The LABOR COMMODITY, the CONTRACT (CBA) & MOBILITY

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

The LABOR COMMODITY, the CONTRACT (CBA) & MOBILITY

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

At Third….The mere fact that there may be a constant flow of commodities into a state does not mean that the flow continues after the property has arrived and has become commingled with the mass of property within the state and is there held solely for local disposition and use.
 
 The commodity at issue here, in terms of the UBCJA International & Regional/District Council Mobility Rule is labor. The commodity subject to the exploitation by Organized Crime and the UBCJA & NYCDCC Contractor Associations is the employment of illegal aliens/undocumented workers, which is the primary mean by which the NYCDCC Benefit Funds are defrauded.

The inter-state and intra-state activity involves the transportation of Travelers from within and outside of the UBCJA member rank & file, the importation and use of 1099 workers, illegal aliens and cash workers long exploited by the LCN and mob – and put in force and effect to disrupt the flow of commerce such that Federal Income Taxes, Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid taxes go unpaid, as do State, County and Local income taxes, Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance programs. Moreover, a large aspect is with regard to the defrauding of lawful Pension, Annuity and Health & Welfare payments to NYCDCC Benefit Funds.

Thus, where the “flow of the Labor Commodity may have ceased or stopped” once in the State of New York and the interstate transaction in relation to the labor commodity may have ended, serves as no bar, for that is where the corruption, exploitation, LCN and mob related corruption and extortion begin – thus the clear legal distinction between the commodity at bar in Schechter (food for human consumption), verses the human component of the labor commodity subject to the aforementioned crimes which have led to the 21-year Civil Consent Decree.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, taxes this labor commodity via the imposition of a “per-capita tax”, whether said labor commodity is in inter-state or intra-state commerce and whether it is moving between the two or in-situs and at its final destination. Illegal aliens & undocumented workers are an exploitable labor commodity due to the direct threat of deportation (via ICE) on the one hand; by the government and/or expulsion by the union or the employer (under the threat to call ICE) on the other.

The effect to workers & employees (the labor commodity) in both right to work states under state sovereignty, or non-right to work states operating under federal pre-emption doctrines is telling. In Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245, 259 , 260 S., 43 S.Ct. 83, the Supreme Court noted: “The action of the state as a regulation of interstate commerce does not depend upon the degree of interference; it is illegal in any degree.”

 Movants contend the same applies no less to the UBCJA. Whether coal as in the instant case, or labor in the present one, both are commodities and the UBCJA International’s actions relating to their attempt to regulate interstate commerce, in the instance of taxing moving or non-moving humans, taxed as a labor commodity similarly does not depend on the degree of interference; whereas, it is illegal in any degree.

Similar to Heisler, the tax is a tribute paid to the UBC International for an activity to which it is not competent to administer – inter-state commerce, and should thus be declared facially unlawful. The failure to pay Federal Income Taxes, Social Security, and Medicare & Medicaid certainly are matter affecting interstate commerce. The failure to pay Local, County & State Income Taxes and Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance are matters affecting intra-state commerce. Violation of Sur-Tan, IRCA of 1986 by Employer & Contractor Associations are additional matters affecting inter-state commerce, as is the exploitation of the worker and employee and the failure to pay prevailing wages per the NYCDCC Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Movants also note the continued Benefit Fund fraud, in that it violates Federal laws within the domain of ERISA, EBSA, PBGC and that it impacts the return on investments and may in turn  violate SEC regulations, and that the appropriate Federal Taxes are not paid, also violate the Internal Revenue Code – and all such violations readily impact and obstruct interstate commerce. Retirees depend upon their Pensions, which in turn depend upon the return on investments (ROI), noting that investments returns are generated both inter-state and intra-state; therein effecting interstate commerce when said Benefit Funds are being robbed of the necessary dollars and funding levels required to keep them stable & solvent – and from encroaching or being in “endangered or critical” status as defined by E.R.I.S.A.

 Movants note in “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, the Supreme Court ruled that :(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.

The Mobility Rule as implemented on a National basis by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America International Union and as imposed upon it subordinate 36-Regional & District Councils is the chief component behind the present fraud in and about NYCDCC, and throughout the remainder of the United States. The UBCJA Mobility Rule, enacted in all 50-States clearly effects inter-state and intra-state commerce by encouraging rather than eliminating illegal immigration, violating IRCA Regulation and therein inducing the Building Trades Employers Association (BTEA), the Contractor Associations, Unions Officers,  Business Agents & Representatives and certain Union Stewards to participate in the schemes to employ this labor commodity to reduce their costs and thus achieve an Unfair Business Practice and advantage over legitimate Union Contractors, Material Suppliers and Vendors.
The impact to the State & Federal Treasuries, the losses to Workers Compensation & Unemployment Insurance programs and the drastic effects to their treasuries is in the range of $100 - $200 billion dollars of losses annually.

 The loss of the property right via mobility rules enacted by the UBCJA and the hiring and employment of illegal aliens are the primary magnet which has led to these direct losses and is the source of the continued fraud, manipulation, malfeasance and longstanding LCN involvement which necessitated the RICO charges in the first instance in 1990.
 
 It is also a deprivation of the member rights to secure work through his/her own Local Union, for projects in their Local Unions Defined Geographical Jurisdiction, above and before all others. The United States Supreme Court made this point amply clear , stating: “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.” Carpenters Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation) and Kevin Lebovitz No. 354-122, is one such individual case warranting the Constitutional questions presented by Movants, as noted within the June 1, 2011 letter to the Court.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The LABOR COMMODITY, the CONTRACT (CBA) & MOBILITY

Ted
 - cont. -

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

The UBCJA Constitution, its By-laws and the NYCDCC By-laws, the Collective Bargaining Agreements and the individual Trust Fund Agreements; and, the UBC Obligation, all form a contract. The UBC International and the NYCDCC have now jointly proposed that they be granted the Powers of the 3-branches of Government established by the Federal Constitution – that of the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, via the Unilateral Implementation of a Centralized Restructuring Plan, wherein the Bylaw changes grant to them all plenary powers. The UBC International and the New York City District Council now pray that this honorable Court allow them such unilateral control as is only present within Dictatorships.
     It begs no more, to say that this Restructuring Plan makes a prima-facie case for violation of any & all due process rights, is proffered in bad faith, and that it wholly and completely eviscerates the NLRA, TAFT-HARTLEY & the LMRDA in one fell swoop. Moreover, under the limited controls granted to International Unions in federal LMRDA Trusteeships, those which seek illegitimate ends are expressly prohibited as a matter of law.

Chief Justice Hughes stated, at Third, in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935): “It is not the province of the Court to consider the economic advantages or disadvantages of such a centralized system. It is sufficient to say that the Federal Constitution does not provide for it.”

 Movants respectfully request the Court with the exact legal precedent established above, with respect to the NYCDCC Proposed Restructuring Plan dated May 26, 2011 – that it is sufficient to say that such a “centralized system” as proposed by the UBCJA & NYCDCC By-Law rules changes for the operation of the District Council could not be allowed under the Federal Constitution – that it not be allowed under the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree here in New York., that it be declared facially unlawful and vetoed in its entirety.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The LABOR COMMODITY, the CONTRACT (CBA) & MOBILITY

Dockbuilder 1456
In reply to this post by Ted
Full Mobility = Anti corruption investigation of the contractors. This will chase the contractors away in droves.  Maybe McMorron & Co won't have anyone left to negociate with.  I think the contractors will be looking for alternatives rather than sign with the NYCDC..