Is McCarron in violation of the UBC Constituion?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is McCarron in violation of the UBC Constituion?

bill lebo
One of the "objects" of our union in the UBC Constituion is, "to assist each other to SECURE EMPLOYMENT". It also states; to ELEVATE the moral, intellectual, and SOCIAL CONDITIONS of ALL MEMBERS.
It seems to me that by McCarron pushing for full mobility, it places the UBC  in direct contradiction of these two "objectives".
Full mobility will without question put many of our brother and sister carpenters out of work while only the selected by the contractors brothers and sisters will be able to "secure employment".
 The main way to elevate anyones social conditions is to secure employment for them.
Full mobility will only secure employment for the members the contractors select not all members by any means, in fact it will lower the social condition of many.
By the way, I was amused to find on the last page of the UBC Constitution the Platform of the UBC. # 12 states;
" Adoption of legislation requiring the election of all public officials by direct vote of the people.

Amazingly contradictory, they want a one man one for for all public officials, but for them and all council officers they want and have "representative democracy, indirect elections. It boggles the mind.
What we have in most of our union across the country isn't representative democracy, it's representative hypocrisy.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is McCarron in violation of the UBC Constituion?

Ted
Bill, you guys are in the second Circuit.....Harrington v. Chao was issued in the First Circuit & to date is the only such ruling flying in the face of the mandates of the NLRA, bothe the preamble & section 7 rights wherein the representative is defined as the individual & in the context of the Preamble (POLICY of the UNITED STATES), last par. the controlling issue of which is "by the worker" and under section 7, the controlling issue is "the employee" - both the Legal & Plain & Ordinary meaninig standards for English clearly & unequivocally denote both as "qualifiers" to the phrase:

"to bargain with representatives of their own choosing"

I will repeat this again for those who refuse to listen to solid advice....

Whose Own Choosing (both preamble & sec. 7)....?

"BY WORKERS" & "THE EMPLOYEES"

Who by virtue of their "AT WILL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS" are no longer workers, employees and under relevant NLRA caselaw going back to dirt since the NLRA was first authored are defined as "SUPERVISORS" under the NLRA?????

oh yeah, that would be the Business Agents, Business Manager/Representative, Organizers, and every employee of every UBC Council (secretaries, janitors, McCarron Body Guards, postman, Fedex & UPS & the Pope excluded).

Can they sit on & serve upon Locals E-Boards under LMRDA....no, (notwithstanding the fact that they do it with willful & fraudulent cotempt of know law(s), it is still quite Illegal) same holds true for the "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY" line which McCarrons attorneys (remember, this is a make pretend case here....ala Roe v. Wade) in which Harrington was handed the shit by the International & told to file it - period. Yes, they do play ball this way & no, Harrington never profferred this case, not smart enough to conjure it up all by his-self....are you following me yet.

You have the consent Decree going for you, the NYCDCC 50-50 RULE, NOW BACK TO 67-33, SOON TO BE 100 AGAIN IS PART & PARCEL TO HARRINGTON V. CHAO - SO CHALLENGE IT IN THE 2ND CIRCUIT.

POINT 2 - Again for those who refuse to listen...UBC 43 & Lebovitz declared the UBC Constitution & Bylaws facially unlawful.

The Board did so without "QUALIFICIATION".....it was made as a blanket statement.

ALJ cases more aptly concern the individual...when the crap gets to the NLRB Board, they consider as a minor sidebar, the interest of the Individuals involved and as the Major or Core issue the impact to Federal Labor Law as it effects the NLRA and all workers & firms, Interstate Commerce etc.....the greater good, labor & industrial peace yada, yada.

Nowhere within the legislative history of the NLRA was the phrase representative democracy used, The core Language of the Preamble & Section 7 Employee Rights, Worker Rights were clearly written in language readily understood in 1935 to be plain & clear on its face that rank & file members were accorde the right to VOTE on all matters relevant to their "CERTIFIED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE".....for wages, hours, working conditions etc.....coercion of the individual is not allowed, nor is usurption of the process by the UBC & its crooked attorneys and/or a crooked Secretary of Labor.

You need a decision contrary to this and it is thus ripe for the Supreme Court. They will eat this up & shit all over Chao & the UBC.

HERE'S THE DEAL THOUGH, WHEN RANK & FILE MEMBERS REFUSE TO ACT ON SOLID INTELLIGENT ADVICE, WHICH CAN BE BACKED UP WITH A BOAT-LOAD OF KNOWN CASELAW - YOU ARE IN FACT MAKING THEIR ARGUMENT FOR THEM, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, VIA DEFAULT, DISINTEREST, STUPIDITY WHATEVER....FAILING A CHALLENGE, YOU NEED TO HAVE OTHERS DOING THE THINKING FOR YOU, BECAUSE AS DOUG WOULD SAY...THEY'RE TOO FUCKING DUMB TO KNOW ANY BETTER, SO WE HAD TO SO IT.

GET SOME GUYS TOGETHER & FILE THE CHARGES

this ain't personal either, in any sense whatsoever..your a sharp guy, get together with some other sharp guys, pull the cases, the citations, do some homework & get 2,3,5 guys names on it & file it...the consent decree is the only thing keeping McCarron from controlling every state nationwide....NYC is the last bastion of any hope to reverse this decision & remove the shackles form all of us