Out of Towners?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
332 messages Options
1 ... 6789101112 ... 17
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
It looks as if 100% MOBILITY is going to be the straw that breaks the unions back. Members who illegally were allowed to join nycdcc have opened the doors for OUT OF TOWNERS from all over the US. What comes around goes around & dont be surprised to be unemployed by another carpenter from even further away. Did you really think this was sustainable & never going to affect you MAGGOTS & LEECHES ? You will soon see how this plays out & goodluck with those big boxes on LI, NJ, & PA.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
USG has closed its doors in Nevada & the whole town of GYP are homeless. Nevada is at its knees & we soon will be getting carpenters from all over the US. Google USG & read what is going on in Nevada.  Bloombergs aides know 5 BOROGH TAXPAYING residents are pissed & I've recieved a commitment from his administration that they are simpathetic with the NYC LOCAL TAXPAYER. You soon will see much tougher standards for all nyc services. NYCDCC & Walsh should take note that the 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING MEMBERS are going to stick up for themselves & will challenge them in court if need be !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
In reply to this post by Rev Al
USG has closed its doors in Nevada & the whole town of GYP are homeless. Nevada is at its knees & we soon will be getting carpenters from all over the US. Google USG & read what is going on in Nevada.  Bloombergs aides know 5 BOROGH TAXPAYING residents are pissed & I've recieved a commitment from his administration that they are simpathetic with the NYC LOCAL TAXPAYER. You soon will see much tougher standards for all nyc services. NYCDCC & Walsh should take note that the 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING MEMBERS are going to stick up for themselves & will challenge them in court if need be !
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Tom McGuire
Tom - Rev. Al

HIRING - ARTICLE VI, Sec. 2
The first Carpenter on the job shall be referred by the Union. The second Carpenter shall be the Employers selection. The balance shall be 50% from the Union and 50% from the employer.

ARTICLE VII, Job Referral System
In selecting applicants from the referral list, the Union shall use the following criteria.

(a) Carpenters will be hired by the job referral list at the district Council. The 50/50 rule will be enforced and the Employer can hire whom he wants on the 50% ratio.The other 50% will come from the job referral lsit and all requests  will be honored from the job referral list, provided those Carpenters requested are members of the New York City District Council.

All request must be made for New York City District Council of Carpenters only.

All Carpenters on a job site who are not members of the NYCDCC will be matched from
the OWL referral list one for one, and requests cannot be used to match out of town Carpenters.
__________________________________________________________________________

Forgetting the 50-50 ratio & the current 67/33 ratio per the current Consent Decree Court Order - What does the core CBA lanaguage above mean to you?

i.e How do read it, what are the legal qualifiers, phrases and words which grab your attention?

How is this being enforced or not being enforced currently? And, what if anything is the IG & IRO Office doing to check abuses of this system by the Contractor Association GC's & Sub's?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
Ted, this a protection clause in that it gives UBC members the right to work anywhere, supposed to be used primarily when a local doesn't have enough local members to cover jobs like when a small, or in the case of NYC in the late 90's large jurisdiction has a boom. It has been subverted over time  to be used as it currently is, ie: people being members in one jurisdiction while living in another. A guy was supposed to be able to go somewhere else after that locals membership was used up, noe live in Kentucky but be a member of a local in say Portland. That has subverted the whole meaning of LOCAL. I'm shocked you use this to back up your argument that the members should be able to live somewhere else while members of a local, as this is exactly the UBC's point for full mobility. They and the Contractors read it like that, and if it were part of a legal document I would also, but lo and behold that judges ruling about it being facially unlawful may stand up on appeal.
I can;t think of manning without the so called 50/50 or consent decree in my head because they are fully a part of the overall question.
As to what the IG and RO are doing about manning ratios and other CBA matters, you should ask them. I dont work there and have no knowledge of what goes on now, except anecdotally. Some say Reps aren't even coming into buildings? That confuses me. How do they know the truth about what goes on inside then?
 And the 50/50 was NEVER adhered to by my local. Jeff Passante told me it didn't apply to 2287, even though its in the CBA, and the council before these guys never did anything about it. Interesting, eh?
Now whether its a legal doc or not, lets skip that and realize my above statement about that sections reason for being seem to be obvious. Remember I also said a long time ago that many members were signed from other areas by greedy BA's who wanted to increase their dues rolls. Either way you look at it the intent of the section has been subverted and the contractors realizing that a precedent has been set by us having so many out of state members go for the whole mogilla, full mobility and bringing in wholely controlled workers and omitting all of the DC's members no matter where they live. This is the UBC's and the contractors justification, right there. Even Newkirk in his report  in support of closing and merging locals says that members rarely left their home areas in the old days (25 yrs ago) and since it is so common now, thanks to the section cited, we have no need for so many local. Ted, weren't you 608? You're standing up in your post for both full mobility and mergers of locals. Even some laws become irrelevant Ted. But remember, I'm home all the time and merely have an opinion. These and all issues will really be decided by others. Take Care professor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
And like I always say Ted, I could be wrong. Thats how I see it is all.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Tom McGuire
I'm shocked you use this to back up your argument that the members should be able to live somewhere else while members of a local, as this is exactly the UBC's point for full mobility.
__________________________________________________________________________
Tom - I didn't say this, all I did was print what was in the contract & ask a question as to how you guys see it.

By the way, I do not support any form of mobility. In NYCDCC, the defined geographical jurisdiction is the Council. It is an intangible property right which the rank & file need to enforce. That means when all 23,000 of you are employed 52 weeks a year, and all of you have more overtime than you know what to do with - then & only then should the Council look to take in new members or apprentices.

The Supreme Court has ruled that chief among the bundle of sticks that make/define property is the right to exclude others.

If you want to protect your rights you have to elect people who comprehend the contract lanaguage and who will stand up for the men and protect the base right to exclude all others until all council carpenters are employed.

What good is a Council with 23k members that on average, work 1,150 hours a year? As you pointed out....greedy BA's to increase their dues take - got that. Analyze the numbers & the man-hours in the 2nd RO Report...what does it tell you?

During the last 3-Fiscal Years, the RO reported an average of 20-Million Man-hours. 20-Million divided by 2,000 man-hours per year, per man = 10,000 members max.

So here is what I am saying: Given the last 3-years and the current one (FY 2010) are occurring in the worst years of a recession, rank & file members have to look at long term averages during both good years and bad years. Another words, at minimum a 20-year mean.

Example: If during the last 20-year cycle, the NYCDCC mean number of man-hours were 28-Million Man-Hours, then, that is what you must use to base the max number of Carpenters taken into membership in the UBC for the District Council.

So, 28-Million man-hours would support a membership base of 14,000 brothers and sisters, not one of 22k or 25k members. That is where the members get screwed, your hours get watered down etc. (2,000 M/H's a year is based on 2-weeks Vacation time).

The only way to ensure high standards, maintain decent wages & benefits is to enforce and control the total number of members taken in. You have to make the changes through your By-Laws. Seniority should be a topic of conversation put on the table and added to the the By-Laws by the rank & file, not by the International.

Currently, the problem centers on having taken in too many men. That can be handled through ordinary attrition & retirements, etc.

In summary, my argument is the same as Levi, Brklyn's etc - employ NYCDCC members first, all of them, no outsiders, no travelers, no 1099 workers, no cash workers or illegal aliens, no 50-50%, no 67-33% rules either.

With all due respect, this does not make me a professor, it's simple math that any union carpenter can certainly do.
_________________________________________________________________________

Here is where accountability comes into play:

Dennis Walsh, the IRO should order a report from the Benefit Fund Trustees which delineates all man-hours worked for the last 21-years THE DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE), broken down by 2 criteria - Man-Hour Totals for NYCDCC members & man-hour totals for non-members of the DC.

When Dennis Walsh does this, and you guys find out that 70% plus of your total MaHours per year are going to those who live outside of the City & 5-Boroughs - then Houston, you got a serious problem with how the NYCDCC is being run....and you'd all better elect an EST who gets this and is not in it for himself.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Tom McGuire
Tom - again with all due respect, see the post Questions for all Candidates & the RO Forum June 21st, which was also posted yesterday.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Nobody who lives outside the 5 boroughs should have a nycdcc card. Have Walsh find out the breakdown of hours worked by 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING MEMBERS. This bullshit is going to stop very soon.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
Exactly Rev Al, rather defeats the purpose of a Local Union or a Council.

Note: NYCDCC is an exception in that the "defined geographical jurisdiction" is not strcitly limited to citeis & towns within the Locals Defined area, rather - NYCDCC does it Council wide. The majority of the the UBCJA nationwide defines it by the Local Unions geoprahical jurisdiction.

In the end, however, it is the same argument.

If you go to the RO forum on the 21st, ask the RO for this report...re: we've had computers for 21+ years, the UBCJA tracks us all by U-Numbers & Local Union Numbers...so find out how many Man-Hours each year go to outsiders (regardless of category). The numbers will astound you. The UBCJA will fight this request & will not want to make the data available. The RO has the power & authority to order the report.

It is a simple question and a fair one. Members have a right to know.
owl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

owl
In reply to this post by Ted
how about this. company guys and their friends get prevailing wage .if they dont like prevailing wages they have to go on the out of work list  no union benes
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
In reply to this post by Ted
Sorry Ted, it seemed to me as if you were, by citing the section, standing up for it. I recently sent DW an email concerning the restructuring plan and pointed out the attririon and the probability that , given the limited counties to be serviced by 2287 some members would join the local closer to home. I suggested that we give up maybe 1 county a year so as not to overextend bennies being used by 2287 members while hours would be obviously, reduced. I also suggested that this should only be done over an extended period of time, at least 5 years, to account for the natural attrition. I also suggested to him that during that period new applicants from those counties designated to be given to another council be denied and sent to the council representing the area in which they live.
And Ted, I'm a floorlayer. At least one third of the floorlayers going to work in NYC today are members of the jersey local, while 2287 guys who pay their dues are sitting home. You already have mobility folks, now what are you going to do about it? Take care .
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
In reply to this post by Ted
Ted, I was the one who said that this is ours to defend. I call you professor because you condescend, and its in jest. And again, thanks for making my point about too many members from outside the city. Its fine when we're booming and need people, but come the fuck on. All the suburbs need NYC to survive (see suburban Detroit) but if the suburbs strangle the NYC tax base we're all fucked. Then where are we all going? Floriduh? So, are you for sending new applicants to the council in which they live? The mobility thing was never meant to be a matter of course, commuting from bricktucky to NYC all the time. So you agree in a sort of backhanded way?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
In reply to this post by Ted
ANd I'm not a member of 157 and dont involve myself in their internal elections and I will be at the forum.again!
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Tom McGuire
Tom - I am not condescending and I don't agree in any backhanded way whatsoever - so don't put words in my mouth. The professor was on Gilligans Island and they never got off the island right. Well, you boys are being given that chance to get off of McCarrons Island of getting screwed 21-years running - 16 under his watch.

Did you not read the posts? The Councils take in way too many members - period. re: Greed, for Local Union coffers as amply pointed out.

I made the distinction btwn. a sustainable membership base, with 95%+ making (earning) what I consider to be the base min. wage to survive in NYCDCC (cost of living), and have done so for over a year on this site. The base minimum wage for all Union Carpenters in the DC is 2,000 Man-Hours per year at the full rate, not 1,153, not 800 or 500. There certainly should be a residency requirement.

Also made the point that the average wage currently is based on 1,153 man-hours per year, times the base rounded Journeyman wage of $43 an hour for a round number. Do the math, tell me what it costs to live in NYC & the 5-Boroughs - and sorry if you disagree, but a man with a family & a mortgage can't make it on that kind of money, let alone having BTEA & greedy Contractors cut the total package 20-25%.

Called for the RO to publish a report for the 21-years of the Consent Decree and publish two simple things - NYCDCC members and their Man-Hours and the same list for non-NYCDCC members and list their man-hours on a year by year basis.

That would clearly depict the reality behind how the NYC & 5-Borough residents are getting screwed. They should go to work first, over and above all others, travelers, 1099 workers, illegal aliens and the cash workers.

Mobility is the magnet leading to the fraud. Lack of enforcement of the borders and state borders and the fact that Liberal Polciticans have declared NYC a sanctuary city for those pre-disposed to breaking the law & gaming & cheating the system is the primary factor hurting the Local residents and Local Union members who live there.

I am for asking for a genuine birth certificates (and having them on file) and putting Local men & woman to work predicated on actual proof of their residency within NYC & the 5-boroughs, just so you know exactly where I stand on the issue.

McCarronism does not work. If it did - the Consent Decree would have been over years ago. Afterall, he's had 16-years to get this done and he has failed miserably - hasn't he?

As for the RO report calling for ever more attorneys - no way. They're the ones crafting the backdoor langauge screwing the working man & woman of their guaranteed NLRA & LMRDA rights. Ole Doug has spent an easy $100M generating suits the nation over, taking the NLRA apart bit by bit, one piece at a time. Well, time to stop that bullshit. It is hightime these overpaid hacks got their last two paychecks, same goes for the Council hacks.

Next RO Forum, ask Dennis Walsh for a cost report detailing the year by year Legal Expenses & Hourly Billings for the District Council's portion of the Consent Decree and for a detailed analysis of exactly how much money that NYCDCC members contribute to the UBCJA International to support the billings from Latham & Watkins - the room will go silent....you guys are paying for the Plaintiff US Attorneys expenses via indirect Federal Income taxes, you are paying for the District Councils legal billings and you are paying for the IRO directly....so you have the plaintiffs costs, the defendants costs - you guys are eating pretty much all of it and what do you have to show for 21 years of Legal Bills, other than more Legal Bills?

Whats the total spent to date? Simple Question and the figures should be at the tip of the RO'S tongue - snap of a finger or a computer file....correct. Watch how they stumble and waffle on this simple question.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
Did YOU read the posts Ted? Your math is immutable, great job. I've been saying there are too many members for NYC work for years, and at leaqst a few times in this discussion. And again, the 1000 members of my local mean nothing while we have 157 with, what, 11000? The 157 election will more accurately depict what the powers that be do to our DC. Unless you have $100000 to sue the UBC over what is going on in NYC I don't know what to tell you. So you agree that there are too many non NY'ers working in NYC, why then give me shit? This is what I and BKLYN have been saying since this discussion began, and YeahTed, you are a bit condescending. Thanks for the great job on the hours/income. Its a travesty the the UBC thinks the worker can continue to live like this, worrying every day, let alone with less to take care of the family if the associations get their way.. What local are you Ted? And Ted, I live in NYC and know damn well what it takes to live here, which is why Bklyn and I began this exercise, to see if anyone else thought the same way about NYC members getting fucked. Where do you live Ted, and what local are you?Take your own advice and read all the posts on this subject. You're amking points already made by both BKLYN and I. Unfortunatley a birth certifivate doesn't prove where one lives, but merely where one was born. This whole discussion after Petes initial question has been mobility, with both BKLYN and I pointing out the relevance of the mobility already in place, and what predicated this mobility and what to do about it, so Im not sure what you think I've been saying all this time. If you live outside NYC and you work in NYC then you're already for mobility. Thats the generic you Ted, not the actual you as I have no clue where you live. I have also called for those who live elsewhere to join the locals where thay live, but have any done this? Doubt it. Because that would be for the greater good and most of the guys around are for themselves, not true union men. Some just like to hear themselves talk.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
In reply to this post by Ted
Also Ted, you have a sound analytical, if not one track mind, are you running, if not, why? Just curious. And is what I read just now true? Teds not your real name?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Walsh needs to make a statement on this issue if he truly reviews the nycdcc !
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Tom McGuire
Tom - this is FYI, from the US Supreme Court....here's what they say on Contracts

In Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., 475 US 211 (1986), Justice White in delivering the opinion of the Court stated “Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject [475 US 211, 224] matter which lies within the control of Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them.” Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co, 294 US, 240, 307-308  (1935).

Question - who gave you the right to vote in your Union? Wasn't Doug McCarron was it? The Congress did, via the NLRA in 1935 - correct?

Neither the DOL-NLRB or the UBC International can amend, alter or end run the law or the Constitution, nor can they make contracts about laws which the Congress passed.

What do you think they are doing right now with the new Restructuring Plan & the By-Laws incorporated therein, with the tacit approval of the US Attorney who has said nothing. He is there to uphold and enforce Consent Decree & the laws as writtten, funny though - all I hear is a deafening silence. Makes you wonder why he still has a bar card to practice law? What is he upholding right now? Certainly not the law.

So let see what Dennis Walsh the RO strikes form the Restructuring Plan. Should be an interesting Forum next week. He has the line item veto power - let's see how much he removes. Keep up the good work...keep asking questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tom McGuire
Hey Ted, just spoke to BKLYN and he pointed out that you were indeed the guy who talked here about property rights, a post I loved at the time but forgot. See you at the forum. A funny thing happened on my way to the forum...
1 ... 6789101112 ... 17