group which, excluding the Security Plan Office, forms "an integral part of a multistate enterprise." 4 The trial examiner [353 U.S. 313, 316]   concluded that the Teamster group came within the term "employer" under 2 (2) of the Act. He further found that their operation was well within the monetary jurisdictional standards set by the Board in Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 N. L. R. B. 481 (1954). While the Board agreed with the examiner's interpretation of 2 (2) as to the term "employer," it held, by a divided vote, 5 that since the Teamster group was composed of unions, all engaged in a nonprofit business, the criteria applied to other nonprofit employers should govern. It further concluded "that labor organizations, which, when engaged in their primary function of advancing employee welfare, are institutions unto themselves within the framework of this country's economic scheme," should not "be made subject to any of the standards originated for business organizations." 113 N. L. R. B., at 991.


I.
With regard to the jurisdiction of the Board the wording of 2 (2) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. It says that the term "employer" includes any labor organization "when acting as an employer." It follows that when a labor union takes on the role of an employer the Act applies to its operations just as it would to any other employer. The Board itself recognized this fact as early [353 U.S. 313, 317]   as 1951 in Air Line Pilots Association, 97 N. L. R. B. 929. There the Air Line Pilots Association was found to be an employer and the Board ordered that an election be held to determine the wishes of that union's own employees in regard to the selection of appropriate employee bargaining units and a collective bargaining representative. Section 9 of the Act 6 was therefore applied to the union as an employer.

The legislative history of 2 (2) unequivocally supports our conclusion. The Act, before its adoption in 1935, was considered by both the 73d and 74th Congresses. 7 On each occasion the bill went into committee with labor unions excluded from the definition of an employer. 8 Twice the Senate Committee to which it was referred amended it to include within the category of an employer labor unions when dealing with their own employees. The Committee inserted the words "other than when acting as an employer" after the exclusion of labor organizations from the definition of an employer. The Senate Committee on Education and Labor to which the bill was referred stated in explanation of this alteration:


"The reason for stating that `employer' excludes `any labor organization, other than when acting as an employer' is this: In one sense every labor organization is an employer, it hires clerks, secretaries, and the like. In its relations with its own employees, a labor organization ought to be treated as an employer, and the bill so provides." (Emphasis added.) S. Rep. No. 1184, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 4. [353 U.S. 313, 318]  

The bill which became the Act in 1935, S. 1958, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., contained the identical language set forth in italics in the above Senate Report. It is inescapable that the Board has jurisdiction.

II.
The question remains whether the Board may, nevertheless, refuse to assert jurisdiction over labor unions, as a class, when acting as employers. The Board in the face of the clear expression of the Congress to the contrary has exempted labor unions when acting as employers from the provisions of the Act. We believe that such an arbitrary blanket exclusion of union employers as a class is beyond the power of the Board. While it is true that "the Board sometimes properly declines to [assert jurisdiction] stating that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by its assertion of jurisdiction in that case" (emphasis supplied), Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council, 341 U.S. 675, 684 (1951), here the Board renounces jurisdiction over an entire category of employers, i. e., labor unions, a most important segment of American industrial life. It reasons that labor unions are nonprofit organizations. But until this case the Board has never recognized such a blanket rule of exclusion over all nonprofit employers. It has declined jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis over religious, educational, and eleemosynary employers such as a university library, a symphony orchestra, a research laboratory, and a church radio station. 9 When the Act was amended in 1947 the Congress was aware of the Board's general practice of [353 U.S. 313, 319]   excluding nonprofit organizations from the coverage of the Act when these organizations were engaged in non-commercial activities. 10 The House of Representatives attempted to give these exclusions specific legislative approval. 11 However, the Senate draft of the bill excluded only hospital employers from the Act's coverage. The Senate version became a part of the Act and the language is the same as that involved here. The joint committee report on which the final enactment was based recited that the activities of nonprofit employers or their employees had been considered as coming within the Act only "in exceptional circumstances and in connection with purely commercial activities." 12 To place labor unions in this category is entirely unrealistic for the very nature of the excluded nonprofit employers is inherently different from that of labor unions and the reason for such exclusion has no applicability to union activity such as that found here. This is particularly true when we consider the pointed language of the Congress - repeated in Taft-Hartley in 1947 - that unions shall not be excluded when acting as employers. As the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals points out, " 2 (2)'s strikingly particular reference to labor unions sharply differentiates them from non-profit organizations generally . . . ." 98 U.S. App. D.C., at 337, 235 F.2d, at 834. We do not, therefore, believe that it was within the Board's discretion to remove unions as employers from the coverage of the Act after Congress had specifically included them therein. [353 U.S. 313, 320]  

It is true that the dollar volume jurisdictional standards adopted by the Board to govern its jurisdiction, Hollow Tree Lumber Co., 91 N. L. R. B. 635 (1950), exclude small employers whose business does not sufficiently affect commerce. 13 But its exercise of discretion in the local field does not give the Board the power to decline jurisdiction over all employers in other fields. To do so would but grant to the Board the congressional power of repeal. See also Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 4 (1957), where the Court refused to pass "upon the validity of any particular declination of jurisdiction by the Board or any set of jurisdictional standards."

We therefore conclude that the Board's declination of jurisdiction was contrary to the intent of Congress, was arbitrary, and was beyond its power. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for remand to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.


It is so ordered.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

John Musumeci
Administrator
This is from the Wall Street Journal.

Contractors Try to Bypass Unions

New York City's major construction contractors are gearing up to go around union chiefs and directly reach out to members to get them to agree to reductions in wages and benefits.

With an upcoming round of major contract negotiations approaching, the umbrella construction employer group says it will target "rank and file" union members to make management's case. Contractors, who are represented by the Building Trades Employers' Association, say that major concessions are necessary to help crank up the city's construction industry.

Union officials call the move "draconian" and an "unprecedented" scare tactic. "These are very bold steps the [association] is taking and it will definitely effect the tenor of our negotiations," says Gary La Barbera, the president of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, an umbrella union group.

The move by the association threatens the relationship between the contractors and unions—who made a show of trying to work together during the downturn to keep construction costs down and employment up. Construction employment, which hit a peak of an average of 131,383 in 2008, fell to an average of 115,500 in 2010, according to New York Building Congress, a trade organization which represents both labor and management.

CONTINUE READING...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

listman
My take is that Spencer had been conceeding to them before getting to the table, as per that recent raise debacle.  And that he damn near was ready to give back toilets on the job when commenting on what these associations need in that real estate periodical.

NOW THEY WANT MORE and will cut out the union side altogether & go to the essence of the construction industry; THE MEN

Now your in the middle and no one wants your input, -- how does that feel F. Spencer.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

listman
In reply to this post by Ted
anon;

Ted is posting caselaw do you, NO.

Ted has more experience dealing with these things than do you.  I've spoken w/him, believe me - HE DOES.

Do you ever have anything to say except looking to use the LRMDA or NLRA for protections, which due to fraudulent concealment no-one can utilize. Do you point to that, - NO.

Instead you follow the McCaron dictate of dissolution then attempt to spin it as a way for the men to have voice @ the council.

 I do expect to see another as rhetioric !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50

tester
listman ! 3 hr ago...
let this man be your/our mouthpiece :-)))
http://www.youtube.com/user/drinkingwithbob
123