Since there are so many posters eager to correct my posts, I thought I would take advantage of this and let them tell me how their local meets the mandates of the federal government to be considered a labor organization. Sorry Richard, this does not mean you, I am only interested in facts, no slanted versions of how you think things work please.
Anyone else, please try and find one thing your local does from the list below.
Any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. 29 USC
So Wayne Harley, since you disagree with me, why have you not answered this?
"John as blog owner we ask you to ban this clown for the sake of the majority. This coward has nothing constructive to add and posts pure UBC Propaganda and misinformation meant to deter members from fighting back. Since he came to this blog he has done nothing but abuse those who oppose the council and their rats. He has attacked every single anti corruption presence that has come to this site and does nothing for the good of the membership. You have lost many good voices from this blog due tho this cowards BS. I demand the right of Freedom of speech and respect opposing opinions but this cowards record speaks for itself. Since he came here he has routinely abused all other blogger's opposed to McCarons oppressive regime,posted lies and misinformation and tired to disrupt all attempts by other members to join together in the common goal of reclaiming our Union.Enough is enough.Let your bloggers have vote on the matter. Let the majority decide as is the democratic way.
You are on a roll Richard, I am smiling again.
I saw that you had replied to my post and was stunned, since my post asked for two things, first that you not reply as I feel you are an idiot and second that the responder list one power a local has.
As the self-proclaimed leader of the save the locals campaign, I actually found it interesting that you were unable to even attempt a reply.
You took it upon yourself to respond to a post which you were asked not to and then fail to actually give one power held at a local level.
Though I did like your spiel on wanting freedom of speech for everyone but me. Funny.
Perhaps if I put it another way. What functions are performed by a local which make them useful to members? Actual functions, not just emotional attachments.
They were originally and without emotional attachments today necessary for checks & balances for what Mccaron is doing.
What, -No locals means the mob casn't get into the council.
They're still there see Walsh verbatim.
Thats what its about
Why should members be interested in having a local to provide checks and balances for McCarron? pretty expensive way to allow us to have an idiot for a president. Me thinks you are an idiot.
"Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will." -Noam Chomsky
anon drivels on:
Perhaps if I put it another way. " What functions are performed by a local which make them useful to members? Actual functions, not just emotional attachments. ""
There is no emotional attachment, not in the least, not from me when I reply w/ this simple thought.
What did the pre-Mccaron union strive for. IT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO HIS IDEALS.
anon you must inform yourself and see how hard it will be to have any cred here.
You and the regulars who are behind Derrico & co, the personal placements at the council, the dissolution, lower wages, longer hours, company favoritism, less representation, oh and this one, - " a member controlled council " are the lemmings which followed the corrupt placement of work by the now jailed & current admin.
pretty expensive way to allow us to have an idiot for a president
Non-crooks, control themselves
Let me see if I have this correct. Richard Dorrough, Wayne Harley and others want a stronger local which I agree with. Anon says “under the current system locals have no power” and the rank and file should have a greater voice in the Councils, which I also agree with.
We all want the same thing, we all want the rank and file to have a greater voice in this Union. How we achieve this is the issues.
Both sides have merits to their views. We can debate the merits of both, what would work in NYC would not work for the rest of the country. We can disagree with each other, but I ask that we be civil and the tone of the debate restrained from name calling.
In Walsh’s report he suggest the consolidation of all locals in NYC and “fixing the flaws in the governance of the council.”
We can all agree that McCarrons council delegate system is a failure. Walsh wrote, “that there be changes in the role of the delegates and the executive committee.” Both bodies functioned “nothing more than the barest of rubber stamps on matters placed before them.”
If we did consolidate all the locals and removed the delegate system and just had one local or council in NYC that answered to the rank and file directly, members would have the ability to participate in their conditions of employment, vote on all issues that effect their livelihood and manage the internal business of the union.
Is this direct control of a council by the rank and file even possible under the UBC constitution?
If NYC were to implement such a system how would this effect the rest of the country?
How could NYC be governed differently than the rest of the country?
Obviously there are all sorts of legal issues and questions that need to be discussed and resolved before the NYC District Council could be run effectively by elected officials for the benefit of the members.
To me it boils down to this, what do you feel are sufficient powers to hold at a local level to make it worth giving up a voice in everything else?
What does a local provide members which makes it worth this sacrifice?
In what manner will a local be able to influence the UBC from these locals?
Why do I need alocal in NYC? The council is as close as my union meeting hall.
Why do I want to pay more in dues to belong to a local which only serves to strip my voice?
For those of you who claim that they will have a voice regardless, what use is a voice that no one has to listen to? If the only people who hear that voice have no power to help you, then what use is it?
I know I have sent letters to Spencer, there are two types of replies, one is where he answers questions you never asked and doesn’t answer any of the questions that you did. The real kicker is that he likes to end these letters with a “If there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me”.
If you do not know what he meant by that, you find out when you ask all the same questions of him again, this time you get the second type of response, no response.
What use is a local where all they have to do is ignore you?
Spencer ignored at least twelve invitations from local 608 to address the meeting. At least twelve times a motion was put on the floor and voted on to have the local ask Spencer to attend a meeting. At the final meeting of local 608, this motion was brought and approved, this will have been the only time that the officers from 608 did not have to inform the members of local 608 that their invitation had been declined.
And yet, there are still some who will claim that the members of a local have a voice. If a local of 7,000 members could not get Spencer to give them one hour in a year, what does that say?
That locals are not needed to facilitate the workings of the union.
The current system requires that you must convince the council that your views on any given decision of the council are valid and deserve consideration.
If members directly decided issues, then the opposite would be the case. Anyone wanting my vote would have to show me why I should consider voting for their proposal.
If it was a case whereby all members were entitled to vote on issues at a council level, how many would want to continue paying dues at a local?
If these locals are so important, why did the president of local 157 and supervisor Spencer think that a venue which could only hold 500 people was sufficient for a local consisting of 11,000 members?
If locals are so important that the union would be destroyed if they were to be lost, why is attendance at meetings usually under 4% of the membership of any local?
100 members at the 157 meetings out of 4,550 members?
200 at the 608 meetings out of 7,000?
If members voices can be heard at a local, why was it necessary for Walsh to force the local officers to actually inform members of how their dues were being spent?
Every officer, steward, business agent and organizer who has been brought up on charges has been as a result of their dealings with the council. Why is there none at a local level in a union that is corrupt?
The sad fact is that I wish there had been someone, at least then it would mean that there was power which could be used if the corruption was dealt with.
Even when local 157 was placed under supervision it was because council employees were not doing their jobs. There does not seem to be anything at a local level outside of wanting to disaffiliate with the UBC that is a sanction able offense at a local.
Sorry, I forgot, not getting members to pay their dues and sign those blue cards.
If 10% of the membership of any local ever showed up for any local meeting, they would not be able to attend the meeting because the space would not be sufficient to hold them.
I just cannot see any value being placed on a local by the members of that local.
There was what, a 10% turnout for the last elections at local 608? How do you convert this into members seeing a value to a local?
With all the talk of needing a strong local, an independent local, that locals are the heart and soul of a union, why is there no one who can show anything that can or was done by a local?
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
"I know I have sent letters to Spencer" I say prove it. Give them to John to post on this site.Show us you NLRB letters while your at it.
"We all want the same thing, we all want the rank and file to have a greater voice in this Union"
Sorry John but that is jut not true. This guy wants nothing of the sort. His entire mission is to get the rank and file to give up any fight or opposition to the present system and to post propaganda and lies to support McCarron,Spencer and his corruption. When he cannot support a single thing he spews he resorts to name calling as he hides behind his keyboard.He has been a punk and a coward since he got here.Not name calling but fact.Go back and look. I can be as big an ass..as there is but not until I am attacked. But this guy has attacked EVERY SINGLE poster opposed to McCarron and his regime.EVERY OTHER POSTER on this site but YOU see that very clearly.
You made one true statement .You cannot control the council corruption therefore you cannot give up our locals to some council rat bastards. NYC has proven that in 30 years they cannot stop the council corruption even with the US Attorney and a consent decree. So give it up. A council system is a complete failure and we will not give up our locals to them.
The problem with the Local argument is that we other UBC members have not rolled over and played dead for the council as the NYC members have done.(not by choice) Our locals are not dead as yours are. We dispatch our own members .We control our jobs. We are not in trusteeship as you are JUST because your council is. We are still alive and will fight to remain so. However we are now and have been under attack to be put under the same yoke you have carried in NY for 20 years. We will not hand that over to some council rat bastards without a fight. Under our local system we have never had a mob connected ass clown in charge of our funds. Under the Empire Council we had Olivieiri as fund Chairman. Our Pension fund stayed local and was not merged with the council and lost nothing to Madoff. Maybe your locals are gone but ours are not. And we will not tolerate some McCarron propagandists to say they are.You CANNOT stop the Council corruption even after 30 years .Until you do then Walsh ideas of dissolving locals are pure wishful thinking. We must support the locals and locals power until you show us a council system free of corruption we can give up our locals to. You act as if you have one for the near future when in fact neither you nor Walsh have a single thing to offer. What are we to do in the mean time. Hand our locals over to the council corruption that exists. NO!!!! We will fight to free ourselves from this corrupt system and retain our local power and identity. This is not sentimental. This is survival and we will not let Garrison put the final nail in our coffin.Spencers actions speak for themselves. McCarrons actions against Walsh speak for themselves. They have continued to appoint and attempt keep in power the same corrupt elements. If not for Walsh you would still have the rats in power. Remember we do not have an RO to help us fight off these corrupt bastards. We have begged the US Attorney ,DOL,NLRB and ERISA for help and they have done nothing. We have to fight them on our own and we will. We will not go quietly and end up like our NYC brothers and sisters.We have to work to expose these council rats and McCarrons corruption and we will
Many rank and file members come here to fight for the rights of the rank and file. YOU INSULT US when you try to include this council mouth piece as one of us. The next blogger this guy calls an idiot or moron and you do nothing about I for one will be done with your site.
In reply to this post by email@example.com
John on your point, ---------
D.Walsh wrote, “that there be changes in the role of the delegates and the executive committee.” Both bodies functioned “nothing more than the barest of rubber stamps on matters placed before them.”
Less reprentation as per a new 11k "" local ".
No-one can convince me despite a federal monitors desire to change the delegate & executive committees to avoid rubber stamping matters that Mccaron wants anyhting but exactly that. Walsh would aid with the sugesstion ofchanges but we all knnow as per his Dec. report Mccaron is ready to fight Walsh for what he wants.
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
John your point:
Under our local system we have never had a mob connected ass clown in charge of our funds.
MOB CONNECTED ASS CLOWNS LIKE HMMMM LET ME SEE, -- HANLEY-- & THE REST HAVE RUN EVERYTHING BUT THE FUNDS.
On your point:
We must support the locals and locals power until you show us a council system free of corruption we can give up our locals to.
ONLY THEN DO WE EVEN DEBATE & CONTEMPLATE SUCH UBC MOVES.
On your point:
Hand our locals over to the council corruption that exists. NO!!!!
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !
On your point :
Remember we do not have an RO to help us fight off these corrupt bastards.
SEEMS NEITHER DO WE, WITHOUT A PLAN AS TO CHANGING THE DELEGATE & COMMITTEE STRUCTURE BUT BY ALL MEANS GO RIGHT AHEAD DOUG AND CONSOLOIDATE WITHOUT TELLING THE MEMBERSHIP WHAT THIS PLAN IS ????
listman here, I meant Rich not john, -re: on your points.
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
Hi Richard, lets see, what do you have for us today?
For the record, I have never said I wrote any letter to the NLRB.
You want me to forward my letters to Spencer so that you can read them?
This is the same Richard who will never post a link to any site to show the basis of any argument presented by him?
This is the same Richard who likes to distort facts to suit his rants?
I mean come on, seriously?
And sure, you could call my posts propaganda, if not for the fact that I DO post links to substantiating sites, and the fact that I can and do show why my posts are as accurate as I can make them.
Since you have never been able to dispute anything that I have ever posted, where are you getting the impression that if you could find something which I posted that I was not able to support, that I would resort to name calling?
Of course the ridiculous part would be you finding anything, but anyhow.
Lets see what is next, council corruption, and Richard says……… wait for it………..
Lets keep doing the same thing in the same way and expect a different result.
And your pensions are all doing well, that is good to hear, so those news broadcasts and that whole rumor about your council being under supervision was false, good to hear.
And the only union in the country not infiltrated by the mob, congrats on that.
So your local dispatches workers, and controls its jobs? You mean that the business agents are not council employees? Hmmm.
So your local dispatches workers, that is it? Powerful local you got.
So if all is so rosy and bright, what is this comment about “We have begged the US Attorney ,DOL,NLRB and ERISA for help and they have done nothing.”
I am begging no one, and Richard, your attachment to your local is more beneficial to McCarron than it is to you.
And farewell Richard, I thought we had gotten past me having to call you an idiot or a moron, I thought it was simply understood.
And are you actually saying that members should put up with a corrupt council until such time as the council decides to rid itself of corruption? That you disagree with taking proactive steps to take over the council and rid it of corruption?
In reply to this post by firstname.lastname@example.org
" ONLY THEN DO WE EVEN DEBATE & CONTEMPLATE SUCH UBC MOVES. " you will debate what? when did the locals get a say in anything, oh yeah, when members went to that meeting on dissolving 608, i remember now.
If a local of 7,000 members could not get Spencer to give them one hour in a year, what does that say?
You'll have no voice at the council either.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|