THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
This post was updated on .
The End of the New York Plan, and a New Time of Uncertainty for New York-Area Subs
 Posted by jrap at 12/6/2011 1:33 PM CST {enr.com} see the blogs/authors

TECH SAVVY
John A. Rapaport is operations director and general counsel of Component Assembly Systems, and a principal of the C/F Data Systems LLC, a software company serving contractors. He will share his thoughts on technology, data collection, the coming BIM revolution and other subjects
{photo was Occupy Walls St}
_________________________________________

America the beautiful, land of opportunity. We all cherish that thought, but how do you right-size (especially a union or a government) when economies change and there is a paradigm shift?

It’s not easy, and it only happens as the competitive marketplace ultimately dictates. That’s our system and that will always be our system.  

In the Big Apple, there has been a big blow to what had been the long-standing mission of the Building Trades Employers Association (BTEA). What was known for years as the New York Plan is no longer in place and starting January 1st, general contractors that still belong to the BTEA are allowed to take open-shop pricing as well union pricing.

Essentially, general contractors will be eating at two subcontractor buffet lines.
{ALL THE PLAYERS WILL HAVE THEIR DOUBLE BREASTED/ALTER-EGO FIRMS in FULL GEAR}
 
All New York City-area construction not built under a project labor agreement  may be built under lower rates. Large New York buildings will start to be built open shop; we’re going from a blue to a red state here.
 
An open-shop contractor from Idaho could come in and start working here while we are still bound by the old contracts.  
 
Will there be fights in the streets over who performs the work as the skyscrapers rise?

Will the opportunist-protestors at Zuccotti Park join the fray?
 
As union contractors, with the business proposition changing, what will our world look like?

Our big city wage-benefit systems are out of whack and need to be right-sized. I recently spoke to the training group at the Philadelphia carpenters' union and I was so impressed with the facility and their leadership.
 
With New York carpenters getting around $100/hr., will they become like Detroit autoworkers?

And how is it that a Philadelphia carpenter is $40 cheaper than the New York City carpenter?

He/she is certainly as capable at certain tasks within a closer range of value! I say protect the wage and make sure the benefit can keep the pension intact with health care, but nothing else. Anything more and the system can’t afford it anymore (remember the paradigm shift?).

We still have the best workforce, but it’s just too darn expensive. To an owner, for whom we really all work, we and our workers are just another piece of data on a spreadsheet.
__________________________________________________

And the never-ending McCarron & Coletti Kool-Aid & Propaganda just keeps on coming. How many politicans will you be paying off to get this one through? How many Congressman, Senators & Judges?

The LMRDA Extension was put forth for one reason, to achieve the invidous ends in clear contravention to standing Supreme Court precedent - that being, to jam through as many PLA's as possible with no strike clauses and mandated arbitration, so the UBC could hand kickbacks to the Contractors, Owners and Project Developers. Gotta be an easy billion plus in savings there right? And not one dime changed hands for these favors...ya...OK!

With 125+ PLA's in place, time for Doug to bail come January 11th as his work & the work of Frank Spencer is done for now. In the interim, the incoming DC Election victors shall be left to deal with the wrath of the rank & file. And they said Forde was corrupt.


Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
This post was updated on .
originally posted on 157 June 5, 2011 5:59 pm

NY's Costly Construction Unions: Rebuilding will Require Turning to Non-Union Labor
by Greg David.


In 2009, with the economy weakening, developers and builders asked the city's construction unions for help in making it financially feasible to complete projects already under way and begin new ones. The result was a series of project labor agreements, which were designed to reduce costs through economic concessions and efficiencies. At the time, negotiators claimed that savings could reach 20%.

Builders interviewed by the Regional Plan Association for its revealing report, "Construction Labor Costs in New York City“,” say that, instead, expenses were cut by little more than 4%. A major reason was that union construction workers ignored the agreements, thereby preserving the archaic work rules that create unneeded jobs and make those tradesmen the highest paid in the city.

On Thursday, the RPA will convene a meeting designed to mobilize the public to pressure unions to make major concessions that would lower construction costs in the city—costs that can exceed $700 a square foot for an apartment building in Manhattan, the report says. Without fundamental changes, it warns, building here will simply become uneconomical. That would have disastrous consequences. Yet the RPA argues that keeping New York a union town is the way to preserve middle-class jobs.

On Thursday, the RPA will convene a meeting designed to mobilize the public to pressure unions to make major concessions that would lower construction costs in the city—costs that can exceed $700 a square foot for an apartment building in Manhattan, the report says. Without fundamental changes, it warns, building here will simply become uneconomical. That would have disastrous consequences. Yet the RPA argues that keeping New York a union town is the way to preserve middle-class jobs.

The report leads me to a different conclusion entirely: Construction unions are never going to make significant changes, and New York's only hope is for the largest developers to break with the unions and use nonunion labor. Some have already done so, and nonunion contractors now control about 40% of the work.

Consider that a bewildering number of unions negotiate separate contracts with an equally unwieldy number of contractor associations, all outlined in a byzantine chart in the report. The unions have won such cumbersome rules that few of their members actually work a full day. Each trade protects its turf. For example, an electrician will not move a plank to complete a task but will wait for a carpenter to do it. Jurisdictional disputes are common and are usually decided by giving both parties rights to a task, further eroding efficiency. Builders cannot use new equipment or technology without contract changes.

Wages are higher in New York than anywhere else—$75 an hour for a carpenter, versus $62 in Boston, for instance. Additionally, fringe costs here are sometimes double the hourly rate.

It is a given of labor relations that union leaders try to preserve high pay, no matter what the cost. The balkanization of the unions and the staggered expiration of contracts mean that it is impossible to coordinate equal concessions from all unions. Workers' reaction  
to the project labor agreements makes it clear where the rank-and-file stands.

The RPA is wrong to equate unions with middle-class jobs. Though it is not specific, the report implies that nonunion contractors offer inferior pay and benefits. Most pay close to union wages and provide good benefits, according to industry insiders. The big savings come from getting a full-day's work for a full day's pay.

Union leaders believe they have an alternative to making concessions. They can use their clout to pressure city government to require union labor in many projects—thus maintaining some very high-paying jobs. They are probably right.

But if its economy is to keep growing, New York City desperately needs more modern office buildings and residences, in both the luxury and affordable markets. That is the overriding public policy priority, and the construction unions today stand as a glaring obstacle to achieving it.

 A version of this article appeared in the June 6, 2011 print issue of Crain's New York Business.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Tonka Toys for Tony Tots
In reply to this post by Ted
John A. Rappaport is a moron of grandiose proportions, a spoiled rich kid trying to fill daddy's shoes. Tech savvy? He's the perfect compliment to the morons running the UBC. And that much has been confirmed in the field.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
http://www.bteany.com/pages/about.html

Time for NYCDCC to pull out of this corrupt Organization which McCarron aligns himself with. BTEA has zero input into the NLRA & no trade is bound to anything they claim, particularly 10(k) jurisdictional disputes.

The NLRA provides the law for 10(k) disputes, not the BTEA. This organization is another group of lazy bastards who have never worked a day in their life, yet, their primary goal here is to takeaway your right to strike and to force you into mandatory arbitration.

Lou Coletti is another empty suit who is feeding at the Piggy Trough earning an exhorbitant salary & bennies for himself while selling Union Tradesmen & woman down the River. He is just an overpaid hack and a mouthpiece for wealthy Contractors & Developers and do nothing politicians.

Every time they execute a PLA screwing of the rank & file, these guys get the kiss down the road from the aforementioned partners in crime. They laugh all the way to the bank and live large while the rank & file suffer. They should be summarily ignored and de-funded.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7otZ-eJfKiI&feature=related

WHITING-TURNER......coming to a UBC Local near you.
This is their modus-operandi everywhere they go. FACT, they are up & down the East Coast and if you haven't seen them yet, you will! McCarron loves them. His EST's and the appointed Business Agents will do nothing to stop them and they encourage UBC Signatory Contractors to bid work for them, at the lower rates of course.

You want water on the job, forget about it....go find a hose, drink from a puddle. You want a clean Porta-John, sorry, not in the budget, go find a restaurant or gas station or a mud bucket.

You want a GC who honors a Union Contract and does things the right way, think again, not going to happen with this outfit.

Watch the video...see the kid walking away, that is the std. response to anything Union. They will ignore you, identify you and then have you you fired. This is what BTEA is pushing.

Better still, Doug's Minions & wannabe's, when they come out to the job.....take a wild guess who they will support? That's right ladies, it won't be you.

Every MOU, every proposed Contract (CBA) needs to be Voted down & tossed in the Trash Can where it belongs.

You have the unfettered right to elect your own representatives under NLRA Section 7 for the express purpose of Negotiating Wages, Hours & Working Conditions of your Employment.


Nothing on the table now has been negotiated in Good Faith. The fact is, they are sitting on the same side of the negotiating table and licking their chops, dreaming of what they will do with the untold billions they will save - directly off of your backs, your sweat & equity.

Don't kid yourselves, the so called good GC's you see now, they too will be chomping at the bit to bid projects with double-breasted & alter ego corporations that they either currently have in operation, or will be setting up in the near future. And, they will run these Operations with the exact same "OPEN SHOP" scab mentality employed by Whiting-Turner.

The Fat Cat's have one thing in mind, themselves.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Linguistics 201 with 50 Cent, Douglas Massey, and General Ironicus

Ricardo Flores Magón
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG_LSvc4jAY

Plane Wreck at Los Gatos
(also known as "Deportee")
Words by Woody Guthrie, Music by Martin Hoffman

The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning,
The oranges piled in their creosote dumps;
They're flying 'em back to the Mexican border
To pay all their money to wade back again

Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita,
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria;
You won't have your names when you ride the big airplane,
All they will call you will be "deportees"

My father's own father, he waded that river,
They took all the money he made in his life;
My brothers and sisters come working the fruit trees,
And they rode the truck till they took down and died.

Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted,
Our work contract's out and we have to move on;
Six hundred miles to that Mexican border,
They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves.

We died in your hills, we died in your deserts,
We died in your valleys and died on your plains.
We died 'neath your trees and we died in your bushes,
Both sides of the river, we died just the same.

The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon,
A fireball of lightning, and shook all our hills,
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says, "They are just deportees"

Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except "deportees"?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
FLAUM APPETIZING CORP. 357 NLRB No. 162 12-30-11
A classic case of the Board making political decisions in direct & flagrant contravention to a standing landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, albeit, to overturn the Supreme Court which is laughable on its face. This case, like Hoffman is about awarding back-pay to illegal aliens and as predicted long ago, the Board here is far past it's area of competence to issue such defacto reversals of Sup. Ct. precedent.

The only Board Member who got this one correct was Member Hayes.

SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER HAYES, dissenting in part.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would deny the Acting General Counsel’s motion to strike the Respondent’s first affirmative defense as to all the discriminatees. I find, instead, that this defense—that the discriminatees are precluded from backpay by Hoffman Plastics Compound v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)—was sufficiently pled to warrant a hearing, where a judge can determine the appropriate scope of inquiry into the discriminatees’ legal resident status during the backpay period under the usual rules of evidence.

1 My colleagues’ contrary view, which subjects any Hoffman defense to extraordinary requirements of proof in support of pleading, is an obvious attempt to minimize the impact of what they clearly view as an erroneous decision by the Supreme Court. That is an exercise for Congress to undertake, not this administrative agency.

In Hoffman Plastics, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Board was barred from awarding backpay to an employee who was not authorized to work in this country.
Id. In NLRB v. Domsey Trading Corp., 636 F.3d 33 (2011), the Second Circuit stated that “[a]fter Hoffman, it is now clear that undocumented immigrants are ineligible
for backpay under the NLRA and, therefore, that immigration status is relevant to the question of backpay eligibility.”
Domsey, supra, 636 F.3d at 38. The Board has
recently endorsed this view, recognizing that “the Court’s opinion in Hoffman forecloses backpay awards for undocumented workers regardless of the circumstances
of their hire.” Mezonos Maven Bakery, 357 NLRB No. 47, slip op. at 4 (2011) [emphasis added].
 Thus, it is clear that the Hoffman Plastics decision precludes the Board, essentially, as a jurisdictional matter, from remedying unlawful conduct against undocumented discriminatees by awarding them backpay.  

1 For the reasons stated by my colleagues, I would grant the Acting General Counsel’s motion for summary judgment as to allegation II of the amended compliance specification, entitled Computation of Gross Backpay.

See also my dissenting position in Tortilleria La Poblanita, 357 NLRB No. 22, slip op. at 4 fn. 7 (2011). So long as the Board lacks jurisdictional authority to remedy unlawful conduct by awarding backpay to undocumented workers, immigration status is relevant to
backpay eligibility for discriminatees. Accordingly, it is sufficient for an employer to generally plead a Hoffman Plastics affirmative defense. Nonetheless, citing to Board and Federal court cases for support, the majority applies general principles to find that a general denial is insufficient. By doing so, the majority fails to acknowledge that, as described above, Hoffman Plastics changed the landscape for determining backpay eligibility where the legal status of discriminatees is at issue. The cases cited by the majority do not deal with Hoffman Plastics issues.

Further, there are numerous circumstances in which a general pleading of an affirmative defense, without more, is sufficient to preserve the issue for hearing. I note in particular that the Board requires no factual showing in support of the affirmative defense of willfulloss of earnings. The rationale that facts relevant to this issue are generally within the knowledge of the discriminatee is equally applicable to the issue of legal residency.

In any event, the principles cited by the majority cannot be applied to preclude the application of Hoffman Plastics. See Mezonos Maven Bakery, supra, 357 NLRB No. 47, slip op. at 4 fn. 25 (Board recognizing that the Supreme Court’s holding in Hoffman Plastics is not limited to the specific facts of that case). Hoffman Plastics principles plainly bar the Board from placing constraints on inquiries made into the immigration status of discriminatees, even in the guise of procedural and evidentiary limits as my colleagues have decided. As the Domsey court stressed, “an affirmative defense would be illusory if all evidence that could be used to prove it were categorically excluded.” 2 Domsey, supra, 636 F.3d at 38.

In fact, it was precisely for this reason that the Second Circuit in Domsey remanded the case back to the Board, stating:

While Hoffman was not an evidentiary decision,
post-Hoffman, the immigration status of discriminatees
has become relevant to the issue of whether
backpay may be awarded. Although it is by no
means a simple issue, we find that employers may
question discriminatees about their immigration
status, while also underscoring the Board’s legitimate
interest in fashioning rules that preserve the integrity
of its proceedings.

In sum, we find that employers may crossexamine backpay applicants with regard to their immigration status, and leave it to the Board to fashion evidentiary rules consistent with Hoffman. (Id. at 38–39 (emphasis added).) The majority’s approach here, imposing pre-hearing evidentiary requirements equivalent to the judge’s erroneous ruling in Domsey, is not “consistent with” Hoffman.

It subverts the Respondent’s right to litigate the discriminatees’ legal status through a procedural technicality. Accordingly, because I find that the Respondent’s first affirmative defense has sufficiently raised a Hoffman Plastics affirmativee defense as to all the discriminatees,3

FOOT NOTES:

2 I disagree with my colleagues that Domsey can be distinguished because the then-General Counsel did not move to strike the employer’s affirmative defense based on immigration status. Any fair reading of the court’s opinion in that case leads to the conclusion that granting such a prehearing motion would not be viewed any more favorably than was the judge’s refusal to permit direct examination of the
discriminatees. In particular, the court stated:

Domsey does not argue on appeal that each of the discriminatees was undocumented during the backpay period. Indeed, Domsey would be hard-pressed to make such an argument given that, in most cases, there is no direct evidence in the record concerning the discriminatees’ immigration status. Instead, Domsey argues that it was prohibited from eliciting relevant testimony from discriminatees and was therefore unable to prove its affirmative defense; it seeks a remand so that it may be permitted to question discriminatees about their immigration status during the backpay period and to introduce the testimony of its immigration expert. In short, Domsey’s “general” objection is actually
a very specific objection to the ALJ’s immigration-related evidentiary rulings. [636 F.3d at 37.]


3 The majority does not grant the motion to strike the Respondent’s first, second, and third affirmative defenses as to the four discriminatees who provided testimony at the unfair labor practice hearing that the signatures on the resident alien cards that they presented to the Respondent were not theirs. While I agree that the motion as to these four discriminatees should not be granted, I would not require, as the majority does, that the Respondent submit an amended Bill of Particulars because it is fundamentally inconsistent with my conclusion that a general denial is sufficient under Hoffman Plastics. Where the Board finds that a general denial is sufficient (i.e., interim earnings), an answering party need not comply with any additional requirements. This should be the case here as well.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

tester
ABRAHAM LINCOLN:

"All that serves labor serves the Nation. All that harms is treason. If a man tells you he loves
America, yet hates labor he is a liar. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a
fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other. "
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Exploitation of Undocumented Workers

Freie Arbeiter Stimme
In reply to this post by Ted
Jewish Labor Committee: Support Workers Fired at Flaum Appetizing Company in Williamsburgh, Brooklyn!

On Monday May 26, 2008, twenty long-term employees at Flaum Appetizing Company, a major distributor of high-end kosher products in Williamsburg, Brooklyn New York, lawfully stopped work to protest of the firing of one of their co-workers, Maria Corona. At this point, instead of negotiating with them, management locked out and fired these workers. Previously required to work more than sixty hours per week without legally-mandated overtime pay, without sick leave, holidays, vacations, or even drinking water on the job, the workers joined the Food and Allied Workers Union 460/640, IWW.

The workers had not received overtime, as mandated by New York state law, paid sick days or holidays, until, after joining the union for the purposes of collective bargaining, they had petitioned the management. After joining the union, workers had won paid breaks, their first paid holidays, paid vacations, and time and a half for hours worked over 40. The National Labor Relations Board had documented the employees' allegations and has issued a formal complaint against the company's actions, and is currently investigating additional labor law violations. In addition, a federal lawsuit has been filed against Flaum for past violations of wage and hour laws.

Articles on this situation appeared in Vos Iz Neias, "Williamsburgh, NY - Flaum Appetizing Under Scrutiny For Its Labor Practices," in The Forward, "Kosher Distributor Faces Labor Court Hearing," and El Diario, "Protestan por despidos en Brooklyn: Empresa deja cesantes a trabajadores mexicanos que la acusan de abuso laboral."

The fired workers' most immediate concern is to have their jobs reinstated. While the workers’ case against Flaum will play itself out in the courts and at the Labor Board, letters encouraging management to end the lock-out, and give these workers their jobs back, can be sent to

Flaum Appetizing
288 Scholes Street
Brooklyn, NY 11206

http://www.jewishlaborcommittee.org/

"The Jewish Labor Committee (JLC) is an American secular Jewish organization dedicated to promoting labor union interests in Jewish communities, and Jewish interests within unions. The organization is headquartered in New York City, with local/regional offices in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles, and volunteer-led affiliated groups in a number of other U.S. communities. It was founded in 1934 in response to the rise of Nazism in Europe. Today, it works to maintain and strengthen the historically strong relationship between the American Jewish community and the trade union movement, and to promote what they see as the shared social justice agenda of both communities."
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Exploitation of Undocumented Workers

Ted
The second circuit will not over-rule itself, nor will the Supreme Court. Hoffman is settled law.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dred Scott v. Sandford

Roger B. Taney
Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney:

"It is difficult, at this day, to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the constitution was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior race, and altogether unfit to associate with the white races, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dred Scott v. Sandford

Ted
Illegal aliens are not entitled to back pay - period.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intellectual checkmate

NO U
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intellectual checkmate

Ted
Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Majority Opinion in Hoffman Plastics (2002) stated:
 
..."The Southern Steamship Co. line of cases established that where the Board's chosen remedy trenches upon a federal satutue or policy outside of the Board's competence to administer, the Board's remedy may be required to yield"...
 
..."In 1986, two years after Sur-Tan, Congress enacted IRCA, a comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States...8 USC Sec. 1324 (a)....for an alien to be "authorized" to work in the United States, he or she must possess "a valid Social Security Account Number Card"
 
...."Similarly, if an Employer unknowingly hires an unauthorized alien, or if the alien becomes unauthorized while employed, (visa expiration), the Employer is compelled to discharge the Worker upon discovery of the workers undocumented status"....
 
..."IRCA also makes it a crime for an unauthorized alien to subvert the Employer Verification System by tendering fraudulent Documents. Sec 1324c (a)".
 
... "It thus prohibits aliens from using or attempting to use "any forged, counterfeit, altered, or falsely made document".
 
..."Aliens who use or attempt to use such Documents are subject to fines and criminal prosecution. 19 USC Sec. 1546(b)".
 
...."Under the IRCA regime, it is impossible for an undocumented alien to obtain emplyment in the United States without some party directly contravening explicit Congressional policies. Either the undocumented alien tenders fraudulent identification, which subverts the cornerstone of IRCA's enforcement mechanism, or the Employer knowingly hires the undocumented alien in direct contradiction of its IRCA obligations".
 
..."The Board (NLRB) asks that we overlook this fact and allow it to award Backpay to an Illegal Alien for years of work not performed, for wages that could not have been lawfully earned, and for a job obtained in the first instance by a Criminal Fraud".
 
..."We find, however, that awarding Backpay to Illegal Aliens runs counter to policies underlying IRCA, policies the Board has no authority to enforce or administer. Therefore, as we have consistently held in like circumstances, the award lies beyond the bounds of the Board's remedial discretion".
 
..."The Board contends that awarding limited Backpay to Castro "reasonably accomodates" IRCA, because, in the Board's view, such an award is not "inconsistent" with IRCA".
 
...."The Board argues that because the backpay period was closed as of the date Hoffman learned Castro's illegal status, Hoffman could have employed Castro during the backpay period without violating IRCA. Id. at 37".
 
..."The Board further argues that while IRCA criminalized the misuse of documents, "it did not make violaters ineligible for backpay awards or other compensation flowing from employment secured by misuse of such documents". Id at 38".
 
..."This latter statement, of course, proves little:"
 
 
..."The mutiny statute in Southern Steamship Co., and the INA in Sur-Tan, were likewise understandably silent with respect to such things as backpay awards under the NLRA"...."What matters here, and what sinks both of the Board's claims, is that Congress has expressly made it criminally punishable for an alien to obtain employment with false documents".
 
..."There is no reason to think that Congress nonetheless intended to permit Backpay where but for an Employer's Unfair Lbor Practices, an Alien-Employee would have remained in the United States illegally, and continued to work illegally, all the while successfully evading apprehension by Immigration Authorities".
 
..."Far from "accomodating" IRCA, the Board's position, recognizing Employer Misconduct but discounting the Misconduct of Illegal Alien Employees, subverts it".
 
...."Indeed, awarding Backpay in a case like this not only trivializes the Immigration Laws, it also condones and encourages future Violations".
 
..."We therefore conclude that allowing the Board to award Backpay to Illegal Aliens would unduly trench upon explicit Statutory prohibtion critical to Federal Immigration Policy, as expressed in IRCA".
 
..."It would encourage the successful evasion of apprehension by Immigration Authorities, condone prior violations of the Immigration Laws, and encourage future violations".
 
..."However broad the Board's discretion to fashion remedies when only dealing with the NLRA, it is not so unbounded as to authorize this sort of an award ($66,951.00 in backpay)".
 
..."The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed".
 
..."It is so ordered".
 
Chief Justice William Rehnquist-Decided 5-27-02
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intellectual checkmate

Otto Parts
Let me correct you on a few things; Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Tonka Toys for Tony Tots
see comments below by J Rappaport - one of Coletti's buddies pushing Open Shop, ABC, 1099, Cash Workers, Illegal Aliens, Scrapper-Helpers/Pre-Apprentices down your throats in NYC. All Delegates take Notice of who is pushing what....the same holds for any who are Company Men.

The Owners & Developers and spoiled rich kids like this buffoon are out for one thing - increasing their profit margins off your sweat & equity on every Job. Rapp must need another Jet and Vacation home. What they do on the sly behind the scenes matters as much as what they do when being watched.
___________________________________________
Texas Rated Most-Improved for Sub-Friendly Policies 
01/06/2012                         (from ENR Construction.com)
 By Bruce Buckley

Texas is showing a friendlier attitude toward subcontractors. The American Subcontractors Association named Texas the state with the most-improved public policy environment for construction subcontractors in 2011.
 
Drawing from The ASA Report, "The Policy Environment in the States," Texas’ ranking rose from 29th overall to 10th overall among states in terms of the report’s grading of the public policy environment in all 50 states.

 “Texas succeeded in driving legislative reforms in five major areas — electronic reverse auctions, payment bonds on public-private partnerships, risk allocation, lien claims for retainage, and statutory lien forms,” said 2011-12 ASA President Kerrick Whisenant of Cornerstone Detention Products, Tanner, Ala. “In 2012, subcontractors across the country should build on these victories.”

ASA published the annual report after it evaluated states treatment of prompt pay, mechanics' liens, bid-shopping and risk transfer. New Mexico came in first place in 2011 and Wyoming was dead last. Two big states, New York and California, were tied for third place.

Louisiana fell roughly in the middle of the field, ranking 27th.

The report highlighted six Texas laws, all signed by Gov. Rick Perry on June 17, 2011, that helped change the landscape for subcontractors in the state.

H.B. 1390 allows subcontractors 30 days from completion of work to provide lien notices to owners. ASA says the change will allow subcontractors more time to file lien claims for retainage that prime contractors have failed to release in a timely manner. Another law, H.B. 1456, establishes statutory lien waiver forms, both conditional and unconditional, for progress payments and final payment on construction projects, which ASA says will streamline the process.

H.B. 628 prohibits any use of electronic reverse auctions to obtain contracted services for state and local construction projects on which a surety bond is required. ASA says the ban will protect subcontractors from being forced to divulge and change their bids in reverse auctions for bonded state and local work.

H.B. 2093 bans broad-form indemnification clauses in private and public construction contracts and makes additional insured requirements in construction contracts “void and unenforceable,” except on consolidated insurance programs and for personal injury claims.

S.B. 1048 requires that payment and performance bonds complying with the state’s Little Miller Act be provided on projects funded by public-private partnerships.

H.B. 2093 requires three years of completed operations coverage on CIPs. The ASA says the requirement helps protect subcontractors and other members of the construction team against third-party claims for bodily injury or property damage filed after they complete work on a CIP project.

 Texas still has a ways to go, according to the ASA. Although the policy environment improved last year, it is still lacking, according to the report. On a scale of 1-100, with 100 being the highest, the state received a numeric grade of 36 in 2010 and 52 in 2011. Anything below 60 equates to an “F” grade, according to the ASA scale. )go to enrconstruction.com for page 2 view).

Reader Comments:

jrap wrote:

Great stuff Bruce as always. It's interesting Texas as an "open shop" area with labor flexibility is on top but New York as a more "restrictive" and expensive union area is # 3 out of 50 states, and you can credit that in part to the hardwork and expertise of the local Subcontractors Trade Association (STA) and in particular Arthur Rubenstein and Ron Berger. Legislatures are more open now to be flexible with bidding laws, cost control methods, etc. At the STA we are part of the National Subcontractors Alliance (NSA) which is a group like the ASA.

 1/8/2012 6:27 AM CST

Anonymous wrote:

Great article.

 1/8/2012 9:16 AM CST


Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Exploitation of Undocumented Workers

Ted
In reply to this post by Freie Arbeiter Stimme
U.S. Supreme Court

MARCELLO v. BONDS, 349 U.S. 302 (1955)
349 U.S. 302

MARCELLO v. BONDS, OFFICER IN CHARGE, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 145.
 Argued April 21-22, 1955.
Decided May 31, 1955.

After a hearing pursuant to 242 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, petitioner, an alien who had been convicted in 1938 of violation of the Marihuana Tax Act, was ordered deported. Section 241 (a) (11) of the 1952 Act makes such conviction at any time ground for deportation, and 241 (d) provides that the deportation provisions of 241 (a) shall apply even though the facts giving rise to the alien's deportability occurred prior to the date of enactment of the 1952 Act. The validity of the deportation order was challenged by petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding. Held:
 

1. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 expressly supersedes the hearing provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Pp. 305-310.
 
2. The fact that the special inquiry officer was subject to the supervision and control of officials in the Immigration Service charged with investigative and prosecuting functions did not so strip the hearing of fairness and impartiality as to make the procedure violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. P. 311.
 
3. Petitioner failed to support his claim that, within the meaning of this Court's decisions in the Accardi cases, his case was prejudged by the Board of Immigration Appeals and by the special inquiry officer. Pp. 311-314.
 
4. The prohibition of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution does not apply to deportation of aliens. Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 ; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 . P. 314.
 
212 F.2d 830, affirmed.
Jack Wasserman and David Carliner argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. [349 U.S. 302, 303]  

Robert W. Ginnane argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Maurice A. Roberts and L. Paul Winings.
 
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
_______________________________________________

Every argument Liberals try to make, as justification for their willful & wanton violation of the Sovereignty of the United States and the criminal violation of its laws, is countered with fact and law, as shown above.

Sur-Tan, IRCA (1986) and Hoffman Plastics are settled law & the liberals who violate these laws are in fact criminals. You are aiding and abetting their breaking and entering into the U.S.A. in the first instance and then, willfully & wantonly harboring and employing them. In fact, the owners of this shop, while feigning to be compassionate liberals, are then exploiting them as a cheap source of labor.

Given the ex-post-facto exclusion via this precedent, Congress need pass a law that those caught doing the above and filing frivolous lawsuits, should rather be deported with their illegal alien employees. Then, you are free to show all the compassion that you want, after your citizenship is revoked for treason.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
http://democracyfordockbuilders.com/2012/01/31/affiliation-agreement-dockbuilders-and-iupat/

AFFILIATION AGREEMENT

            WHEREAS, the current administration of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (“UBC”) has denied Dockbuilders their independence and their democratic rights;

 and

            WHEREAS, the UBC has destroyed traditional craft lines by forcing the Dockbuilders into a local union where they are outvoted by other crafts; and

            WHEREAS, the UBC has denied the Dockbuilders the right to directly elect their own officers;

WHERAS, the UBC has denied the Dockbuilders the right to directly ratify their own collective bargaining agreements; and

WHEREAS, rank and file Dockbuilders have formed the Dockbuilders Local of the Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners Union (“Dockbuilders Local”) has been formed to restore these traditional rights and prerogatives; and

            WHEREAS, the Dockbuilders Local is committed to solidarity with the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO in order to better the working conditions of themselves and all building and construction trades employees; and

            WHEREAS, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (“IUPAT”) supports craft autonomy within a unified Building and Construction Trades Department; and

WHEREAS, IUPAT supports democratic trade unionism;

            THEREFORE, to further these mutual goals, the Dockbuilders Local and the IUPAT enter into this agreement of affiliation upon the following terms.

1.   The Dockbuilders Local and IUPAT (collectively, “the Affiliates”) shall continue as two independent, but affiliated, trade unions, each governed democratically by their respective members.

2.  The Affiliates will work together for the mutual benefit of their members and for the benefit of all building and construction trades craft workers represented by affiliates of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO (“BCTD”).

3.  The Dockbuilders Local will adopt its own Constitution and/or Bylaws and will not be subject to the IUPAT Constitution or control in any manner by the IUPAT.

            4.  The Affiliates will honor the traditional craft lines of each other and of all other affiliates of the BCTD.  In furtherance of this pledge, the Dockbuilders Local agrees that it will not represent or attempt to represent workers performing work within the Constitutional jurisdiction of IUPAT as interpreted in the sole discretion and judgment of the IUPAT General Executive Board, nor will it represent or attempt to represent workers performing the work of other BCTD affiliates.  The IUPAT agrees that it will not interfere in any manner with the Dockbuilders Local’s representation of dockbuilders.

            5.  Upon request, IUPAT will provide the Dockbuilders Local assistance in organizing, collective bargaining, contract administration and internal organization.  It is understood, however, that the Dockbuilders Local will have complete freedom in the negotiation and administration of its contracts and internal affairs.

            6.  In return for such assistance, the Dockbuilders Local  will pay a per capita of $6.00 per member per month to IUPAT.

            7.   IUPAT will use its best efforts to obtain BCTD sanction and protection of the legitimate jurisdictional claims of the Dockbuilders Local.

            8.  Either party may terminate this Agreement on 30 days notice, provided that if the Dockbuilders Local terminates, it will continue to be bound by paragraph 4 hereof.

            9.  This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the Affiliates and its provisions may be enforced only by them.  There are no third-party beneficiaries.

            10.  The Affiliates agree that this Agreement will be interpreted under the federal common law as developed under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C § 301.

            11.  Any disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be resolved through final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator appointed by the President of the AFL-CIO.
_____________________________________

THE END OF THE NY PLAN - BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BID JAN. 1ST

The End of the New York Plan, and a New Time of Uncertainty for New York-Area Subs
 Posted by jrap at 12/6/2011 1:33 PM CST {enr.com} see the blogs/authors

TECH SAVVY
John A. Rapaport is operations director and general counsel of Component Assembly Systems, and a principal of the C/F Data Systems LLC, a software company serving contractors. He will share his thoughts on technology, data collection, the coming BIM revolution and other subjects
{photo was Occupy Walls St}
_________________________________________

America the beautiful, land of opportunity. We all cherish that thought, but how do you right-size (especially a union or a government) when economies change and there is a paradigm shift?

It’s not easy, and it only happens as the competitive marketplace ultimately dictates. That’s our system and that will always be our system.  

In the Big Apple, there has been a big blow to what had been the long-standing mission of the Building Trades Employers Association (BTEA). What was known for years as the New York Plan is no longer in place and starting January 1st, general contractors that still belong to the BTEA are allowed to take open-shop pricing as well union pricing.

Essentially, general contractors will be eating at two subcontractor buffet lines.
_________________________________________

QUESTION:    Which Buffet Line do you want to be in?

 - The UBC's @ your Contract Wage & Benefit Rate?
 - Amalgamated/Painters, IUPAT, an AFL-CIO affiliate @ a 40% plus reduction? You do the Math.

With 32 hits of a potential member base of 2,000 members, given multiple hits by the same user - the math and the support does not add up.

32/2,000(100) = a 1.6% support base as per the "Affiliation Agreement" posted & those feigning the slightest interest. For arguments sake, you will need 1,001 vote of 2,000 to secure your release and it appears the votes are simply not there...so what is the fallback position and plan?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

tester
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: THE END OF THE NY PLAN -BTEA to take OPEN SHOP BIDS JAN 1ST

Ted
This post was updated on .
http://www.bteany.com/media/ppt/cip.pdf

11-PAGES, BY BTEA, re: "THE NEW YORK PLAN"   see page 4

h'mm - Seems that the $55k average Annual Wage & Benefit's received by BTEA Union workers and employees is a far cry from the False Claims made by Louis Coletti during his entire 2011 Campaign and his 26-Point BTEA Plan to screw the rank & file worker over.

Hey, if the shoe fits Lou, you know - ya gotta wear it. It's your website, and your words do not match the rhetoric or the lies, deceit and fraud you've pushed....another in a long line of proven liars.

$55K in Gross wages & Benefits is hardly excessive in NYC by any stretch of the imagination.
______________________________________________

Refusal to Bargain unless UNION AGREES to OPEN SHOP & WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION, Bad Faith Bargaining, self dealing, surface bargaining etc.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1
Intervenor
_______________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
_______________________
BRIEF FOR
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
_______________________
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
This case is before the Court on the petition of Erie Brush & Manufacturing Corp. (“the Company”) to review, and the cross-application of the National Labor
2
Relations Board (“the Board”) to enforce, a Board Order against the Company. The Board’s Decision and Order (“Board’s Order”) issued on August 9, 2011, and is reported at 357 NLRB No. 46. (A.15-27).1 The Board had subject matter jurisdiction over the unfair labor practice proceeding below under Section 10(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 151, 160(a)) (“the Act”), which authorizes the Board to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. The Board found that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1)). The Board’s Order is final under Section 10(e) and (f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and (f)).

The Court has jurisdiction over the proceeding pursuant to Section 160(e) and (f) of the Act. The Company filed its petition for review on September 19, 2011. The Board filed its cross-application for enforcement on October 27, 2011. Both were timely; the Act places no time limit on filings to review or enforce Board orders. The charging party before the Board, Service Employees International Union, Local 1 (“the Union”), has intervened on the side of the Board.
1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONSRelevant statutory provisions are contained in the attached addendum.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union, the Board’s General Counsel issued a complaint against the Company, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1)). (A.23-24.) After conducting a hearing, an administrative law judge issued a decision on January 26, 2007. Specifically, the judge found that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to meet and bargain with the Union between May 10 and June 21, 2006, unless the Union agreed to an open shop, and that the refusal tainted a decertification petition filed shortly thereafter by the employees. The judge found that the Company was therefore not privileged to withdraw recognition from the Union based on the petition, and that the Company has been in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as it has refused to recognize the Union ever since. (A.15, 26.) The Company subsequently filed exceptions to that decision.

http://www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-043530

(see Appellate Brief, bottom of page)
12