Out of Towners?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
332 messages Options
1 ... 14151617
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
Tom - toss the contract in the trash can and start over. Doug McCarron is trying to end run the Consent Decree, plain and simple (along with every labor law on the book).

Given the lengthy and failed history of the Consent Decree to control corruption within the NYCDCC for 22-years & 7 months, at some point the Court must acknowledge their role and the UBCJA's International's role in both facilitating and all but encouraging more of it; and, failing to get it under control.

Doug McCarron has been at the helm from day one, feigning clean hands and playing the role of the martyr to the Court while the criminal activity increased and flourished under his command.

The two States (New York & New Jersey) legislatures have a duty to set up a two state compact to regulate and control corruption within the NYCDCC; and submit it to the Congress for an up or down vote; whereas, McCarron & the UBCJA International do not have that right.

The USAO & RO are aware of his attempts to end run the Consent Decree every bit as much as the recent Bisceleglie/Amalgamated effort. McCarron is limited to submitting a formal motion to the Court to amend the Consent Decree which is what he seeks to do here....wrest control of one Contract (CBA) for the floorlayers, take it over/across State Lines and out of the view, site and control of the Federal Court in New York.

The Floor layers Contract was put forth by design (not to make too many waves) to see if he could slip it by the USAO & RO and also bypass Federal Judge Richard M. Berman's authority w/o submission of a formal motion to the Court to amend the Consent Decree and take the Floor layers over the State Line in the dead of night while no one was paying attention.

McCarron should be charged and held in contempt of Court for this move - bottom line.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Any mother fucking member who doesn't reside in the 5 BOROUGHS is a OUT OF TOWNER. Dont try to twist this Lebo because Rev Al knew you were full of shit along time ago. Go back to your shitholes and stop leeching off the 5 BOROUGH TAXPAYING MEMBER. Suck my dick LEBO + YOU PAY THE LOCALTAX. Stop trying to blame OUT OF TOWNERS from other parts of the US + not include the non-paying 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAX leeches from LI, PA + NJ. LI,,PA +NJ non- paying leeches hurt the 5 BOROUGH TAXPAYER way more than other US shitholes. 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING members dont care what shithole you come from. A leech is a leech. Your a piece of shit + expect 5 BOROUGH TAXPAYING MEMBERS to sit quiet + let you bullshit us. Simply put, YOUR SCUM !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

IN TOWN
A JOB IM ON THESE GUYS THINK THEY R NOT OUT OF TOWNERS .THEY THINK OUT OF TOWNERS ARE JUST THE PEOPLE WHO COME FROM SAY KENTUCKY AND OTHER STATES. THESE GUYS DONT LIVE IN NY SO THAT MAKES THEM OUT OF TOWNERS ALSO
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Pete Corrigan
re: Proposed W & C CBA Full Mobility & area's of the law which the DC Officers cannot ignore in their attempt to fashion any agreement or subsequent Motion to Judge Richard M. Berman, the U.S.A.O. & the R.O.
__________________________________

pg. 12, July 14, 2011 2:08 am
In reply to this post by BKLYN
BKLYN, PG. 60-67 Excerpt, response to UBC's Restructuring Plan dated May 26, 2011 & which has been submitted to the Court.

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 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 form 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 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


Mobility & Primary Job Situs:

PRIMARY JOB SITUS – PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, NLRA Sec. 14(b)
U.S. Supreme Court
Oil Workers v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407 (1976) Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. Mobil Oil Corp. No. 74-1254 , Argued March 29, 1976  Decided June 14, 1976  426 U.S. 407  Syllabus


Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act permits union- or agency shop agreements between employers and unions, but § 14(b) authorizes States to exempt themselves from § 8(a)(3) and to enact "right-to-work" laws prohibiting union or agency shops. About two years after petitioner unions and respondent employer had entered into an agency shop agreement covering seamen employed on respondent's oil tankers, respondent brought suit claiming that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable because it violated Texas' right-to-work laws. Since, inter alia, all final decisions for hiring the seamen are made in Texas, the majority of the then employed seamen reside in Texas, and respondent's personnel records are maintained and payroll checks are written there, the District Court held that Texas had an "intimate concern" with the agreement, notwithstanding that the seamen spend the vast majority of their working hours away from Texas on the high seas, and that therefore Texas' right-to-work laws were applicable under § 14(b) and rendered the agreement void and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed, stressing that Texas was the place of hiring.
Held:

1. lt is the employees' predominant job situs, rather than a generalized weighing of factors or the place of hiring, that triggers operation of § 14(b), and, under § 14(b), right-to-work laws cannot void agreements permitted by § 8(a)(3) when the situs at which all the employees covered by the agreement perform most of their work is located outside of a State having such laws. Pp. 426 U. S. 412-419.

(a) Insofar as § 8(a)(3) deals with union and agency shop agreements, it focuses both in effect and purpose on post-hiring conditions, conditions that have a major impact on the job situs. Pp. 426 U. S. 414-416.

Page 426 U. S. 408

(b) Similarly, § 14(b)'s primary concern is with state regulation of the post-hiring employer employee-union relationship, the center of which is the job situs, i.e., the place where the work that is the very raison d'etre of the relationship is performed; and because of this close relationship between § 14(b) and job situs, § 14(b) does not allow enforcement of right-to-work laws with regard to an employment relationship whose principal job situs is outside of a State having such laws. Pp. 426 U. S. 416-418.

(c) Under the job situs test, as opposed to a "place of hiring" test, the possibility of patently anomalous extraterritorial applications of any given State's right-to-work laws will be minimized, and parties entering a collective bargaining agreement will easily be able to determine in virtually all situations whether a union or agency shop provision is valid. Pp. 426 U. S. 418-419.

2. Under the job situs test, Texas' right-to-work laws cannot govern the validity of the agency shop agreement in question, because most of the employees' work is done on the high seas, outside the territorial bounds of Texas. It is immaterial that Texas may have more contacts than any other State with the employment relationship involved, since there is no reason to conclude under § 14(b) that, in every employment situation, some State's law with respect to union security agreements must apply, and it is fully consistent with national labor policy to conclude, if the predominant job situs is outside the boundary of any State, that no State has a sufficient interest in the employment relationship, and that, hence, no State's right-to-work laws can apply. Pp. 426 U. S. 420-421.

504 F.2d 272, reversed.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 426 U. S. 421. BURGER, C.J., concurred in the judgment. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 426 U. S. 421. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 426 U. S. 422.

Page 426 U. S. 409

A) UBCJA INTERNATIONAL - RESTRUCTURING PLAN dated May 26, 2011

The Consolidation and re-chartering of new Local Unions will illegally shift some 8,000 rank & file workers/employee Union Carpenters from the specific protections accorded under the Consent Decree, and take then permanently & forever outside of its control and protection. Accordingly, the RO must reject and veto the proposed Restructuring Plan. The entire predicate behind it is to evade the Consent Decrees terms & conditions and the Court must recognize and see it for what it is – a plan of evasion and deception. The fact that it is being done so boldly is ample proof of the UBC’s contempt of its own members, and more importantly, contempt for this honorable Court.

The same methods of fraudulent inducement apply in the same manner and form to the 100% Mobility Rule. This rule/exception to the rule is proffered as being required to accommodate the “sophisticated Contractors” all of whom work in multiple UBC intra-state Jurisdictions throughout New York and inter-State Jurisdictions.

While these so called sophisticated Contractors are working in Non-Union States, running double-breasted non-union entities and/or alter-ego corporations, State Law for Right to Work States prevails as it applies to the 100% mobility rule issued in NLRB No. 354-122, Carpenters Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation) and Kevin Lebovitz, slip opinion dated 12-31-09 as per the NLRA Section 14(b) deferral granted to the States so choosing enact Right to Work legislation.

 In the State of New York and specifically within the NYCDCC any & all form of the Mobility Exception must fail as a matter of Federal Law, the Federal Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine embedded therein AS MOVANTS so noted within our June 1, 2011 response to the UBCJA Internationals counsel of record Latham & Watkins, LLP. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America and the National Labor Relations Board stepped far outside their area of authority allowed under the Federal Constitution, noted as follows:

In NLRB v. Marine Workers, 391 US 418 (1968), Justice Douglas noted - ”There cannot be any justification to make the public processes wait until the union member exhausts internal procedures plainly inadequate to deal with all phases of the complex problem concerning employer, union, and employee member. If the member becomes exhausted, instead of the remedies, the issues of public policy are never reached and an airing of the grievance never had. The Court of Appeals recognized that this might be the consequence and said that resort to an intra-union remedy if it imposed unreasonable delay or hardship upon the complainant.” 379 F2d. at 707.

Congressman Griffin at 13 “[T]he proviso was not intended to limit in any way the right of a union member under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, to file unfair labor practice charges against a union, or the right of the NLRB to entertain such charges, even though a 4-month period may not have elapsed”.

Notwithstanding this fact lies the mandate of the Consent Decree that under 17 – “Retention of Jurisdiction and Application to the Court. This Court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction to supervise implementation of this Consent Decree and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide any and all issues arising under the Consent Decree, and any and all disputes growing out of the issuance, interpretation or application of this Consent Decree.” “At 18, Future Actions. Except as specified in paragraph 15, nothing herein shall preclude the Government, or any of its department or agencies, from taking any appropriate action in regard to any of the defendant signatories hereto in reliance on any federal laws.”

 Thus, per 17 & 18 and per the Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. Marine Workers, 391 U.S. 418 (1968), there is a bar to member remedies which precludes action through the NLRB. Given said preclusion and the fact that the NLRB is a quasi-judicial Federal Agency, with limited quasi-legislative rule-making authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with final rule-making per Federal Register procedures; and, the fact that the specific issues of fact & law are predicated upon the Federal Constitution, the Board and its General Counsel are barred from ruling upon the issues presented, thus, the Constitutional issues are properly before this Court as jurisdiction & venue are proper.

The UBC’s Section 38 Mobility provision and the application of Section 4(A), 4(B) & 4(C) of the proposed Restructuring Plan & By-Laws wherein all executive, legislative, judicial and plenary powers are vested in an all consuming dictatorial EST indicate the UBCJA’s willful & wanton violation of the NLRA, LMRDA and their intentional and fraudulent deception to the Court, which by design are intended to frustrate and exhaust the member. Accordingly as per NLRB v. Marine workers “instead of the remedies, the issues of public policy are never reached and an airing of the grievance never had.” Moreover, since the UBCJA International has the same very limited legislative role, specifically qualified to rulemaking under the same grant afforded to the NLRB, that of an Inferior Department of the Executive Branch, when one or both cross the line by subsuming the powers of all three branches, Movants note the following:


 “The separation of powers can be violated in two basic ways. One involves the aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976)….Another occurs when a law, despite no inter-branch aggrandizement. “disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches” by preventing one of the branches from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions” Nixon v. Adm’r. of Gen. Servs. 433 US 425 (1977).”

The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board, its General Counsel, Officers, Regional Directors and employees are an Inferior Branch of the Executive Branch of Government as established by the United States Constitution. The NLRB Board and all of its constituent employees of the Federal Government Executive Branch quasi-judicial agency who has limited powers of Rule-making authority under the Administrative Procedures Act and which, when properly followed, its Board & General Counsel and constituent employees are mandated to follow specific requirements to enact rule changes through the Federal Register.

In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

As Chief Justice Hughes amply stated at 8 “The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the [295 U.S. 495, 529]   imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary”.
 

 The above statement by Chief Justice Hughes applies to the NLRB, its General Counsel, Officers, Attorneys and agents and to Douglas J. McCarron & the UBCJA International. That they and/or the UBC International General President, the NYCDCC, the Building Trades Employers Association (BTEA), the Building Construction Trades Council (BCTC) or any other Contractor Associations claim a Local, Regional or National crisis or extra-ordinary circumstances exist; and/or that new or emerging sophisticated Regional Contractors corporate business plans require, or a grave national crisis exists within the Construction Industry that require an exception are flat out wrong. Moreover, the NLRB cannot legislate from the Bench as was done in Lebovitz.

{The newly elected D.C. Officers & Executive Board and their counter parts at the W & C cannot negotiate away cases which have not been overturned as related to their never-ending desire to implement full mobility in direct violation of Federal law & standing decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States}


The UBC International shopped this test case throughout the NLRB Regions as a means to end run Congress’s legislative authority. The UBCJA’s limited legislative roles ascribe to the same restraints imposed upon each of the 3-branches of government under our Federal Constitution. The NLRB Board issued the decision & order, failed to enforce it and has allowed the UBC International to apply this policy for 100% Mobility to the full complement of 50-States. Its application and enforcement can only be effected in Right to Work States and no other. Under 28 USC, Sec. 2403 & USC Sec 517, the Attorney General of the 28 Non-Right to Work States need to be notified and joined. Movants request an Order from this Court directing the USAO to provide the notifications required by law to the effected 28 states.

The NLRB is a political animal and can and often is driven by political agenda’s predicated upon which party appoints whom to serve and for reasons peculiar to their political views. When the Board steps outside of its legal authority, in limited rule-making changes; and when it transcends that line and crosses over into the line of the Congressional authority to legislate – that decision and order must be over-turned.
___________________________________________

Where is the USAO's letter to the Court on these issues? Where is Cary-Kane's, the ERISA lawyer of the year?  The silence is deafening in that Courtroom, less the lies from the former Judge Conboy who is now destroying his own Judicial Legacy and from McGuire relative to the Benefit Funds.

Incompetence is not generally a cause for suspension or fines by the State Bar. However, perjury, contempt or malfeasance and collusion in an extortion scheme are not something to trifle with.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
If it was up to Lebo everyone in the US would have nycdcc cards. What a fucking fraud + Rev Al exposed him a long time ago. A lowlife LI piece of shit. Dont let the door hit you in the ass. The next guy in the door needs to protect 5 BOROUGH LOCAL TAXPAYING members better. Have a shitty life in your LI shithole LEBLOW !
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
So, how long til they schedule an election?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
In reply to this post by Rev Al
So, how long til they schedule an election?
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 Ted
littler.com, re: This law firm is a notorious Union Buster.

Littler's Corporate policies below are indicative of both their desire and the UBCJA General President Doug McCarron's desire to allow both foreign nationals and illegal immigrants to wrest control of your Union and your work jurisdiction in the NYCDCC away from you & yours and turn New York state which is a Non-Right to Work State into a Right to Work (RTW) State.

Awarding the NYCDCC Contractor Associations 100% Mobility in lieu of the failed 2+ year old Compliance component under the contracts (CBA's) executed to date violates Federal Labor laws under the NLRA Section 14(b) by McCarron & Bilello-McGinnis turning New York into a Right to Work (RTW) state via execution of illegal contracts (CBA's), over-turn years of long settled Appellate and Supreme Court precedent decisions and orders and usurps the Congressional authority to legislate via allowing the UBCJA's McCarron & the D.C. EST, President, Vice President & Executive Committee members negotiating contracts to add to, alter, amend or delete language from Federal Labor laws via the CBA's in direct contravention to settled law, the NLRA and the Civil RICO Consent Decree.

________________________________
Global Mobility and Immigration..


In the complex and fluid arena of U.S. immigration policy, international and U.S. companies face aggressive government enforcement and a rash of new laws. In the ever-evolving global economy, businesses face critical needs for personnel transfers across the globe in a timely and efficient manner to maintain a competitive advantage. Our lawyers have the experience to guide employers through a complex maze of enforcement regulations to maximize effectiveness and anticipate trends that may impact their business operations. In addition to our core practice of dedicated immigration lawyers, Littler maintains a team of highly experienced, trained immigration specialist personnel based in offices throughout the United States.  These non-attorney immigration professionals are available on the ground across the nation to provide comprehensive and knowledgeable immigration counsel and other immigration services at a moment’s notice, wherever and whenever it is needed.

We counsel hundreds of employers with immigration and global migration matters each year as they deal with domestic requirements as well as the legal, political and cultural norms of countries throughout the world.

Our Clients

Our clients include multinational companies, as well as national, regional and local employers, across all industries, who rely on our sound understanding of immigration law to recruit and hire foreign nationals or move staff members around the globe.

With the unpredictable economy and stepped-up government enforcement, we assist these employers in managing Form I-9 employee verification audits, Social Security mismatch letters (translation - SS Mismatch letters are code for Identity Theft and fake SS Cards used to obtain employment), E-Verify requirements and state and federal investigations.

Comprehensive Service

Our practice extends far beyond advising clients on government forms and regulations. An immigration issue can have larger, often unexpected, ramifications for an employer, with implications involving discrimination, wage and hour compliance, labor relations and other employment issues. Littler provides comprehensive services to assist our clients with any employment issues that may arise in the immigration context.

We have extensive experience in reacting quickly to urgent immigration concerns, helping our clients avoid missed deadlines and the costly consequences of delay. Because Littler is able to swiftly assemble a team of experienced professionals, we are well-positioned to obtain the client’s desired outcome.

Immigration issues often capture headlines, and we work with our clients to mitigate any unfavorable press that may arise from these matters.

Attention to Clients’ Business Needs

Littler’s immigration professionals work closely with our clients to devise migration strategies tailored specifically for their business needs. This partnership takes on enhanced importance with employers facing ever higher civil penalties and potential criminal sanctions for knowingly employing undocumented workers. (Migration Stategies, you gotta love it. The thief comes to steal, kill & destroy and apparently helping them get into the country illegally and to obtain permanent residency status is a laudible goal vs. enforcing the criminal statutes already on the books & deporting them when caught)

To help ensure that I-9 records and procedures are beyond reproach, we conduct audits of company compliance programs, often analyzing thousands of forms and supporting documents for compliance with internal company policies and the myriad legal requirements implicated in the I-9 process.

Because we strive for in-depth familiarity with our clients’ operations, we recognize what will work in a particular business environment, and we offer the flexibility and innovation needed to tailor solutions that are best suited to a specific client.

Practical Solutions

Visas
•The centerpiece of temporarily employing foreign national workers in the United States is the “work visa.”  These nonimmigrant visa categories are short-term, time-limited, and designed for specific purposes, including work authorization. (and Doug McCarron wants to bring then to New York to work under the UBC's International Agreement, under PLA's and preferably off the books for cash, noting that the dues & work assessments do not change & that the International & D.C. always get their cut while simultaneously defrauding the benefit funds.)

•The more commonly-encountered nonimmigrant visas in the employment context include the E, H, J, L, O, P, Q and TN categories.  Each having its own particular uses and qualifications, the nonimmigrant work visa categories are complex, confusing, and in no way user-friendly. Littler has tremendous experience in working with our clients to identify and implement appropriate strategies to secure the right to work for their foreign national employees. (Foreign Nationals and Illegal Aliens do not have the "right to work" anywhere in the U.S.A., particularly in the Union context wherein the property rights provide the right of exclusion in Non Right to Work states such as New York under the NLRA Section 14(b)).

Permanent Residence

•Often, employers will require longer- or indefinite-term U.S. assignments for their foreign national employees, for which a work visa is inappropriate.  Permanent residence, or the “green card,” allows the holder to live and work in the United States permanently and is not restricted to location, purpose, or time.
 
•The permanent residence process generally consists of three general stages: (i) labor certification; (ii) immigrant petition on behalf of the foreign national worker; and (iii) adjustment of status. Depending upon the job and the foreign national’s credentials, some mix of these three stages will form the backbone of the process for a particular foreign national worker.

•A sound permanent residence strategy is critical to maintaining a foreign national’s right to live and work in the United States during the transition from work visa holder to permanent resident. The pitfalls are myriad and harsh in their consequences.  Our extensive experience in developing and implementing optimal solutions enables us to devise the strategy that is right for your business and your employees.
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
re-posted;

This was By: IRS IS WATCHING from page 1 of this thread April 1, 2011

Look all over the city + you will see non resident  carpenters on the jobs. You can only have one book at a time + the non residents now choose to hold nyc book. Any way you look at it this is not in the intrests of the 5 borough carpenter. Many jobs + books are in the hands of non residents. Remember this when your mommy or daddy is no longer employed. Are you for full mobility ? How do you feel that alot of the reps at the dc dont pay nyc residence tax ? ARE YOU FOR FULL MOBILITY ?

________________________________________________

re:

Compare to where you all sit now w/ the Cement League abortion by the NLRB Board. Hey, all you 4,000-5,000 guys on the Make Pretend OWL; you all gonna take this lying down; because the NLRB just shit-canned your Due Process rights w/ this ruling and basically banned you from ever obtaining any steady work in your own District Council, which as Nee said, is now the Local. Given the By-Laws authored by the UBCJA International, Latham & Watkins Conboy & your former R.O. Walsh - why hasn't I.M. McGorty scheduled Elections for all Officers? Read the by-laws - your Locals have exactly squat for power, control or authority to do anything on your own, less b.s. picnics & softball games; and the last time I checked Dennis - that ain't no freaking Union in accordance with the tenets of the NLRA or 81-years of Board, Appellate court or U.S. Supreme court precedent.  

And Dennis Walsh sold you all out as the Puppet for Doug McCarron & his corporate racketeering conspirators & made millions doing it. They said Forde was corrupt - right. Wait till Spencer, Capelli & the Jersey Mob takes over the NYCDCC completely.

_________________________________________
All criminal suspects are guilty until proven innocent in a UBCJA Kangaroo Court of law, a court of law; ahh, shit - I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?  






Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Ted
FULL TEXT OF CASE BELOW:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/553/639.html


United States Supreme Court

BRIDGE ET AL. v. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO. ET AL., (2008)

No. 07-210

Argued: April 14, 2008    Decided: June 9, 2008


Each year the Cook County Treasurer's Office holds a public auction to sell its tax liens on delinquent taxpayers' property. To prevent any one buyer from obtaining a disproportionate share of the liens, the county adopted the "Single, Simultaneous Bidder Rule" (Rule), which requires each buyer to submit bids in its own name, prohibits a buyer from using "apparent agents, employees, or related entities" to submit simultaneous bids for the same parcel, and requires a registered bidder to submit a sworn affidavit affirming its compliance with the Rule. Petitioners and respondents regularly participate in the tax sales. Respondents filed suit, alleging that petitioners fraudulently obtained a disproportionate share of liens by filing false compliance attestations. As relevant here, they claim that petitioners violated and conspired to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) through a pattern of racketeering activity involving mail fraud, which occurred when petitioners sent property owners various notices required by Illinois law. The District Court dismissed the RICO claims for lack of standing, finding that respondents were not protected by the mail fraud statute because they did not receive the alleged misrepresentations. Reversing, the Seventh Circuit based standing on the injury respondents suffered when they lost the chance to obtain more liens, and found that respondents had sufficiently alleged proximate cause because they were immediately injured by petitioners' scheme. The court also rejected petitioners' argument that respondents are not entitled to relief under RICO because they had not received, and therefore had not relied on, any false statements.
 
Held: A plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Pp. 6-21.
 
     (a) In 18 U. S. C. §1964(c), RICO provides a private right of action for treble damages to "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation," as pertinent here, of §1962(c), which makes it "unlawful for any person employed by or associated with" a qualifying enterprise "to conduct or participate ... in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," including "mail fraud," §1961(1)(B). Mail fraud, in turn, occurs whenever a person, "having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud," uses the mail "for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice." §1341. The gravamen of the offense is the scheme to defraud, and any " 'mailing ... incident to an essential part of the scheme' ... satisfies the mailing element," Schmuck v. United States, 489 U. S. 705, 712, even if the mailing "contain[s] no false information," id., at 715. Once the relationship among these statutory provisions is understood, respondents' theory of the case is straightforward. Petitioners nonetheless argue that because the alleged pattern of racketeering activity is predicated on mail fraud, respondents must show that they relied on petitioners' fraudulent misrepresentations, which they cannot do because the misrepresentations were made to the county. Nothing on the statute's face imposes such a requirement. Using the mail to execute or attempt to execute a scheme to defraud is indictable as mail fraud, and hence a predicate racketeering act under RICO, even if no one relied on any misrepresentation, see Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 24-25; and one can conduct the affairs of a qualifying enterprise through a pattern of such acts without anyone relying on a fraudulent misrepresentation. Thus, no reliance showing is required to establish that a person has violated §1962(c) by conducting an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity predicated on mail fraud. Nor can a first-party reliance requirement be derived from §1964(c), which, by providing a right of action to "[a]ny person" injured by a violation of §1962, suggests a breadth of coverage not easily reconciled with an implicit first-party reliance requirement. Moreover, a person can be injured "by reason of" a pattern of mail fraud even if he has not relied on any misrepresentations. For example, accepting respondents' allegations as true, they were harmed by petitioners' scheme when they lost valuable liens they otherwise would have been awarded. Pp. 6-10.
 
     (b) None of petitioners' arguments--that under the "common-law meaning" rule, Congress should be presumed to have made reliance an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on a violation of the mail fraud statute; that a plaintiff bringing a RICO claim based on mail fraud must show reliance on the defendant's misrepresentations in order to establish proximate cause; and that RICO should be interpreted to require first-party reliance for fraud-based claims in order to avoid the "overfederalization" of traditional state-law claims--persuades this Court to read a first-party reliance requirement into a statute that by its terms suggests none. Pp. 10-21.
 
477 F. 3d 928, affirmed.
 
     Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

************************************************

Every member concerned about their current status or their future in the NYCDCC should read this case. The above portion is the syllabus only. See the link for the full case.

After absorbing it, please think about who the guilty parties are; and why they are guilty and what evidence you have in the form of written or electronic communications from them; whether the International, the D.C., your Local and/or from Officers or Delegates which would confer standing on you as an individual and/or as a certified class

There is so much damning evidence in this case it's sickening and the 'players' in this extortive game wherein racketeering has not ended but accelerated under their watch know exactly who they are and what I am speaking of.


MAIL and WIRE FRAUD; re:


The BLUE CARD:

**   The Blue Card Vacation Wage Hobbs Act extortion scheme, approximating $81.25 Million dollars.
 
BY-LAW SECTION 21 MISAPPROPRIATION/CONVERSION:

**   The Bilello, McGinnis & Cavanaugh and Walsh By-law Sec. 21 misappropriation, reallocation and illegal conversion of wages in multiple contracts to the Welfare Fund, approximating $38 Million dollars per year, prending total man-hours recorded under each contract; allegedly verifiable via the new electronic scanners.
 
The CONTINUATION OF PREDICATE RICO ACT VIOLATIONS

**   Continuation of NYCDCC racketeering occurred while allegedly under the watchful eyes of the United States Attorneys Office and the court appointed Review Officers notwithstanding their gross dereliction of duty and negligence as the parties with standing to allegedly (cough) represent member interests; while illegally denying rank & file member due process rights for their immediate and very direct interests in both issues above.

 
The CEMENT LEAGUE & 100% FULL MOBILITY RACKETEERING:

**   Continuation of the racketeering scheme via the intentional ignoring of the NLRA in its entirety, Board precedent and long known Appellate & U.S. Supreme Court precedent as directly related to the 100% Full Mobility scheme and the recent phony/false filing of the Cement League case by the UBCJA International, in concert with the NRCC - which misappropriated the entirety of the NYCDCC's jurisdictional territory and your man-hours for wages and benefits (deferred compensation) to those not entitled to it; and which is your primary source & element for creating wealth as a District Council member.


The NYCDCC's criminal racketeering case has gone on unabated for 25-1/2 years and that fact along with the near 22-year old private contract known as the Consent Decree are both an Abortion of Justice.

The United States Attorneys Office has openly & hostilely turned a blind eye to all of it, it refuses to press further charges against the UBCJA International for their direct role in not only continuing the racketeering, but accelerating it.

The U.S. Attorney has allowed the UBCJA International & the former R.O. Dennis Walsh to abuse the NLRA, LMRA, LMRDA, ERISA, SEC & IRS regualations to the point where these public laws are unrecognizeable and the Court and two judges have allowed it and they have allowed the former R.O. to pursue a clearly illegal agenda and directly couch participants in the misappropriation of rank & file member pay raises, in direct concert with Union & Employer Trustees and Fiduciaries and the D.C & Benefit Trust Funds legal counsel in an ongoing act of criminal racketeering and hand the raises over to the Welfare Fund.
     
**   The U.S. Attorney has refused to investigate, audit, seat a grand jury or indict any of the long list of those who can & should be so charged.
     
**   The U.S. Attorney has refused to file charges or to force the Welfare Fund to remiburse members whose wages were stolen one red cent.



The U.S. Attorneys malfeasance in their direction & handling of this case is a disgrace. Ben Torrance & Preet Bhararra by their very silence thus condonde this racketeering and Judge Berman and others should act to see to it that they are removed from the case.

**   Your 'standing' in the case can no longer be denied - courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.


Everyone knows the line "Show me the Money", "Show me the Quan" - well, where is it? Why haven't you got yours back? Why are all you boys in NYC allowing these clowns to shit all over your Federal rights?

EXCERPT, FULL ECASE:
 Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
 
     The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U. S. C. §§1961-1968, provides a private right of action for treble damages to "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation" of the Act's criminal prohibitions. §1964(c). The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that a showing of first-party reliance is not required, we affirm.

_________________

All criminal suspects are guilty until proven innocent in a UBCJA Kangaroo Court of law, a court of law; ahh, shit - I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Politics are about to change because li Pa and nj are not worth 15k in taxes. Your kids will be lucky to make 15k per yr. What comes around goes around. Still happy with full mobility asswipes ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Out of Towners?

Rev Al
Cant believe you guys buy roasted chicken at costco and are for full mobility. Your high taxed shitholes will soon be unsellable. Welcome to full mobility.
1 ... 14151617