We have received a letter today from our newly elected local President that he was rolling over and playing dead for some rat bastard at the UBC International.
On Monday we voted to strike wording from proposed Local bylaws giving control of our local to the Empire Council rats. The motions were made,seconded and voted on. Now the President is telling us he is ignoring all that and at the direction of the UBC International (Yes.Doug McCarron and his rat bastards.) is forcing us to vote only on the bylaws in their original form giving control of our local to the Empire Council. .
By doing this the UBC International has declared that all locals must accept these bylaws written by Mccarron as their own and cannot write and be governed by our own bylaws as listed in Section 25b of the UBC Constitution. These bylaws as written are in violation of the UBC Constitution in themselves as they force Council bylaws and other rules on a local in violation of the Constitution. They prevent locals from exercising their rights guaranteed in sections of the UBC Constitution.
We had high hopes for pour newly elected President and understand his situation. BUT. At the end of the letter he write Please come out and support the acceptance of these ByLaws to preserve the integrity of Local 370. Are you f.... joking me.
B Local Unions shall be governed by applicable uniform bylaws
and have the power to make laws and trade rules which in no way
conflict with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood,
and must be approved by the General Vice President before
becoming law, and shall be filed with the General Vice President;
likewise, all future amendments must be submitted and filed.
F A District Council or Regional Council shall have the power
to conduct trials of members or Local Unions within its jurisdiction
who have been charged with violating the Constitution and Laws,
violating the District Council or Regional Council Bylaws and/or
Trade Rules or violating the Trade Rules of a Local Union when such
violation occurs within the District Council.’s or Regional Council.’s
jurisdiction, and impose such penalties as they may deem the case
requires, subject to Sections 51 and 52 and the right of appeal under
Not for nothing, but something that is important to most organizations that proport to use "Robert's Rules" is that By-Laws are supposed to be cumbersome to change. Most organizations require at the very least, advance written notice of each change to every member eligible to vote. Generally no amendments to the written notice allowed, and a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) usually is required. No one wants a group of activists of any persuasion to take over one meeting and thus change a 100 year old By-Law. Make sure they go by all of (your) rules.
"No one wants a group of activists of any persuasion to take over one meeting and thus change a 100 year old By-Law. Make sure they go by all of (your) rules." Can you elaborate on what you mean by this.
Council bylaws are NOT our bylaws. Who is "no one"?? The International or the Council which does not want the Local to exist?If a bylaw is BS what difference does it make if a group of members, activists or not, come to a meeting and legally changes a bylaw 100 years old or not?
In our case there are not rules that the Council rats or our Local Council employees feel they need to follow. They do not go by "any" rules.This call to work on the bylaws by by a special cal mailing. Three days before the meeting. So much for the proper notice rule. We were given two hours to hammer out bylaws to govern our locals future. Which rule shall we quote for that one which we should have followed. What was expected was for us to approve bylaws giving the council complete control over our local.That did not happen so now they want to null and avoid the meeting and the actions/motions and votes that took place. What rule of thiers /yours/ ours should we have followed.
First. We have not had local by laws in place since 1995. When we tried to make motions to write our OWN "consistent" bylaws we were refused and told we would be in violation of Council bylaws.Suddenly in 2010 the International told our Local that we HAD TO HAVE local by laws. The reason for this is that the Internationals Thomas "Hatchet Jack" Garrison is going to take over our Locals,our jobs and our job dispatching. He needs to have a voter approved document from our local members that states we agree to be bound by Council bylaws and agree that the council owns us. He does not have that now. He can then impose the same corrupt dispatch system which the NYC District Council crooks have been abusing for years.
So much for the BS premise that the UBC Constitution in any way gives the Councils legal control over the Locals.To further put this BS puppy to rest McCarron in Federal has declared that the Council has "no legal binding authority over the Locals or outside its own subordinate body" While 26F gives the council the right to bring to trial members who violate council bylaws this refers only to the council bylaws that can be applied to local member as per the UBC Constitution which are very few. The section DOES NOT mean the local member has to be bound and obey any bylaws some council douche bag wants to write. Those who want the Locals to be controlled by the Councils point to every ambiguous section of the UBC Constitution and say see the council can control you and hope the members are to stupid to see through the BS. They also choose to ignore the plan fact that the Councils may write bylaws for their own MEMBERS which we are not and never will be. Regardless of the BS the US Attorneys Office has declared so Walshs Office could control them we are "affiliated with" the Councils and not "members of". We will be controlled by OUR rules but they can stick the council bylaws in their ass. Also for the record. Even though multiple areas of the UBC Constitution says that the Locals affiliated with a district council must have their members tried by the council unless they have special dispensation from McCarron our local refuses to do it. Our members are brought before the Local executive board and tried by a local trial committee. Such is the corruption of the UBC at local 370. Our members are also tried ,fined and expelled with out the protections of 3/4 of the trial procedures listed in the UBC Constitution. These rules and procedures have never been followed at all and the majority of our members have been brought to trial in direct violation of the UBC Constitution. The International has refused to remedy this or protect our members despite repeated cries for help by certified letter. Such is the corruption of the UBC and Local 370.
You indicated that changes are supposed to be cumbersome to change. We are not changing any bylaws. Again it is assumed that WE HAVE to accept any old bylaw or set of bylaws the UBC or some Council douche bag sends down the pike just because the International or Council says so. WRONG AGAIN!! We will create and be governed by bylaws we create as dictated by the UBC Constitution and not dictated by somebody's whim. We were taking a set of bylaws for a base and deleting or adding to satisfy the will of Local 370 members to be submitted for vote and then approval by the International. If they do not approve them they will do so in writing and with a statement of reason so we have legal recourse in court. What do you think we should do?Whatever the International or Council tells us? If they call us up and they say we are not approving your bylaws because Rocky and Bullwinkle do not like them and you wrote them in blue ink are we to say yes mistress may I have another. We are going to demand an refusal in writing. We are going to demand a statements of reasons for the refusal and those reasons are going to be backed up by the UBC Constitution and not because some jack ass like Brian Quinn says so. If the refusal is not legit we are going to take their ass to court until the voice of the Local members are heard.
It would be nice if somebody followed the rules bit it seems the Council and International are above them. we held our meeting according to the rules. We created our bylaws according to the rules. We are preparing them for a final vote according to the rules. Suddenly Hatchet Jack does not like the fact that he was not given the power to control our local as he wanted. Now there are no rules. We are told to act as if the meeting, motions and votes never happened. We are told we MUST vote on and accept bylaws that give control of our local to the council. We are told that we can have local bylaws but they have to be neutered first. BS. The International and council can kiss our ass.
Here in NYC we will ditto your effort of challenging the laws by which we are governed. Solidarity as to our empoire Bros. mandates we claim the same. If you'all want resuts I suggest you do the same nationwide
For the record. The UBC International threatened the New President of Local 370 with being fired and dismissed if he did not send out the letter mentioned above. They have also threatened to pull our charter if we do not vote for the bylaws giving control of Local 370 to the Council. This is direct violation of the UBC Constitution and called extortion.
Word up here is your Apprenticeship school is moving towards Westchester County. Yonkers??It was said there will be only three apprenticeship schools in NY when they are done
Sorry for misunderstanding... I'll be more direct.
If something is very important to an organization (like a By-Law change) it is handled differently and with more gravity. The old (95?) By-Law is still in effect until it is changed by the old rules that are part of it, not by the new rules that part of the new By-Law. Part of every By-Law is a section on how to it is to be amended. Parties that want to change your By-Law usually have to give elaborate written notice to the entire membership in advance of a vote. Then it is usually a 2/3 vote. This is so members who do not ordinarily attend meetings also have a say on the important issues. For instance, retirees would be interested in By-Law changes but might not attend regular monthly meetings. Keep up the good fight, but remember to only agree to a By-Law that your membership controls the next changes with at least a 2/3 vote so changes don't come to quickly.
Is your New local Pres. willing to take it to the mat. Would be an inspiration ?
anon - NLRB 354-12 (12-31-09)
"Finally, the Union Security clause in Article V is facially unlawful. 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 F2d. 559 (6th Cir. 1964); and....
Electrical Workers Local 3 (White Plains), 331 NLRB 1498 (2000) (finding Facially Unlawful a Union Rule requiring hiring hall users to comply with internal rules to maintain their position on the referral list.....The rule here, however, requires employees to comply with the Unions Constitution and Bylaws as a condition of Employment. Such a requirement violates the Act."
Stackhouse cite Scofield witrh the U.S. Supreme Court (1969). However, since the ruling issued, both Supreme Court precedent has changed as has NLRB Board precedent, not in terms of being able to resign to escape the rule - but in terms of what the Union, in this case, the UBC is allowed & not allowed to do to its members.
Currently, NLRB Board precedent which has been upheld at the Appellate Level & Sup. Ct. allows Unions to suspend, fine and/or expel members for but one thing - the failure to maintain and pay dues to keep his/her good standing under a lawful union security clause.
All other items are off the table Mr. Anon. Both the International and Council Bylaws are facially unlawful & have been upheld, without change, by the NLRB Board, duly quoromed and decided - hence no further appeals are allowed.
Moreover, under the NLRA when the NLRB Board issues a final decision & order, said ruling becomes "Federal Labor Law". Unless and until appealed, overturned etc. said ruling becomes the law of the Land. That means the UBC & each & every Council and Local nationwide shall abide by said D & O, which is embedded into Labor Law. This also includes any other Labor Union and/or Labor Organization.
Mr. Dorrough is again correct in his reading of the Internationals decision & his new Local 370 Presidents failure to stand for the men & woman in said Local.
Should the Local, Council or International attempt to bring up members on trumped up charges, fine, suspend or expel members so involved as retaliation and/or retribution for doing the right thing, and thus effect their "employent", said actions would provide those so charged, tried, convicted, thrown out....unemployed a prima-facie case in District Court or Federal Court for wrongful termination, discrimination, willful, wanton & reckless behavior, gross negligence, fraud, perjury etc & subject the Local, Council & International to punitive damages, pain & suffering and on and on.
KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT RICHARD...YOU CAN WIN THIS
Of course there is nothing to stop McCarron from dissolving local 370 and sending its members to another local which already has bylaws. That would just kinda, maybe, you know, put an end to the battle.
How stupid can one get anon - the UBC Constitution & Bylaws, Council Bylaws are moot, done, wipe your ass with them & facially unlawful...Federal Law.
All the UBC International can do is re-write them to conform to the judges ruling & the NLRA. To date, none of that has occurred.
McCARRON will of course move to seize Local 370 & execute an affiliation or forced merger into another Local, but that too shall fail. He hasn't a leg to stand on legally speaking - with the limited exception that he is Gambling that the International & Council have more money then the Local 370 members do to fight it, so he will try via a War of Attrition, because that is all he's got.
Local 370 survives the initial assault & start moving it through the Courts, before a judge not bought off....Douggie loses.
Anon - name one case, post Lebovitz that overturns the NLRB Board Precedent....UBC Constitution & Bylaws Facially Unlawful......go ahead, name one.....you can't, so like the biitch in Porkys - put a sock in it!
I do not know, every time you post, you find a new lower level of intelligence which I was unaware of until you posted.
The council bylaws are not moot, done or facially unlawful. As for your wiping your ass with them, perhaps this is your problem, rather than reading them and finding ways of dealing with them, you prefer to ignore what you do not like, thinking that this will make it go away, it doesn’t.
The constitution is still in effect and is still valid..
Let me see, where did the UBCJA use the powers granted by the constitution post 12/31/09. The local 608 dissolution? Renegotiating our contract? And I have spoken to the NLRB on these issues, your claims are facially inaccurate.
Which pretty much means that you have found another lower level of intelligence, I do believe that that puts you below pond scum, how great is that for you?
"nothing to stop McCarron from dissolving local 370" Ohh Scary anon . We should not act and let Mccaron do what he wants. Thank you annon for showing us how futile it is to fight back. Go tell your handlers you did your job and get you mouth full of UBC goo.
Stick your propaganda. If McCarron was going to dissolve 370 he would have done so already. The UBC wants a neon light presence in Albany for some reason which includes a carpenters local. They could pull our charter and give it to a new local put the same trouble will be a member of that local as well and McCarron and his scum hatchet man Tom Garrison will be in Federal court no matter what. There will soon be only 2 locals in upstate New York and only 3 apprenticeship schools one being the NYC school somewhere near Yonkers. One will surely be in Albany. If McCarron and his scum want 370 they are going to fight for it.Not one bit of your propaganda BS will make a bit of difference .
"I talked to the NLRB" Your a liar.You have not talked to anybody except some council rat who feeds you your propaganda and goo.
For the rest of us. Lets start our national solidarity effort right here. Every time this clown posts refuse to engage him. We respond with a reply. That reads.
"John as blog owner we ask you to ban this clown for the sake of the majority. This coward has nothing constructive to add and posts pure UBC Propaganda and misinformation meant to deter members from fighting back. Since he came to this blog he has done nothing but abuse those who oppose the council and their rats. He has attacked every single anti corruption presence that has come to this site and does nothing for the good of the membership. You have lost many good voices from this blog due tho this cowards BS. I demand the right of Freedom of speech and respect opposing opinions but this cowards record speaks for itself. Since he came here he has routinely abused all other blogger's opposed to McCarons oppressive regime,posted lies and misinformation and tired to disrupt all attempts by other members to join together in the common goal of reclaiming our Union.Enough is enough.Let your bloggers have vote on the matter. Let the majority decide as is the democratic way.
Now that is funny, I actually laughed out loud.
Anyhow, as to your silly little retorts, I have spoken to the NLRB and found them very helpful.
I doubt you would find them of any use as they appear to only deal with reality.
And again, of course McCarron wants a local in upstate NY, otherwise there would be no local to allow for an intermediate body. Is there some way I could say that in a manner which you would remember?
No, the same trouble would not be resident in the new local if he dissolved local 370 and transferred its members to another local which already has bylaws in place. Obviously if the bylaws were already in place the problem for McCarron would be dealt with.
I can not see how you feel that this would be more than a minor irritation for him.
There is nothing you could use to stop McCarron from dissolving your local. This is a fact and even if you could, to what avail?
What would you have then? A powerless local? I keep asking what powers do you think your local possesses and you fail to respond. What do you think you can achieve with your local? It is powerless and that is simply the reality.
There is no point in attempting to blame me for this fact. I did not make this reality, I am simply trying to deal with it.
If you had any basis for any of the stuff you post, you would be able to support your theories. You can not. What you post is propaganda, you have no facts to support your posts, you have no real concept of what it is that you wish to achieve, nothing. All you are able to come up with is a misplaced sense of loyalty to a local which only strips your rights. If you cannot present a reasonable argument in support of your case, perhaps you should actually ask yourself why this is the case.
What do you intend to bring to the courts? Your opinions? They are cheap and easily got, courts use facts, not pride to decide their cases.
Anon - name one case, post Lebovitz that overturns this NLRB Board Precedent....?
The UBC Constitution & Bylaws remain Facially Unlawful....so again, name the case that overturned this Ruling, at the NLRB, any State Court in the Land, or in any Federal Court, Appellate Branch or US Supreme Court.....please, Anon, name & post the case?
When you do I will read it. McCarron's actions as the GP are not Court cases.
And, show me when the UBC re-wrote the UBC Constitution to comply with Lebovitz D & O
as in minutes, dates, times, attendees, no shows & provide the exact text of the change Anon.
That's right, you have nothing, no facts to go on - you just keep spewing out the Council & International Brainwashing Propaganda & make it up as you go.
I want facts Anon, not your empty rhetoric & bold face lies...time to man up - put up or shut up & post them as requested
You really need to attend some English comprehension classes.
I thought that the main element in your previous post was that the consitution of the UBCJA was facially unlawful (seems to be your catch phrase).
I suppose it was all those ass wiping comments. This is why I thought I should correct you, since the constitution is still in effect.
Though if all you were saying was that unions cannot force members to comply with their constitutions and bylaws as a condition of employment, then you are correct.
Unions also cannot stipulate that anyone can only hire union members.
What puzzles me is how you feel this has any bearing on the matter at hand, which would be the possible dissolution of local 370.
This part of the constitution is still in effect and has not been found facially unlawful.
The conclusion I have reached is that you are a one trick idiot who does not understand what they have read and pull the same case out for every occasion.
If you do not accept the fact that the courts treat the constitution as a valid legal document, I do not know what to tell you.
I think it would be best if you had someone explain it to you. It is really quite simple once you understand some of the big words.
See if you can get someone to read this to you : http://www.lawmemo.com/nlrb/beck-qa.htm
It might help.
"The conclusion I have reached is that you are a one trick idiot who does not understand what they have read and pull the same case out for every occasion."
YOU MEAN LIKE THAT BROOKLYN JOB & REP FROM 157 THING PUT UP BY YOU LIKE A HUNDRED TIMES !
So you like that story, huh? Does show my point well I think.
anon - NLRB 354-12 (12-31-09)
"Finally, the Union Security clause in Article V is facially unlawful. 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 F2d. 559 (6th Cir. 1964); and....
One trick idiot my ars. English comprehension classes - anon - re-read the above QUOTATION from the ALJ who authored it - what part of that do you fail to comprehend?
It does not get any simpler....the ALJ obviously read the NLRA, the facts of this case and he made a blanket statement, which I now simplify for you:
The Union Security Clause is Facially Unlawful & the Unions Constitution & Bylaws violate section 8(b)(1)(A).
This was without Qualification as to the UBC Constitution, the ALJ & the NLRB Board upheld his decision & order. The ALJ & the NLRB Board spoke of the entire document and their effect of not complying with the National Labor Relations Act - period.
Had the ALJ or the NLRB Board wished to qualify this ruling to a specific Article, paragraph, sentence, phrase or group of words within either the UBC Constitution or its Bylaws - they would have qualified it. That means they would have specifically picked out in piecemeal fashion those portions they wished to address in their multiple rulings, however, they did not do so. They said the opposite of what you proffer and they had both Documents available to read, review, decipher, study, tear apart, rip to shreds and in their view, their decision & order, their written words state the obvious - both Documents are facially unlawful, both documents violate NLRA Section 8 (b)(1) (A).
While you may believe that the D&O was only in regard to the mobility issues, it was not. The ALJ & NLRB Board decision reflected that. As of 12-31-09, this has been the case. After NERCC Appeals, consideration of New Process Steel, the NLRB Board on August 26, 2010 upheld the prior ruling of the ALJ.
They tweaked the portion on mobility, but they left alone the portion regarding the UBC Constitution & Bylaws being "facially unlawful & violative of NLRA Section 8(b)(1)(A)".
That your hero's McCarron & his 38 EST's & Council hacks have refused to address or correct the CBA's nationwide on a council by council basis and address the fact that the UBC Constitution & Bylaws are facially unlawful & violate the NLRA from cover to cover, that my friend does not change the facts one iota.
Doug & his hack EST's or the Council lackeys like yourself - instead of following the Boards direction, making the required changes so that the Constitution & Bylaws and the CBA's conform to the ruling and the NLRA, which is now embedded to Federal Labor law as as precedent - HAVE SIMPLY CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE RULING(S), PRETEND THEY DID NOT OCCUR AND CONTINUE TO RUN THEIR DICTATORSHIP PRETENDING THE CASES NEVER OCCURRED.
All of their alleged powers stem from two Documents which are of no legal force and effect upon UBC members, effective 8-26-10.
Again ANON, name the case or case(s) which over-turned the D & O....NLRB or any other Court in the Land??? Come on smart ass - you got all the answers, so name them?
The fact is you cannot, so you again resort to insults & name calling. How many cases have you personally put your name on & won, in any forum, any Court of Law? And how many of them are precedent setting cases?
You have no idea of what any of what you are posting means, do you?
You keep quoting the same lines from the same case, all that this decision refers to is the fact that a union cannot require membership of a union as a prerequisite for employment.
It does not call the entire constitution or bylaws facially unlawful, it simply addresses the parts of them which are.
In other words, they are telling the union that it cannot have this rule.
All the other parts of the constitution or bylaws remain in effect, just this one part has been found unlawful.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|