Out of Towners?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
332 messages Options
1 ... 121314151617
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Jason
I just meant we are projected as "high" labor costs.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

tester
...a three and a half inch nail was found lodged in his brain...

http://www.geekosystem.com/nail-brain-accident
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
In reply to this post by Jason
Like I said, another guy not paying 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAX. Stop being a leech !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

jesse Jackson
Hey Al. Im from jersey working in nyc right now. If you were any good at your craft you would be too. Guess you better get used to it because I've been doing it for 28yrs and now my sons are. Hahahaha!!!!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
You must of done a real shitty job raising your sons if they're now in this buisness. I feel sorry for you !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

procity
In reply to this post by jesse Jackson
are you grandfatherd in like cops and firemen are and thats wrong too.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
re: In response to the original Question posed by Pete Corrigan....your new By-Laws have seen the BLUE CARD VACATION WAGE EXTORTION SCHEME (half billion dollar fraud/extortion/Criminal RICO violations by McCarron) morph right back to the OLD PERMIT SYSTEM as evidenced below. NYCDCC is an EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL as defined by the NLRB and the SECOND CIRCUIT, via the Gene Clarke cases, which remain "good law".

The NYCDCC, USAO, RO and the Court have collectively failed to remove the illegal provisions mandating forced compliance against your Section 7 Federal Right to "refrain from any & all activities", per LMRDA 1959 amendments. The current By-Laws below have additional illegalities built in, which also must be severed & expunged, short of filing additional charges at the NLRB. This is labor law 101, and the coerced/mandated compliance to a facially unlawful rule does not survive scrutiny within Board, Appellate or Supreme Court precedents, notwithstanding application of the All Writs Act yet applied or ruled upon.
_________________________________________________

AUGUST 2011 NYCDCC BY-LAWS APPROVED BY JUDGE BERMAN:

SECTION 14:  
WORKING DUES (DUES CHECK-OFF); SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND PER CAPITA TAX  

(A) The Council shall receive working dues in the amount of 1% of the members total package rate as reflected in the current collective bargaining agreement covering members for each hour worked. The Council shall also receive working dues from each member of $.60 per hour for each hour worked, subject to review and modification by the Council Delegate Body after review and report by the Audit Committee. This $.60 will be allocated to Organizing in the amount of $.50 an hour, $.05 for Communications and $.05 for Civic Action. The apportionment of working dues amongst Organizing, Communications, and Civic Action shall be maintained in the same proportions as outlined in the prior sentence, subject to review and modification by the Council Delegate Body after review and report by the Audit Committee. The working dues to this Council shall be due on the first day of the month and must be paid not later than the 15th day of the following month. The Council shall also receive working dues of $500 per year from every carpenter who has performed carpentry work for a signatory contractor in our jurisdiction during the calendar year. This $500 working dues to this Council shall be due on the first day of the month following the first day of work performed in our jurisdiction each year and must be paid not later than April 15th of the following year, provided however, that any member who shall have satisfied his or her Union Participation requirement for the applicable year, pursuant to Section 14(F) of the Bylaws, will receive credit for this $500 working dues requirement. The sums stated in this paragraph shall be reviewed periodically to determine if prudence requires that they be reduced or increased.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Go back + read some of the posts of Bill Lebo on this topic. Rev Al was not fooled + didn't vote for him. Double standards + bullshit. Read Levi's posts also. Lebo telegraphed his true colors on full mobility. All posts against Rev Al were made by members who didn't pay 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAX. Lebo is a maggot + leech + didn't fool Rev Al. Hey Lebo, tell the mob guys in Staten Island your bullshit stories about residency + 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAX. 14$$$ for the bridge + OUT OF TOWNERS work ahead of taxpayers. Your a fraud + your previous posts prove it. Go Moose go + all you need to do is go back to the old posts to vomit. 185,000$$$$$ OF SHIT ! GO 157 BLOGSPOT !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Lebo believes in protecting the jurisdiction as the way it now is. What a crock of shit to the taxpaying members of the 5 BOROUGHS. He says he's not for full mobility + expects 5 BOROGH LOCAL TAXPAYING members to compete with OUT OF TOWNERS. Simply put, Lebo is for out of state maggots + leeches to be able to hold nycdcc cards. Dont favor border states + LI + expect other states not to join the leeching party. Most OUT OF TOWNERS are quick to leech off the 5 BOROUGH TAXPAYING member + expect us to be happy about it. Fuck you Bill + your corrupt nycdcc jurisdictions. The nycdcc are illegal dues whores + the Bill Lebo's of the nycdcc are doubletalking pieces of shit. Try to spin this issue into 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING members having no skills. FUCK FUCKING YOU !
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 Pete Corrigan
UBCJA & NYCDCC "PERMIT for LEAFLET, BANNER & PICKET DUTY" SCAM per new BY-LAWS
__________________________________
256 NLRB No. 92
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania and Industrial Local No. 2605, AFL-CIO (DeRose Industries, Inc.) and Jerry L. Campbell. Case 6-CB-4931, June 15, 1981, page 2 of 4 (585 of record)


II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania and Industrial Local 2605, AFLCIO, are admittedly labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Jerry Campbell, the Charging Party in this case, has been an employee of DeRose Industries for approximately 9 years and has been a member of Local 2605. In connection with an economic strike which lasted from July 25 through August 20, 1978, Local 2605 required its members to assist in the picketing on a scheduled basis.

Campbell along with certain other employees failed to report to picket line duty. For each day missed a charge of $10 was assessed by Respondent. Campbell, having missed seven out of eight assigned picketing days, was notified by Local 2605 that he was fined a total of $70 and that he had a right to a hearing before the executive committee scheduled for September 27, 1978. Campbell attended the hearing before the executive
committee. It affirmed the $70 fine............

page 3 (586 record)

Campbell's refusal to pay the fine prompted his discharge and that he was reinstated only on the basis that the Union again considered him a member in good standing. {NYCDCC requires a similar Maintenance of Membership Clause, also ILLEGAL, as here}

The law is clear, Section 8(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a union to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. A union which causes the employer to discharge an employee for his failure to pay assessments or fines, other than periodic dues or normal initiation fees, violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A). Painters Local Union No. 1627 (William R. Johnson d/b/a Johnson's Plastering Co.), 233 NLRB 820, 821 (1977); International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13 (Pacific Maritime Association), 228 NLRB 1383, 1385 (1977), enfd. 581 F.2d 1321 (1978). Respondents, by causing or attempting to cause the termination of Campbell's employment, violated Section 8(b)(2) and (I)(A) of the Act.

Moreover, Respondents' statement to Campbell on January 14 that his refusal to pay the fine would result in a loss of good standing with the Union which in turn would render him ineligible for work was coercive and constitutes an independent violation of Section 8(b)(1)A) of the Act.

Respondents' main argument is their insistence that the Charging Party's case is barred by his failure to exhaust internal union remedies, and that Campbell's failure to pay the fine involved purely internal union affairs. In this regard, Respondents point to Section 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. 4 11(a)(4), which provides, inter alia, that a member "may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures" within the union before instituting any legal or administrative proceedings.  {TRANSLATION TO ENGLISH - EXHAUST THIS} N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO. et al., 391 U.S. 418, (1968)

Here, of course, the issues also go beyond purely "internal affairs" of the Union. Important public issues are involved, for Campbell's failure to pay the fine not only affected his standing with the Union, but it also resulted in the loss of his job and it implicated the Employer. Respondents' conduct, involving an allegation of Section 8(b)(2), necessarily reached beyond the internal affairs of the Union and was, therefore, automatically not the subject of the Landrum Griffin proviso requiring exhaustion of internal union remedies.
___________________________________________

It goes w/o saying more, that when you cannot fine/assess/charge a man or woman for refusing to perform Picket Duty for 7 of 8 days, wherein the Board found coercion & other violations, that the UBCJA & NYC District Council cannot sustain the former Blue Card Program and must issue a formal rescission thereto, nor can they sustain the current program whether it formerly required 2-days mandated/coerced duty or one day; no matter how desperately they try to sustain this source of illegal income. Willful violation of the RICO statutes require criminal RICO indictments, no more, no less.

It remains an extortionate and illegal practice no matter how they try to carve out exceptions to the rule and an overwhelming body of case law which they cannot surmount and write off any longer. It is time to revoke the language and call the Fiduciary Liability Insurer and file the claims and refund the ill gotten gains.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by owl
L.A. Transportation PLA Offers Lifeline for Long­-Term Jobless, Homeless
 
         
This is a cross-post from Chaz Bolte of the We Party Blog.

The city of Los Angeles and its mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, have been leading the national push for Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) to help create jobs for local workers. This trend continued last Thursday as the city and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) announced that PLAs have been entered into to ensure that 40 percent of the work hours performed on most MTA projects moving forward will be done by people who live in economically disadvantaged communities.

[Project labor agreements are pre-hire agreements between labor and management that require all construction jobs be filled by local  workers; include diversity requirements; establish wages and work rules  covering overtime, working hours and dispute resolution; and ensure that  safety guidelines on the job site are enforced.]

In addition, at least 10 percent of the work hours are to be reserved for people suffering from homelessness, chronic unemployment and other challenges. This kind of pro-active approach to tackling multiple societal ills through infrastructure development is commendable and needs to be mimicked nationwide.

From the LA Times blog L.A. Now:

“I am proud that the MTA board voted unanimously to become the first transit agency in the nation to use federal and local dollars to create jobs targeted at economically disadvantaged communities and individuals,” Villaraigosa said. “This landmark program is part of a strategy to deliver public transit projects while creating jobs that will lift people out of poverty and into the middle class.”


While the unemployment rate in Los Angeles County declined in 2011, it still hovers around 11 percent, some two points above the national average. Ensuring local hire on big projects can get the chronically unemployed back to work and allow them to contribute to the stimulation of local economies. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who sponsored the bill, said the following about the broad-ranging PLA:

This is a matter of justice. As a result of this groundbreaking victory, Los Angeles is now a model for the rest of the nation. We have demonstrated that job creation —and not the creation of just any jobs, but highly skilled union jobs that lead to a middle class standard of living for workers—can and should be a standard component in transportation infrastructure projects.

California, generally, and Los Angeles, specifically, has long been supportive of PLAs and 2011 was a particularly PLA-friendly year for the state. The unemployment rate among California construction workers was 27.1 percent in 2010, but the use of PLAs has had a hand in lowering that number. The latest PLA will also set up apprenticeship programs for those looking to begin a career in the Building and Construction Trades. Metro.net described how the PLA will have a positive impact in California:

The PLA covers all MTA transit and highway projects with a cost of over $2.5 million, which— if Metro fully implements its Long Range Transportation Plan—could amount to as much as $70 billion in construction work over the next three decades. The PLA ensures a skilled and trained workforce that is paid prevailing wages to get these projects done on time and on budget.

The construction industry throughout the nation is depressed and communities are suffering from extraordinary and harmful levels of unemployment and poverty. The PLA and Policy help remedy these problems by directing opportunities to those individuals and communities who need them most.

Rep. Karen Bass (D) gave the following statement on the MTA’s new Project Labor Agreement:

Today’s vote to approve the Project Labor Agreement and Construction Careers Policy represents a huge step toward providing relief to many of the communities which are currently experiencing historic hardships including unemployment, underemployment and general economic distress. With more than $700 million in transit and highway construction projects planned in Los Angeles over the next 30 years, investing 40 percent of the jobs in disadvantaged communities is a tremendous step in the right direction and I applaud Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors and the Los Angeles/Orange County Building Trades Council for working diligently to craft this significant policy and agreement. I look forward to continuing to support efforts to bring jobs and economic opportunities to the people and neighborhoods that need them the most.

As the economy continues to improve and major infrastructure projects begin to take root, PLAs will be seen as an excellent opportunity to bolster communities through pro-active hiring provisions. Villaraigosa’s effort to maximize the benefits of infrastructure spending through the use of PLAs should be viewed by other cities as an excellent example.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
http://respectourcrafts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PLALetter1-25-121.pdf

ST. LOUIS COUNCIL - TERRY NELSON letter dated January 25, 2012 rejecting PLA's across the board.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
The teams playing in the super bowl are both OUT OF TOWNERS ! FUCK YOU OUT OF TOWNERS !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
A parade for the NJ Giants + not for the first resonders of 9/11. Fuck you OUT OF TOWNERS. Get the fuck in line behind the people who pay the taxes. What a disgrace !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

procity
WHILE IM ON THE OWL I WENT TO THE GIANTS PARADE THERE WAS A FEW PEOPLE YELLING NEW JERSEY SUX
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 Pete Corrigan
 Mar 23, 2011; 11:01pmOut of Towners?   Can any of you guys tell me when NYC stopped enforcing the permit system for non NYC carpenters. It was my understanding that you used to have to pay and request a permit to work in NYC? Anybody on here remember?
____________________________________
AUGUST 2011 NYCDCC BY-LAWS APPROVED BY JUDGE BERMAN:

SECTION 14:  
WORKING DUES (DUES CHECK-OFF); SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND PER CAPITA TAX  

The Council shall also receive working dues of $500 per year from every carpenter who has performed carpentry work for a signatory contractor in our jurisdiction during the calendar year. This $500 working dues to this Council shall be due on the first day of the month following the first day of work performed in our jurisdiction each year and must be paid not later than April 15th of the following year, provided however, that any member who shall have satisfied his or her Union Participation requirement for the applicable year, pursuant to Section 14(F) of the Bylaws, will receive credit for this $500 working dues requirement. The sums stated in this paragraph shall be reviewed periodically to determine if prudence requires that they be reduced or increased
_________________________________________

The Original Question & the answer, per the new By-Laws. The UBCJA International changed "permit" to "working dues" to avoid complying with the body of NLRB Board case-law on said subject.

Irrespective of their attempt to avoid the obvious, the fact remains that the $500 yearly kiss, which in reality is a tribute payment, is in fact a "permit" or a "work permit" should you prefer. Rather than implement it as was done is days of old, via Local Unions, on a per job/per incident basis - they have simply have enacted it on a yearly basis.

As for Out of Towners, all of them should pay the $500 dollar Permit Fee as per the above, w/o any tie whatsoever to an illegal & coerced leaflet, banner or picket duty Mandatory Union Participation requirement. (if you sign the paper, I won't shoot you)

As for NYCDCC rank & file who live within the defined Geographical Jurisdiction of the council, none of you should have to pay the $500 dollar Yearly Permit Fee...to work where you live, shop & pay personal income or propery taxes....also  w/o any tie whatsoever to an illegal & coerced leaflet, banner or picket duty Mandatory Union Participation requirement. (if you sign the paper, I won't shoot you)
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
F) PROPERTY RIGHTS as applied to NLRA sec. 14(b) & MOBILITY

In, 949 F.2d 199: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Debs, Defendant-appellant United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 949 F.2d 199 at 10 stated:

   Courts have long held that the concept of property under the Hobbs Act is not limited to tangible property, but also includes "any valuable right considered as a source or element of wealth." United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1021, 90 S.Ct. 1258, 25 L.Ed.2d 530 (1970). Intangible business rights, including the business rights of unions, are considered property. United States v. Santoni, 585 F.2d 667, 673 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 910, 99 S.Ct. 1221, 59 L.Ed.2d 459 (1979); United States v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 780 F.2d 267, 281-282 (3d Cir.1985). Intangible property within the meaning of the Hobbs Act includes LMRDA rights. Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union, Local 95, 627 F.Supp. 176, 179 (S.D.N.Y.1985).

In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry,Chief Justice Hughes........At 15 stated:

By contrast, union politics is more like one-party government. The statutory right to participate in union government is not held accountable by anything remotely like a thriving two-party system. Here, the federal legislature and courts have a greater duty to combat labor corruption and electoral vice. The Hobbs Act is an important instrument in service of this democratic objective. For all of these reasons, LMRDA rights are property under the Hobbs Act.

The Geographical Jurisdiction of the NYCDCC defines the primary source or element of wealth for its rank & file members as noted by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir.1969).

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA) SECTION 14(b)
APPLICABILITY TO THE NERCC/UBCJA’S MOBILITY CLAUSE

14(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law. Currently, there are 28 - Non-Right to Work States & 22 - Right to Work States.

NLRA Section 14(b) operates in two ways:

In all Non-RTW States (Union), Federal Pre-emption is applicable to the entire Act.

In RTW States (Non-Union), Federal Pre-emption is waived under the Tenth Amendment, and the NLRB Board & General Counsel are free to apply the “Mobility” Provision to said Non-Union States, as State law(s) are controlling in the Right to Work (RTW) States.

In Non-RTW States (Union States such as NEW YORK), the 12-31-09 slip Opinion issued in Lebovitz has no application.

The reason is fairly obvious, once people understand the base NLRA 9(a) & (8f) Representation issues as applicable to the Construction Industry. Once a “bargaining representative” has been chosen and subsequently “certified” by the NLRB; and, after the Contractor, Firm, Organization complies with the proviso to Sec. 8(a)(3) regarding the collection of Dues & Initiation Fees and the requisite 30-Day hold for Sec. 9(a) and 7-Day hold for Sec. 8(f), and after Workers or Employees are properly advised of their Beck Rights, to refrain from any & all activities under NLRA Sec. 7 – application of the Lebovitz Ruling is out.

The CBA is a “contract”. Within said contracts for particular Locals, District & Regional Councils of the UBC are well Defined Geographical Jurisdictional areas, comprised of cities, towns, counties or combinations thereof as the case may be in a particular Non-RTW (Union) state. The “Defined Geographical Jurisdiction” of a UBCJA Contract (CBA) is “intangible property”.

In Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 US 164 (1979), the United States Supreme Court stated….”one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property – the right to exclude others”.

The exclusion principle thus requires that NYCDCC rank & file members LMRDA Property Rights are enforced by the Federal Court & Jdge Richard Berman. The United States Attorneys Office (U.S.A.O.) and Benjamin Torrance should be taking the lead in this endeavor via enforcing the laws already on the Books, and via utilizing the 2nd Circuit as well as the Supreme Court precedent decisions on the subject.

The right to exclude others thus entails the USAO Torrance & Judge Berman involving themselves squarely in the exisiting standing order of Judge Haight, first and foremost via enforcing the exisiting 67/33% ruling of the Court and second:

Backing it up with hard-core Statistical analysis provided by the Benefit Funds & Mr. Epstein, from 2009 through 2012. Given the millions of dollars spent on Computer Hardware and Proprietary Software used by the Trust Funds, there is no reason or excuse for a Report not to be ordered and issued to Judge Berman for his review and scrutiny.

     How many man-hours were recorded by those living in one of the 5-boroughs from 2009-2012 (current day) vs. how many man-hours were recorded by those who do not live within the Geographical Jurisdiction of the NYCDCC.

The fact is, the UBC International & the DC Attorneys will refuse to produce the report because it will clearly show that they have failed to abide by Judge Haight's 2009 order, thus leading to contempt charges.

_____________________________

The Questions posed above warrant a definitive response from the new Administration and the 5-Borough Resident Man-Hour Report vs. the Non-Borough Resident Man-Hour Report.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/agendas/2011/BAG062111.pdf

see pg. 9/23, item 13, excerpt below:

AgendaRecommendations of the Government Audit and Oversight CommitteePresent: Supervisors Campos, Farrell, Chiu[Memorandum of Understanding, Amendment No. 1 - Multiple Unions (Crafts Coalition)]11062913.

Sponsor:

MayorOrdinance adopting and implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 2010-2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County of San Francisco and the Bricklayers and Allied Crafts, Local 3; Hod Carriers, Local 166; Building Inspectors' Association; The Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Local 22; Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Workers, Local 12; Plasterers and Cement Masons, Local 300; Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers, Local Union No. 718; International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artist and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada, Local 16; International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, Reinforcing Iron Workers, Riggers and Machinery Movers, Local 377; Auto, Marine and Specialty Painters, Local Union No. 1176; Pile Drivers, Divers, Carpenters, Bridge, Wharf and Dock Builders, Local Union No. 34; Plasterers and Shophands, Local 66; United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local 40; Sheet Metal Workers International Union, Local 104; Teamsters, Local 853, by implementing specified terms and conditions of employment for FY2011-2012. Question: Shall this Ordinance be PASSED ON FIRST READING?
_______________________
This is for 20% Local Hiring btwn SF & San Mateo Counties, which, over 7-years shall increase to a min. of 50% Local Hiring.

Where are Mayor Bloomberg & the NYCDCC's McGinnis positioned regarding a similar enactment for the 5-boroughs, given the upcoming Building Boom? Actions speak louder than words, so it's time you got some bang for the buck relative to Political Action Funding and holding Politicians accountable to residents whom they govern.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
How's 4 $$$$$ gas working for you OUT OF TOWNERS ?  5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING members are going to have the last laugh with the nycdcc on residency work rules. Gas will soon be 5$$ +maybe 6$$ real soon. Payback is a bitch for the free ride you received for many years. Fuck you maggots + leeches + good luck selling your OUT OF TOWN shitholes. OUT OF TOWNERS GO HOME. Good luck heating those shitholes next year. What comes around goes around !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

out of towner
I just worked with a guy who paid local tax. He showed up with NO TOOLS. He didn't get laid off because he came from the union hall. How are contractors going to compete when you get bums like that. If you are a local carpenter an can't keep a job, you have some serious problems. It's no wonder NYC is going non union. By the way, The non union pays local tax too.
1 ... 121314151617