Out of Towners?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
332 messages Options
1 ... 1314151617
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

procity
when you say from the hall does that mean they came off the out of work list or do they hang out in front of the local in the morning with their tools to by pass the o w l
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
This post was updated on .
Pete - the chief component of "property" is "the right to exclude others", per the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Jurisdiction" is a "property right" created by enactment of the NLRA and in the Union environment it is governed by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3); and, your Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) specifically lines out the property and the territory in which you can and cannot work.

The "Permit" you speak of, from days not too far past is a "LICENSE" to that "PROPERTY RIGHT",to wit, each & every Local Union Member has a claim, a stake.

The Local, through its members, executive boards and bylaws can make and issue rules governing if and when a PERMIT or LICENSE to work in your defined jurisdictional area is to be allowed, or not allowed. The Permit & License is akin to a temporary easement on said "property rights", for a "definitive time certain" (the duration of a specific project, it could be whatever the parties bargain for, 2 weeks, a month etc).

The UBC-NERCC, via another bogus case proffered by the International & Doug McCarron in UBC Local 43 & Lebovitz, in cahoots with the DOL/NLRB issued a decision for MOBILITY which is an end run around those property rights guaranteed under the NLRA. This decision & order is contrary to the Act and amounts to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) & the UBC International & its subordinate Intermediary Council NERCC "legislating from the bench" to NEGATE or REMOVE said rights of Union Members to protect their "PROPERTY RIGHT" which run from the execution of one Contract (CBA) to another, and through subsequent extensions of the contract, during & through contract negotiations.

Neither the UBC or the DOL's ALJ or the NLRB Board in Washington DC can legislate these property rights away. Congress has not as of this date, amended the NLRA  to allow this to occur. Moreover, they are the only ones who can do this.

And, as I have posted before, NEW YORK is not a Right to Work (RTW) state; thus, the power and right to exclude others, once the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) has been complied with remains intact.  (8(a)(3) - payment of your "initiation fee" & payment of "Monthly Dues"

NERCC counsel, claims that their Mobility Clause is an exclusion to the Default Rule in the CBA, and that is where their argument to the NLRB Board in Lebovitz is "fatally flawed", as the exclusion to the Default Rule for Mobility they are seeking can only be amended & changed by an Act of Congress to change the Union Security Clause in the NLRA, not the CBA.

Enactment of the NLRA in 1935 (Wagner Act) is what conferred the "Property Right", NOT enactment/execution of the CBA.

The only thing remaining then, is what the individual LOCAL's wish to charge for the nonmember, for Outsiders or Travelers to PURCHASE a PERMIT for a specific duration of time as previosuly noted.
______________________
___


procity - this was posted April 10, 2011. NYCDCC is an exclusive Hiring Hall per the Board Decision in the Gene Clarke case, which was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The DC has altered the Blue Card authorization langauge to collect the $500 fee from anyone who works in the NYCDCC during the course of the calender year.

NYCDCC members should not pay any Permit Fee, as you are direct members of the DC.

Out of Council or Out of State Travelers should have to pay the $500 dollar annual Permit Fee. (enacted on a yearly basis, verses a per job or per permit basis)

In either case, no UBC Member should be required to perform leaflet, banner or picket duty for the privilege of working as it is a clear violation of your free speech/first amendment and NLRA Section 7 rights to refrain from "any & all activities"; whether the Hiring Hall is Non-Exclusive Hall or an Exclusive Hiring Hall.
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 procity
procity - FYI (permit, blue card authorization/operative langauge giving the DC the right to tap your vacation pay to pay the permit fee, non-exclusive & exclusive hiring hall - illegal in either instance)

The Decision & Order (D & O) by ALJ Bogas was upheld by the Board. The DC has amended, but refuses to strike the langauge or the policies as it uses thes funds for Organizing & to supplement the Welfare Funds. Under ERISA, excess monies are allowed to be transferred from one account to another at years end, UBC Benefit Funds play this game all the time and regularly move the money around in a game of hide & seek or catch me if you can.

All the parties involved (International, DC, RO, USAO etc.) know the policy is illegal, the but for being the poor condition of the Welfare Fund which is at 45.23%, or nearly 20% below endangered status of 65% Funding per ERISA std's. Paul Tyzner admitted to a $58 Million dollar excess at the Javits debate for the DC election. The fact is, the amounts moved around like play money far exceed that; and, it will take a forsensic accounting to properly analyze the exact total. All funds which are below 80% critical status or 65% endangered status, by an Act of Congress have been allowed to undergo a 10-year Funding Improvement Plan (FIP).

While the money is due and payable as a refund to those whose rights were trampled, the fact is the funds and their attorneys are betting that not one of you will sue them to recover what is rightfully owed. You have Fiduciary Liability coverage for each & every year from 2006-2012 available, each with a 6-year statute of limitations.

The Blue Card Boy Lives topic & Out of Towners are inextricably tied together and are the two topics with the most hits on this site, totaling 11,300 +. You have until October 17, 2012 to file suit on the first Fiduciary Liability Policy, so it would be advisable to get moving before the statute of limitation on it runs.
_______________________________________

excerpt Paul Bogas ALJ D & O 12-27-07

III. Analysis and Discussion
The Board has held that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall when it discriminatorily denies referrals to members because those members have engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. Carpenters Local 370 (Eastern Contractors Assn.), 332 NLRB 174 (2000); Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB 870, 870 fn.1 (2000); Carpenters Local 626 (Strawbridge & Clothier), 310 NLRB 500, 500 fn. 2 (1993), enfd. 16 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1993) (Table); Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984), enfd. 782 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 1986) (Table). Such discrimination is unlawfully coercive in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls, despite the fact that the coercion is greater when the discriminating union is party to an exclusive hiring arrangement. Chauffeur’s Union Local 923, Teamsters (Yellow Cab Co.), 172 NLRB 2137, 2138 (1968). 5 The protections provided by Section 7 extend not only to a member’s decision to participate in union activities, but also to a member’s decision to refrain from union activities, including union-sponsored picketing. Service Employees District 1199 (Staten Island University Hospital), 339 NLRB 1059, 1060-61 (2003); District 65, Distributive Workers (Blume Associates, Inc.) 214 NLRB 1059 (1974); see also Service Employees Local 87 (Able Building Maintenance Co.), 349 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 5 (2007) (“An essential element of any violation of Section 8(b)(1) is restraint or coercion in the exercise of a Section 7 right; i.e., the right to form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from such activity.”).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
War in Iran = 7$$ gas. Fuck you maggots + leeches from LI, NJ & PA. 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING members have been robbed blind & payback for slimy leeches is going to cost big $$$$$$$$$$$$. Court cases against NYC & NYCDCC are going to gain steam also. 14$$ bridge from Staten Island was the last straw. We're running for office in your small towns & planning massive reverse employment campaign. You might be calling me Mayor Rev Al in the near future. See you in one of your shitholes real soon.
Tim
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Tim
Working at world trade center from jersey city. 4 dollars total commute. Suck a fat dick rev al. No gas. You must be the most incompetent carpenter in the world. If you worked for a company and they said they were sending you out of town, you wouldn't go? Your full of shit. Your one of those guys that cost the company more money than they make, therefore, your always out of work, and always complaining. That's why you constantly bump this thread, your a drama queen with no skills. If this was such a huge issue with the majority of posters on this board, it would be a lot more than the same whole FIVE guys talking about it. I've never ran into a single ny guy yet at the trade center that wasn't more than a great guy and had nothing bad to say. Can you even lift Sheetrock or a heavy gauge stud without complaining. Good workers work, and always find a way to work. Your that small percentage that wants to float through doing nothing except crying, nobody guaranteed you anything. This isnt 1970, you actually have to work hard and be aggressive, if not just fucking quit.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

procity
according to tim us city people arent hard workers like the people from new jersey and long island who have city local cards

the city  guys your working with are keeping their mouths shut to keep their jobs.when i ask a city guy about residents not getting jobs in the city before you jersey and long island guys they tell me different. is it true most of the workers at the wtc are from new jersey ??.  300 union members gave up their city union cards because they couldnt get work thru their own city local union .you gonna tell me because they werent hard workers like you jersey guys they left the union. they left the union because they werent getting hard work like you get in their city. those city guys should not have left the union should have made you leave before a city guy leaves. we live here we didnt move across the tappanzee bridge nor did we move to p.a. my property taxes are going up in july, do you care no. the only reason you are in the city is because of the money.the reason im in the city is because im born and raised here and im here to stay

im only practicing what new jersey and long island locals preach those locals and companies dont like us city people so i dont like them.

like rev al says fuck l.i and n.j   this is our city  it sux that we have to listen to your hard work b s  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

procity
In reply to this post by Tim
how many city guys are reading this  you guys need to speak up  us city guys have to compete against new jersey and long island but they dont have to compete against us. i notice this subject is the highest read.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
In reply to this post by Tim
Get out of my city you leech + go back to your drug infested shithole. Have fun with NJ's real estate when the Middle East starts playing army. If you think the path train will save shithole Jersey City your one big fucking fool. 7$$$ gas will have all of NJ on its knees so start sucking Mayor Rev Al's big black cock. Get off your ass & start organizing NJ if your such a great worker. Are you a company lapdog who's all for full mobility ? The nycdcc lets OUT OF TOWNERS vote on a 5 BOROUGH contract. Do we have a vote in NJ's contracts ? YOUR A LEECH & A MAGGOT & your leeching days are numbered. The aides of Bloomberg read this blog so keep fucking 5 BOROUGH TAXPAYING members so you prove our case. The nycdcc better make sure their within the law because NYC will protect their taxpayers & their tax base. Your a piece of shit & it's simple as that.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
This post was updated on .
Rev Al - pg. 60-63 June 29, 2011 Response to Restructuring Plan filed with the Court, Judge Richard Berman, cc'd: USAO & RO

Al - note that from the heart, the mind speaks; or, in the case of the RICO Action filed by the UBCJA, the subconscious mind of our fearless leader, GP McCarron speaks and the truth finally comes out.

re: pg. 75.........."like chattel and indentured servants"

Websters New World Dictionary, The American Langauge (1951)

chat-el (chat'l), n [ME. chatel, catel; O.Fr. chatel, LL. captel, capitale; SEE CATTLE], 1. an article or personal or movable property as distinguished from real property; furniture, automobiles, livestock, farm equipment, etc. are chattels. 2. [Archaic], a slave

I need not explain slavery or indentured servitude, notwithstanding the current 8th Ed. version of Blacks Law Dictionary amongst many others which intentionally alter the orignal meaning of the words and in general try to dumb it down and to remove the proper context.

In the interest of this ongoing discussion of the Permit System, Property Rights, Exclusive & Non Exclusive Hiring Halls and Reversion of control of all Hiring to the Contractor Associations/Full Mobility & member rights - it is critical that members realize the context of how your existance is described in any Court Document as to how McCarron and the Contractors view you. You are his property and here for one purpose - generating dues, assessments, fines, per capita taxes and past that he has no real use for you. Cattle, like people were sold into slavery and indentured servitude, therefore, he has zero compulsion to view you as a human, rather - you're a commodity & a piece of property to be traded at will with the Contractor Associations in violation of the laws as noted below.
_____________________________________


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), 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 noted….”one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property – the right to exclude others”.

In a RTW (Right to Work) State wherein Federal Pre-Emption operates as a waiver under the Tenth Amendment, Workers & Employees are free to be employed, or work anywhere they so choose, without exception, thus – the UBCJA signatory General Contractors or Subcontractors conducting their Union operations in any of the 22-Right to Work States, where a Union Security Clause is of no force or effect, in such States, the Mobility Clause would fall under the respective State Law.

In a Non-Right to Work State such as New York and the remaining 27-non RTW States, and as here applicable to NYCDCC Union Carpenters & all other Trade Unions operating Exclusive or Non-Exclusive Hiring Halls (re: Employer Chooses, Worker or Employee Solicits or Union Hiring Hall(s) select candidates for employment), the intangible property right of exclusion, to the defined geographical jurisdiction becomes effective, or operative.

After all other factors are properly weighed and compliance is had, the Locals are thus free to enforce the right of exclusion limiting this to the defined geographical jurisdiction, to the benefit of their properly indentured workers and employees; and, are free to employ their members first, all members to the exclusion of all others. 

The exclusion principle includes, Non-Union Workers, UBC Union Travelers – whether inter-state or intra-state, 1099 Independent Contractors, Cash Workers and Illegal Aliens/ Undocumented Workers & any others working off the books.

The NLRB Board, the UBCJA or their 36-subordinate Regional or District Councils cannot usurp the Congressional Authority to legislate. The UBC Constitution & Bylaws have been ruled “facially unlawful” as per slip opinion No. 354-122 Carpenters Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation) and Kevin Lebovitz dated 12-31-09. The union-security clause explicitly requires compliance with the Union’s constitution and bylaws, a requirement which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). See Stackhouse Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 559, 560 (6th Cir. 1964) (finding that employer did not violate the Act by refusing to sign a collective-bargaining agreement in which the union-security clause unlawfully required compliance with the union’s constitution and bylaws)

Even when illegal provisions within both documents are properly severed and they are then deemed to be in compliance with all mandates and requirements of law – the UBC Constitution & By-Laws do not supersede or usurp Congressional authority legislate.

UBC Attorneys for NERCC claim that the Mobility provision of the Contract (CBA) is an exception to the general rule, and this is where it runs afoul of the Law and where it must fail as a matter of law. This is also a clear example of the UBC International and its Regional/District Councils shopping NLRB Board Regions for favorable decisions gained in one Region and unilaterally applying the decision and order to all 50-States.

The NLRB Board and its General Counsel and Regional Director have failed to enforce the specific requirements of their original or amended Decision & Order (D & O) or to correct and strike the illegal languages from the NERCC 6-State Contracts (CBA’s). Their participation in this case, as a means to backdoor a legislative amendment to the NLRA, in collusion with the UBCJA warrants an investigation into the Inferior Agency of the Executive Branch…the NLRB & its Region 1 Office by the United States Department of Justice or Office of the Inspector General. The Board Agents and the General Counsel are sworn to uphold the law, not circumvent it for political reasons. Their actions are grossly negligent and warrant at a minimum fines and suspensions from the practice of law.

Douglas J. McCarron, Frank Spencer and John Ballantyne have suspended all NYCDCC Local’s autonomy as a fraudulent means to change the By-Laws, exercise a veto power, and to put forth a Restructuring Plan which incorporates 100% Full Mobility throughout the NYC District Council of Carpenters [turning NEW YORK into a RTW State, via executive fiat/willful violation and explicit threat to refuse to Bargain for a New Contract, unless & until the USAO & RO turn a blind eye to the Hobbs Act extortion threat and ignore the standing decision & order of Judge Haight for the 67%-33% Rule and there alone it is violates the Consent Decree. The UBCJA & NYCDCC waived any/all such rights they had as a trade off for the criminal indictments and are thus bound by Haight's Order - end of story. Meanwhile, every one plays Mickey the Dunce & points at BTEA & says, hey, get of Jail Card, it was Coletti's idea...wrong answer...it was McCarrons, the rest being part of the game ] and one which incorporates the entire State of New York; and which merges and consolidates Local Union rank & file workers/employees. {Restructuring Plan dated 5-26-11 at pg. 131 at 2. and at By-Laws Section 38, pg. 123 of 138, or pg. 28 of bylaws as a separate document}

 Under the law(s), this is fraudulent inducement, as the UBC International, with malice & fore-thought has intentionally deceived the US Attorney, the Independent Review Officer and the Court by with-holding these facts from them. Coupled together with the current 67% - 33% Rule, favoring Contractor Association workers and employees, wherein Contractors can increase the 67% ratio with other added rules under the Consent Decree, the Mobility provision fairly said – eats away an additional 30% in the Contractor Association and Contractor favor and effectively grants exclusive control and license to them of the Union Hiring Halls and the Out of Work List (OOWL). Not only does this disenfranchise workers and employees who rely upon the OOWL & Hiring Hall Rules under the Consent Decree, it is openly discriminatory and provides the  Contractor Associations a monopoly control over all hiring and violates the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree.


In NLRB Mountain Pacific, page 894, the portions not over-ruled, the Board noted:
"The Respondents do not, nor could they, argue that this contract does not make employment conditional upon union approval, for a more complete and outright surrender of the normal management hiring prerogative to a union could hardly be phrased in contract language. The fact that the Agreement limits the unions exclusive control to a 48-hour period after a request for employees is immaterial, for if unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to a Union is unlawful, the vice is not cured by a reversion back to the employer of the hiring privilege after the union is unable to enjoy the power conferred upon it."2
________________________________________

The Consent Decree does not trump the decision in the two Gene Clarke cases, one at the NLRB Board and the other at the Appeals Court which both declare the NYCDCC to be an "EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL"; and, neither case has been overturned (emphasis added).

Moreover, as the United States Supreme Court noted in Virginia Power & Electric Co. 319 U.S. 533 (1939) under a separate issue, but under the same legal theory – “it is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can be fairly said to effectuate policies of the act”.

McCarron, Conboy & the Contractor Associations are not the "Congress" and they cannot change, amend or alter Federal Laws (NLRA, LMRA, LMRDA, ERISA etc.) nor do any of them in their individual capacities or as a collective whole have any rights whatsoever to over-turn precedent decisions of the NLRB, Appellate Courts or the United States Supreme Court, nor can they do so under the Federal Civil RICO Consent Decree, as this remains a private contract between a private non-profit corporation (UBCJA) & the Federal Government.

pg 83 of response:

In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) “But would it be seriously contended that Congress could delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups so as to empower them to enact the laws they deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trade or industries? Could trade or industrial associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that purpose because such associations or groups are familiar with the problems of their enterprises? And could an effort of that sort be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to permissible aims as we find in section 1 of title 1? The answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to our law, and is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress…”

pg 96 of response:

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).
_____________________________________________

Because McCarron, former Judge Conboy & their co-conspirators at the Contractor Associations have engaged in a scheme to deprive workers of the inherent rights to property and have done so via the mail & wire in the Federal Court; each and all of their actions are predicates for Hobbs Act extortion & racketeering charges. None of them can usurp the powers of the Congress or the Courts, nor can these parties remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them, or, do so through the hammer known as the Federal Civil RICO Consent Decree  executed March 3, 1994 as noted above in 294 US 240 (1935).

Yet this is exactly what they tried to achieve by their cutely worded/phrased Full Mobility language using the word "hinged" to disguise their true intentions as to the above while the United States Attorneys  Office (party with direct standing to defend your interest) sat by and silently ignored the patently obvious extortion scheme; and, whether from indifference, ignorance of the laws, gross negligence or a combination of each, their inattention to detail is not excusable. The current USAO has yet to once take a definitive stand upon his own accord and should be summarily fired and removed from this case - period. No if's, and's or's or but's about it, it's time for him to go and be replaced by an aggressive/sharp USAO who has the gumption to take a stand and defend your rights.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

TomMcGuire
Ted, what do you think of the 2287 contract and its effect of having NERC bargain for 2287  upstate and on LI after 7-1-14? The guys from NERC are NOT my or any other 2287 members chosen reps, so where is the RO and the AG and the NLRB on this one? I would relly like your opinion bud.  I mean talk about out of towners. Now they want to command the 2287 members from another jurisdiction. Thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Brooklyn homeowners are starting to play hardball with their school districts. Fraud is running wild + taxpaying homeowners are finding limited spots for their own kids. The squeeze is on and Staten Island is also fighting mad on tolls. Time is running out on all freeloading leeches + maggots. Better be able to prove you really reside in the district if your going to go to school in the 5 boroughs. A whole new ID systym is being brought in to protect legit taxpayers. You can thank the beautifull kids in Great Neck SAT scandle for righting this ship. Fuck you leeching OUT OF TOWNERS + your cheating ways. ORGANIZE YOUR OWN SHITHOLE AREAS + STOP LEECHING OFF THE 5 BOROUGH TAXPAYER.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Rev Al
NO RESIDENCY RULE = "NO VOTE ON MOU's & PROPOSED CONTRACTS (CBA)"
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by BKLYN
excerpt, Carpenters Local 143
___________________________

Considering all these factors, however, I think it reasonable to conclude that where as here a union contracts for a certain geographical preference, any further or narrower "geographical" claim advanced by the Union in seeking job preference is spurious,
and is not founded on legitimate geographical considerations, but on the statutorily impermissible ground of preference for members of, or persons referred by, the Union over members of another local. Cf. Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9).
___________________________

NYCDCC has "contracted for a certain Geographical Preference", that being the defined area of the District Council, as noted within the Contract (CBA).

Said Jurisdiction is a definitive source of wealth for its members, above and beyond all others and it remains a Property Right under NLRA Sec. 14(b).

New York is not a "RIGHT TO WORK" (RTW) STATE, thus enforcement of the property right which is the source or element of wealth for its Members must be preserved and it must be fought for; notwithstanding McCarron & Conboys false claims that UBC Members, non-members, travelers, cash workers and illegal aliens have the uncontested right to work in the NYC District Council via the threat to impart 100% Full Mobility.

McCarron,Conboy & the Contractor Associations are not the Congress! They do not have any right to change, alter or amend Federal law, contrary to their belief that they are above the law, that they can use the Consent Decree (a private contract) and the United States Attorneys Office or the Court appointed Review Officer to accomplish their illegal objective.

They simply do not have this power.

When those efforts failed, McCarron & Conboy concoted a scheme wherein they would have the Contractor Associations threaten the new Federal Judge (Richard M. Berman) with a refusal to Bargain or Negotiate in Good Faith, should Judge Berman not kow-tow to their illegal demands.

Because the above parties refuse to uphold the laws, their last ditch effort is to pray that the members rubber stamp their illegal actions by giving a yes Vote to the proposed Final Contracts, therein lending the illegal acts an air of credibility.

VOTE NO ON ALL MOU's & PROPOSED FINAL CONTRACTS.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

union brother
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
Ok so now that non nyc residents cant work in nyc because they dont pay the nyc tax? but its ok for us to take 15 towns in long island and work under nyc jurisdiction? Whats next? lets give back the 15 towns we ownin long island and give it back to long island, When theres been ton of work coming from those towns and given employment to many of our city union brothers. Bottom line is the strong will survive and the weak wont no matter where you are from. Sink or swim brothers and sisters!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

procity
they can work in the city after all us city people are working first. they can keep their 15 towns they need the city city doesnt need them i guess l i and nj are the strong city guys who sit on the owl are the weak

i see you dont go on the owl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Time to take a stand on so called nycdcc carpenters living in non LOCAL TAXPAYING shitholes like NJ, LI + PA. We'll get no help from GUTLESS LEBO but he'll have to explain to Statan Islanders why non LOCAL TAXPAYERS go out on the list before taxpayers. Fuck you LEBO with your crooked jurisdiction talk. Your so full of shit and your not fooling anyone ! OUT OF TOWNERS GO HOME TO YOUR SHITHOLES !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

TomMcGuire
In reply to this post by Tim
Tim, did you ever see a good steward get fucked around by the company? Ever see good stewards stand up for the men only to be treated like shit? Ever stand up for the CBA that YOUR beloved boss signed?  Of course not or else you would be on the list too, like so many others. Go build the LOCAL where you live brother and I'll pat you on the back.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

out of towner
In reply to this post by Rev Al
You can have your wonderful union back. I'm going back to my shit hole and my health benefits and dental and vision. Thanks for the ride.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

go way pete
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
what is someone leaves you a mansion in conn. and u move in will you no longer be able to be a carpenter in ny???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Yes. All OUT OF TOWNERS SHOULD NOT WORK AHEAD OF TAXPAYERS !
1 ... 1314151617