Quantcast

Trump and Pence are anti-union

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ross
If you are in the union and you're planning to vote for these union-busters, you owe it to yourself to do a little research first. Google something like "Trump on unions" or "Pence on unions", or any other phrase that seeks their views on unions. If you vote for these Union-busters, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

To Ross:
They would have to think, and have minds, in order to change them! Every generation has its' mindless drones looking for a powerful savior who cares about them, and who'll lift them up to places of importance and influence; pitty them. Those who care have a duty to drag them along to the benefits won without their participation.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union/ not as bad as Democrats!

Union Man
And vote for Lying hillary and her support of TPP. Which will destroy more union jobs than NAFTA. Keep voting for Democrats, they will ship all our jobs over seas.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ted
In reply to this post by Ross
The 50-STATE RIGHT TO WORK UBCJA

God Bless America & to hell with Douglas J. McCarron!


It ain't Trump or Pence locking you out of working in your own Local union or District Council; rather, it's Doug McCarron by his continual & repeated violations of the labor laws and the 'exclusive' standing of the NYCDCC and his willful and repeated violations of NLRA Section 14(b).

Do you not understand the property rights which attach to your membership in the NYCDCC for each rank & file member?

New York is not a RTW state; yet, the NYCDCC via the phony Cement League test case conjured up by McCarrons corporate puppet-masters and their attorneys has turned the New York & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters into the Right to Work (RTW) Poster Child for the UBC.

Hillary Clinton won't do a damn thing to protect your individual or your council property rights to work in your own Local Union or District Council before any outside traveler/out of towner, cash worker or illegal/criminal alien.

But, nevertheless the mindless drones in the UBC & NYCDCC, rather than starting a go-fund me page to hire an attorney to defend their rights at the NLRB, Circuit Court or in Judge Bermans Federal District Court will all run down to their local halls and build Hillary Clinton tens of thousands of signs and stand outside in all kinds of weather for a candidate who does not give a rats ass about them or their families ability to put food on the table in their own backyard; first and foremost before all others.

And this is notwithstanding the giant sucking sound (to para phrase Ross Perot) of Council Jobs and Council Benefits leaving the NYCDCC for the NRCC Capelli rats in Jersey or a multitude of other out of state Pension, Annuity & Health & Welfare Funds.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ross
Your point is taken but I think it's moot. Trump and Pence are both RTW guys and they won't help with that issue either.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

RichardDorrough
Then why do you give Trump members Pension money ????https://commercialobserver.com/2015/02/qa-herbert-kolben-senior-vice-president-real-estate-investment-group-ullico/   



Which borrowers are you  targeting?

We deal with some of the most sophisticated and well-known developers in the country: Trump, Related, Brookfield, SL Green, Hines, Tishman Speyer.

Hey I was wondering How do you spell hypocritical sack of shit
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

TRUMP
🇺🇸TRUMP🇺🇸
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ross
Thanks for the chuckle.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ted
In reply to this post by Ross
Really?

If my point is taken but moot Ross, why then are half the Union Carpenters in the country supporting Trump over McCarrons savior Hillary Clinton?

See, I believe that McCarron needs Hillary on his side to keep his ass out of jail for Ullico amongst other scandals and his many violations of Federal law. Clinton is more apt to protect him & thus allow his scams to keep rolling; whereas Trump & whomever he appoints to the DOL, DOJ etc. would be far more likely to prosecute him for his 21-year crime spree.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ted
In reply to this post by Ross
Timing is everything Ladies: Anyone not yet receive the UBCJA's latest 6" x 11-1/2" Postcard comparing the Trump v. Clinton Presidential race?

excerpt:

"This Labor Day, the choice is clear for out members...DO NOT ALLOW WHAT WE HAVE BUILT TO BE TORN DOWN!

UBC founder Peter McGuire started Labaor Day back in 1882. This Labor Day we need to focus on the election.

Our powerful enemies continue to work hard to cut wages and end union protections.

 - National Right to Work

 - The National Labor Relations Board

 - The Supreme Court

While some in his party vote with us, Trump is 100% against us and every other union too:

 - Trump is in favor of Right to Work laws that weaken collective bargaining and union strength.

 - Trump would eliminate prevailing wages by ending federal Davis Bacon, which gives union bidders a fair chance to win work on publicly funded projects.

 - Trump would nominate judges to the Supreme Court who will vote to ban Project Labor Agreements, vote in favor of Right to Work and vote to lower safety & training standards."

_______________________

Wow - what a crock of shit from the word go Doug!

Fact:


The UBCJA via its corporate Puppet-Masters whom you are directly beholden too for your livlihood have engineered and orchestrated a multitude of phony test cases which you've collectively rammed through the NLRB for 21-years; wherein said test cases won in one Board Region or Appellate Court are then used by you & your Corporate handlers as precedent in every other region of the UBCJA; without ever having established precedent through multiple cases.

This model has also been used by the UBCJA & your corporate Puppet-Masters throughout every Appellate Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. Failing that, it's buy a decision & order; bribe someone or pay-off a judge, ALJ, U.S. Attorney or Court appointed Officer along the way (so we hear, wink-wink).

Cases in point; re: THE UBC's 50-STATE RIGHT TO WORK LAW (better known as 'MOBILITY')

A)   Lebovitz (McDowell Bldg & Foundation) (2009)

B)   The Cement League (2016)

Funny thing here - you are not yet through the Circuit Court briefs & Ronald N. Tutor actually allowed you to speak & send this garbage through the mail. Seriously, talk about throwing your friends under the bus Doug? The NLRB & Appellate Courts and Haight & Bermans Federal District Court in NYC have been your best friends.

FACT - Lebovitz/McDowell and the Cement League were, are & remain phony Test Cases which your handlers have conjured up to negate & end run NLRA protections afforded via Sec. 7 amongst others relative to the RIGHT TO WORK LAWS.

Both cases by design were put forth so you and your Corporate handlers could end run the Congress and amend/author a new law without Congressoinal authority which allows you to run the RIGHT TO WORK UBC which you falsely accuse Trump of championing.

The UBC's RTW Program via MOBILITY negates the worker & employee rights afforded under the NLRA to organize, to have one-man, one vote for their elected & Exclusive Bargaining Representatives which the UBCJA INTERNATIONAL has stripped away via Harrington v. Herman & Harrington v. Chao.

The NLRA is unrecognizeable since you took power (sorry, I meant Tutor, you big dummy). Union members have no rights and have no standing in Federal Court before Judge Berman.

The PLA's you so suddenly abhore were afforded to our Union and every other Union via the Boston Harbor case by the U.S. Supreme Court; and suddenly, they are now your enemy?

Who the hell allowed you to speak? Hey Ron - did you approve this message? 
Quite obviously the big dummy Doug doesn't know when to shut it. Timing is everything so how can you let him speak on this or any other subject w/o proper vetting of the topics?

Correct me if I am wrong Mr. Tutor but did the NYCDCC not execute a record number of PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS (PLA's), some 160+ which negate the CBA, the contract wages & benefits of workers in the Contractors favor whereby workers/employees alleged to be afforded NLRA rights as individuals have exactly zero say in any Negotiation at any level given the post Chao appointments of UBC Yes Men (alleged 300-Hitters).

Not for nothing, but the UBCJA International and the Corporate Developers associated with the UBC have done more damage to UBC Families in regard to their Wages and Benefits than you charge Trump with having done - even were he to have twenty terms in office.

TRUMP ain't the problem bub - you and your Corporate Handlers are the problem and the true scourge to Labor on this Labor Day.



________________

Douglas J. (Satan) McCarron - given your 66th is around the corner on Friday September 23rd; can you do us all a favor & apply for your SS Benefits and step down? If you got any questions on applying you can call:

AARP
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RACKETEERING PROFESSIONALS

Given the damage you've done to the working man over your career and all the families/homes you've destroyed or had followed by P.I.'s over the years notwithstanding using mumsy to hide certain scams or throwing your brother Mikey under the bus to cover for your crimes, perhaps you should donate your Social Security to the General Fund for some poor bastard who has nothing to live on in his/her golden years. God knows you've got more than enough dough offshored for your own needs or your Wicken pals.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ross
RTW and mobility, while both bad, are not the same thing. You might want to start a different thread. I still think Trump is a worse option and suggest that folks do a little research on Trump and Pence and unions before voting.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ross
In reply to this post by Ted
Sorry, I didn't see this response earlier. I confess that it is a mystery to me why union members would vote for Trump/Pence, one of the most anti-union presidential candidate teams in recent American history. Your explanations seem pretty sophisticated and nitty gritty, though I don't totally follow some of it, to be totally honest. I will say that your assertion here, that Trump is more likely to punish bad union leadership has me divided. On the one hand, if McCarron is selling us out like you say, why wouldn't Trump just let him? Trump wants to hurt us and get cheap labor, so why not let our leaders do that for him? Or, I suppose, prosecute and embarrass him, (if you're right), and really defame the unions and take them down for good. I don't like that either. It's getting a little conspiracy heavy for me and I'd just simply vote against the deeply anti-Union candidate. Or maybe I don't understand your points, so feel free to consider and elaborate.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

voteer fraud
when it comes down to it i care about my country then i do the union. hillary only cares about becomming the first women president and thats all. she wants to make history. i have news for you george soros is making history not her. soros made history by putting obama in office

i would take putin over hillary or even obama
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ted
Sorry Ross - way, way ahead of you on all legal areas - a different thread - hardly, try again!

Right to Work & McCarron's 50-State RTW UBCJA are one in the same, replete with cash workers, criminal aliens, 1099 scammers & the Contractor Associations & Signatory GC's & Sub's who employ them.

You obviously have not educated yourself as to the NLRB Board, Appellate Court or U.S. Supreme Court precedents controlling property rights as they directly relate to the NLRA and your contractual rights; which you fail to comprehend, nor do you comprehend NLRA Section 7 rights as related to Chao, the loss of one man - one vote and the UBCJA's re-writing of the NLRA through one Circuit Court w/o Congressional input or authorization which they claim as controlling precedent; albeit, illegally.

Coming here at this stage of the Consent Decree & posing as an expert when you do not understand labor law 101 serves no one.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ross
Conspiracy Heavy My Ass!

Here's a primer for you; an excerpt by the NLRB (Employers Resource) filed in the 5th Cir.

*   How many cases cited in it have you read?

*   How many McCarron violations do you recognize off the top of your head - please list.

*   What are the Top 3 Cases McCarron has pushed through the NLRB or Appellate Court which have negated all of your NLRA Section 7 rights?


When you can do that; the very basics, then you can talk all you want about conspiracy theories. What I am speaking of is a criminal racketeering enterprise.

_______________________

B. The Company Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by Enforcing the Agreement in a Way that Interferes with Employees’ Section 7 Rights

Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and . . .to refrain from any or all of such activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 157 (emphasis added). Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), prohibits employers from engaging in conduct that “reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees” in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7. NLRB v. Laredo Coca Cola Bottling Co., 613 F.2d 1338, 1340-41 (5th Cir. 1980). Under well established Board precedent, approved by this Court, a work rule is unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) if it explicitly restricts, or is applied to restrict, activities protected by Section 7. Lutheran Heritage Vill.-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646-47 (2004);

3
 While circuit law stands in the way of the panel’s acceptance of the Board’s
arguments, it is open to the panel to suggest to the full Court the appropriateness of
en banc review to reconsider circuit law. See 5th Cir. IOP 35.

 Case: 16-60034 Document: 00513573904 Page: 25 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
13
Flex Frac Logistics, LLC v. NLRB, 746 F.3d 205, 208-09 (5th Cir. 2014); see also D.R. Horton, 737 F.3d at 363 (applying Lutheran Heritage to assess whether arbitration agreement interfered with employees’ right to file Board charges). Central to this case is the Board’s court-approved interpretation of Section 7 as protecting the right of employees to engage in concerted legal activity as part of the broader right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Eastex, 437 U.S. at 565-66 & nn.15-16 (1978) (recognizing that Section 7 encompasses not only collective bargaining but also other concerted activity, both in the workplace and in legislative and judicial forums); Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72, 2014 WL 5465454, *1 (Oct. 28, 2014) (quoting Eastex and noting Supreme Court’s agreement that “Section 7 protects employees ‘when they seek to improve working conditions through resort to administrative and judicialforums’”); Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 15-2997, 2016 WL 3029464, at *2 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016) (“[F]iling a collective or class action suit constitutes ‘concerted activit[y]’ under Section 7.”); Altex Ready Mixed Concrete Corp. v. NLRB, 542 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 1976) (“Generally, filing by employees of a labor related civil action is protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA unless the employees acted in bad faith.”).4 Courts have recognized that the Board’s construction falls

4
 See also Brady v. Nat’l Football League, 644 F.3d 661, 673 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[A]
lawsuit filed in good faith by a group of employees to achieve more favorable
terms or conditions of employment is ‘concerted activity’ under [Section] 7 . . . .”)

 Case: 16-60034 Document: 00513573904 Page: 26 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
14
squarely within its expertise and its responsibility for delineating federal labor law, generally, and Section 7 in particular. See City Disposal, 465 U.S. at 829 (noting that “the task of defining the scope of [Section] 7 ‘is for the Board to perform in the first instance as it considers the wide variety of cases that come before it’”) (quoting Eastex, 437 U.S. at 568). Equally rooted in longstanding Board and judicial precedent is the principle that individual contracts that prospectively waive Section 7 rights violate Section 8(a)(1) “no matter what the circumstances that justify their execution or what their terms.” J.I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332, 337 (1944); Nat’l Licorice Co. v. (emphasis in original); Mohave Elec. Coop., Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1183, 1188-89 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (concerted petitions for injunctions against workplace harassment); Spandsco Oil & Royalty Co., 42 NLRB 942, 948-50 (1942) (finding protected three employees’ joint lawsuit filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. The Company’s insistence (Br. 66-69) that Torres’ wage-related lawsuit was not “concerted” because she filed it as a single plaintiff on behalf of similarly situated employees is without merit. As the Board observed: “‘the filing of an employment-related class or collective action by an individual is an attempt to initiate, to induce, or to prepare the group for action and is therefore conduct protected by Section 7.’” ROA 397 n.2, quoting Beyoglu, 362 NLRB No. 152, 2015 WL 4572913 (July 29, 2015); accord Meyers Indus., 281 NLRB 882, 887 (1986) (concerted activity “encompasses those circumstances where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action . . . .”), enforced sub nom., Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987). By filing her lawsuit as a putative collective action, Torres signaled her intent to proceed collectively, and sought to induce participation of similarly situated employees. Thus, contrary to the Company’s characterization (Br. 68), Torres’ filing of the complaint was not the isolated conduct of a single employee, but, rather, the
inchoate stages of concerted activity.

 Case: 16-60034 Document: 00513573904 Page: 27 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
15
NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 364 (1940) (“[E]mployers cannot set at naught the [NLRA] by inducing their workmen to agree not to demand performance of the duties which the [statute] imposes.”); Lewis, 2016 WL 3029464, at *4 (agreeing with longstanding precedent finding contracts requiring employees to renounce Section 7 rights are unlawful); NLRB v. Port Gibson Veneer & Box Co., 167 F.2d 144, 146 (5th Cir. 1948) (employers “may not require individual employees to sign employment contracts which, though not unlawful in their terms, are used to deter self-organization”); First Legal Support Servs., 342 NLRB 350, 362-63 (2004) (unlawful to have employees sign contracts stripping them of right to organize).5 This Court’s decision in D.R. Horton did not undermine those fundamental, longstanding principles. Indeed, this Court acknowledged that the Board’s interpretation of Section 7 finds support in Supreme Court and circuit precedent.

5
 See also NLRB v. Stone, 125 F.2d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 1942) (finding that
individual contracts requiring employees to adjust their grievances with their
employer individually violate the NLRA, even without coercion); Eddyleon
Chocolate Co., 301 NLRB 887, 887 (1991) (unlawful to ask job applicant to agree
not to join union); Bon Harbor Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 348 NLRB 1062, 1073,
1078 (2006) (employer unlawfully conditioned employees’ reinstatement, after
dismissal for non-union concerted protest, on agreement not to engage in further
similar protests); Ishikawa Gasket Am., Inc., 337 NLRB 175, 175-76 (2001)
(employer unlawfully conditioned employee’s severance payments on agreement
not to help other employees in workplace disputes or act “contrary to the
[employer’s] interests in remaining union-free”), enforced, 354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir.
2004); McKesson Drug Co., 337 NLRB 935, 938 (2002) (finding employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) by conditioning return to work from suspension on broad
waiver of rights, both present and future, to invoke Board’s processes for alleged
unfair labor practices).

 Case: 16-60034 Document: 00513573904 Page: 28 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
16
D.R. Horton, 737 F.3d at 356-57 (citing City Disposal, 465 U.S. at 831-82, 835-36; Brady, 644 F.3d at 673; 127 Rest. Corp., 331 NLRB 269, 275-76 (2000)). Under the well-accepted principles set forth above, the Board properly found (ROA 397 n.2) that the Company’s application of the Agreement to curb employees’ Section 7 rights rendered the Agreement unlawful under Lutheran Heritage. 343 NLRB at 647 (rule unlawful if applied to restrict Section 7 rights). It is the rule’s application to protected conduct that establishes its unlawfulness. It does not matter that the rule or policy itself does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activity; enforcement alone is an unfair labor practice. See Countrywide Fin. Corp., 362 NLRB No. 165, 2015 WL 4882655, at *4-6 (Aug. 14, 2015), petition for review filed, 9th Cir. 15-72700, 15-73222; Hitachi Capital Am. Corp., 361 NLRB No. 19, 2014 WL 3897175, at *3 (Aug. 8, 2014).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

The truth
One mans reasoning as to why I will not vote for Hillary. I always put country first. Can we believe anything she says; she is not truthful and a compliant media are covering for her. She now has been caught lying numerous times. And what have unions really got from the democrats under Obama?  Does anything spring to mind; Not much! If you are a professional Steward or someone who carries victim status to make it in the union; then you should vote for Hillary twice, she is your type of person. And you will be instructed to vote for her. But if you have children and care about your childrens' future then; you should vote against Hillary and urge anyone who has similar circumstances to do the same!
Basically those of us who carry the card; it is in our interest to against Hillary.
Those of you who the card carries; it is in your interest to vote for her!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Rooseters crow
In reply to this post by Ross
So let me get this right.
The canidate that is for illegal immigration is going to help unions? The canidate for open borders is in favor of the union worker?
The candiate that has pushed for lousy trade deals while lining their pockets from large corporations are in favor for the union worker?
The candidate that has been proven to take bribes and be corrupt is going to help the union workers?what job has she ever created she killed jobs as a senator as well .stop blindly giving our money to democratic leadets who in turn give our jobs to illegals who are driving down our wages and giving GC the labor force to compete with us please stop
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

The truth
Great points!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Ross
In reply to this post by The truth
Hey truth. It's funny how differently we see things. I'm sure Clinton has lied along the way like any politician, but now I see her as really, really prepared and able to do the job. I see Trump as a pawn of Putin, and a life-long con man who has no actual interest in or ability to be the president. And basically, if Trump is talking, he's lying. He's playing the populace for their votes with zero convictions beyond ending the estate tax. Build a wall? Not unless a company of his is paid for it, and basically no, no wall. Immigration? He doesn't actually care at all. If he wins, which he might, there is a small chance, anything he's promised is garbage. He wants cheap labor, cheap taxes for himself, no estate tax, and screw screw screw everyone else. The man is a train wreck of ego and oncoming dementia, so sure, let's give him the nuclear codes...I know we don't agree and we won't, so I'll just say if your guy wins, I really hope I'm wrong about him, and if my girl wins, I feel confident about being right about her.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Trump and Pence are anti-union

Killary
Is she really prepared? By doing a terrible job as sec.of state and creating the turmoil in middle east by supporting regime change in north africa and not having a plan for afterwards? By allowing isis to gain a political state ? Id say hillary is a pawn of putin if you have not heard she allowed a weapons deal for 1/5 of usa weapons grade uranium. She also took money in "donations" from other forgeign governments and in return handing them weapons deals the size of the world has never seen before and these weapons are now in the hands of terrorists yet she wants to take guns from americans.the only thing she  is prepared for is a war she and her friends can benefit from .this can be the only way to explain her incompetence as sec of state
123
Loading...