Motions at last 157 meeting

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

Motions at last 157 meeting

Donny Arana
At our last 157 meeting we asked all our eboard and delegates to the Dc to step to the mike and state if they were for or against full mobility .They didnt want to do it because they rather ride the fence and back door us.Regardless we demanded an answer to this simple matter,and they all did .They said they appose full mobility. A motion was passed that a letter to Mr, walsh,McCarron,Spencer,ballantyne and judge Berman be written stating local 157"s (largest local in nyc)elected leaders With names and positions are against full mobility. Are eboard wasnt happy that we held them accountable . The letter was written two days later due to pressure by pro tem Pres and vp. Do you think this heped ubc to take full mobility off the table???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

forum
i thought that walsh said that it was never on the table?  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Donny Arana
It does not matter what anybody tells you, if you think full mobility is not on the table-we are in trouble.This is not dead and must be fought.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

forum
i am confused, in your first post you say mobility is off the table, in your second post you say it isnt. i thought you were asking the question in your firstpost as to whether the motion you made was what took mobility off the table. other posters are saying that we alredy have full mobility. so what are you saying?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Donny Arana
I am saying do you think this motion will help us against full mobility?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

forum
Do you think this heped ubc to take full mobility off the table???

I am saying do you think this motion will help us against full mobility?

you really need to figure out what you are saying. if you are running for office then get a plaform and stop trying to mind fuck everyone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Levi
In reply to this post by Donny Arana
   To clarify; full mobility is something that the contractors want and push for in contract negotiations. They cannot get this without going to court and having the ratio changed with an order from Judge Berman. It will always be on the table as something the contractors want. That is why the letter to Judge Berman is so important. Correspondence with the Judge is an excellent way to show him that we have an opinion on the subject. Although full mobility is not on the agenda yet our presence in his courtroom on April 6 and future dates will also go a long way to influence his views and decision making on all issues regarding the Carpenters Union.
    Fighting full mobility is going to take the involvement of outspoken members with informed and creative minds as well as vigilance.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Pete Corrigan
agreed levi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Richard Dorrough
In reply to this post by forum
To be sure your on the same page you have to understand that you cannot say 100% mobility and Full mobility as if they were the same thing.They are not. We have full mobility in that all Council members can work in any local that is affiliated with the said council. You do not have 100% mobility which means a contractor can come into a local area and bring his entire crew and not hire a single worker from the local hall. 100% mobility was never put on the table for April 6th. The % ratio was which for the NYCDCC is at 66%-33%. Remember that Haight did a boo hoo for the contractors and gave away the 50/50 and replaced it with 66/33
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

listman
60 US  / 40 Them.  I agree with that post
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Levi
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
I have never heard of full mobility described that way and always thought it was the same as 100% mobility. If you are correct than I have made that mistake several times a day for a while now. Ha. But from here on I will be sure to use the term 100% in order to keep us all on the same page. Can you tell me how these terms came about and if there is any legal reference to them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Pete Corrigan
50/50 is what we need
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Richard Dorrough
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
Also to clarify. This is my opinion and we all have them. Thomas Garrison known as Hatchet Jack Garrison explained 100% mobility to our members with the following analogy and I quote " A contractor can come to Albany from Buffalo and bring his entire crew to work in the Local 370 area and does not have to hire anybody from local 370".A member asked how this could possibly benefit our members. He replied "well if your company wanted to take you all to work in Buffalo he could" The member replied who the hell wants to work in Buffalo with no gas,lodging,food or anything else which you gave away at the last contract negotiation.  

From the Empire Council bylaws:"Workers shall have employment mobility throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the council"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

listman
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
60 Union / 40 contractor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motions at last 157 meeting

Pete Corrigan
we should try to get the best deal we can get... How about 60 Union 40 Contractor why are we conceeding and giving them 40 percent 7 percent what do we gain half a man back lets get another man or 2.