Reply – Re: Interior systems and contracts
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Interior systems and contracts
— by Ted Ted
NLRA - Sec. 7. ยง 157. Employees shall have 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 shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) section 158(a)(3) of this title.

ANON  - Finally it appears...a chink in your armour wherein you admit in your own words to what has always been inherent in the NLRA Sect. 7 right(s) of the rank & file...

NLRA Sect 7 - "to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing".

Anon - your words - "you are entitled to have your contracts negotiated by persons chosen by you"....

This ain't to pick you apart either. We've all bitch slapped one another on occasion & the Int'l leadership loves that shit...divide & conquer - as we get distracted from the real issues at hand.

Congress wrote this in plain & clear langauge, for the every-man, so every one would understand it w/o being a lawyer.

Section 7'S excerpt above = a vote. Voting for the rep's who do the collective bargaining for the group as a whole prior to Contract Negotiations is part & parcel tot that Act - period....no more, no less.

Ratifications of Contracts wherein members had no input or say into which representative's did the collective bargaining amount to nothing more than a fait accompli, legally speaking & are therefore illegal on their face. Once people understand that, and most do - the rest is even easier & it obviously equates to a vote for the office holders vs. "appointment by a Supreme Dictator" whether that be Doug McCarron on one of his 38 EST's.

ALSO: NOWHERE in the NLRA does it state the term/phrase "Representative Democracy" as McCarron  & his attorney's have used it before Congress to dissuade them & the varying Courts to see things his way.

We have two cases waiting to be overturned, one in Harrington v. Chao, which to date has been tried in but one Circuit Court, thus, we need a differing opinion in another Circuit Court to make it, the controvesey ripe for resolution...i.e via an Appeals Court & then perhaps upon a challenge by Doug & his ilk, the Supreme Court.

The same holds true for UBC Local 43 & Lebovitz, re: Mobility & the UBC Constitution & Bylaws being ruled facially unlawful. (Put the Constitution, Bylaws & NLRA beside each other line for line & it's readily apparent that the UBC is violating every aspect of the Law as written & amended)

In short, 2-cases, 3 major points of LAW, all of which directly conflict with the NLRA as written & subsequently amended.

I think what is unique is that the formation of the Interior Systems Locals wherein "full mobility" is being granted to the newly forced in members, it cements those 3-issues together & the AUD, the AGC (WHOM WE FUND VIA DEDUCTIONS) ought to jump all over these issues.

What I have seen over the course of the last 14 months is this - This site has a ton of sharp people writing in, commenting & well read...carpenters doing countless hours of research, law review etc. Once we all get past the venting etc , we gotta move foward, vett the top 20 ideas of exactly what we are after to the Top 5 & pursue those through the appropriate lawsuit.

Every aspect of the UBC as it is now run, as the Constitution is now written, as the varying individual Council bylaws are now written (95% the same w/ minor tweaking) clearly indicate what the dissenting Justice in Choa wrote - when the Council takes on so many aspects of the Local labor organization & controls everything - it must be considered the local (not a direct quote, late, simply making a point)....as such is now the case, legally we are entitled to a vote via secret ballot for all elected officers as well as a Vote for the EST.

These 2-cases, those 2-core issues are what lies at the Heart of putting the brother back into the "brotherhood". If anything, past McCarrons divide & conquer strategies, he has proved one thing, take away the members right to vote & he can & shall control everything.

Past these base issues, the next major one is: The CBA's vs. the FUND(S) TRUST AGREEMENTS & which one is legally Controlling & Binding upon the rank & file UBC Brothers & Sisters. From a legal point of view, as the UBC is now being run, the FUNDS ATTORNEYS think that their behind the scenes fund agreements control everything & that too is in direct contravention to the NLRA and it must be challenged.

McCarron is not after the CBA's, UBC Constitutional crap or Council or Local Bylaw crap - those are petty distractions to throw the members off so he & his corrupt buddies can get after the meat & potatoes - which is & remains the Monies of the 38 Regional Councils. How much did each Council lose? How much of those losses were attributable to actual market losses verses Illegal Investments made in violation of ERISA/EBSA reg's & laws? How many billions did they walk away with, which is now in offshore accounts?

You wanna pull a Brinks job, you don't rob a 7-11. That is where the game is...follow the money, not the petty bullshit. That is also where you take him down via criminal RICO charges.

The NLRB Board & the US Sup Ct makeup are now changing toward a pro-labor stance. Whatever issues the AUD ultimatley takes up - they need to take these into consideration & all of us have to focus more on what we have in common than any personal differences.

Start with 20 issues, pare it down to 10 & then the top 5 causes of action worth pursuing in District Court & Federal Court. Seperate the distinct Local issues from the more Global UBC issues which effect members nationwide. Time we were all proactive on the national ones & that requires we first build a consensus & then pursue it.

Maybe John, who runs this site in concert with AUD etc can start an escrow account for contributions for this effort tied to a paypal account or some other way to accept donations from members around the country.

Another idea would perhaps be to teach other UBC brothers how to get sites up & running similar to this 157blogspot site..not my thing to set up, but I could learn how to run one & get the word out, get more people involved.