Reply – Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50
— by Ted Ted
NICE POST RICHARD. can you put up the gov'ts argument to this?

There are actually a lot of concerns & issues presented from the three varyings sides in this issue - the actors being the Government, the NYCDCC & the Contractor Association.

The central issue being the issues of "Full Mobility & Administration of the OOWL" which then brings forth NLRB Board precedent caselaw on old/settled issues & brings forth new ones regarding States Rights vs. Federal Rights in Employment Law via differing views regarding Right to Work States & Non Right to work States; thus putting on the table Federal Pre-emption Statutes of Labor Law application as related to interstate commerce under the NLRA.

In RTW States - the Contractors Association argument passes muster
In Non-RTW States - The Contractor Association arguments do not.

The issues discussed in the limited excerpt of the Gov'ts case presented (need to see the Gov't argument too) in the 50/50 system allow the contractor(s) to select 50% Company Men, and then on top of that allow them to make an additional 50% request by name (if they could fill all their positions) from the NYCDCC's OWL.

This methodology of selection pretty much gives the Employer Associations unfettered control of the entire Hiring Hall and all job opportunities from 50% min. limits to 100% are in their hands, under their power and leave the men with nothing.

In essence, it eqautes to a "closed shop or an exclusive hiring hall" arrangement. It flies in the face of major NLRB Baord precedent, re: Mountain Pacific.

On the other hand, the UBC's approach to grant the Contractor Association requests for "FULL MOBILITY" also flies in the face of the same precedent noted above and amounts to a collusive effort btwn. the associations & the UBC to flaunt & ignore NLRB Board precedent & Federal Labor Law as it now stands.

This approach would stand and be acceptable in RTW States. It does not however stand in the Non-Right to Work States like New York.

The NYCDCC is a non-profit Private Organization (on paper anyhow) and given the fact that New York is not a RTW State, the District Council can prescribe/preserve and make the jurisdictional claims for work to members of the Locals who live, work, shop, have homes & pay property taxes in those areas......"to the exclusion of all others", travelers included and/or undocumented/illegal aliens, cash workers, 1099 workers etc.

Ultimately this could come down to a battle between State Rights and those of Federal Pre-emption of States Rights via the Full Mobility obviously now in place. The NYCDCC is flat out ignoring the fact that NY is not a Right to Work State and is operating the OWL lists in cahoots with the Contractor Associations as if New York were a Right to Work State.

Mobility or Full Mobility is the enactment of RTW Laws is Non RTW states like NY. The UBC & Contractor Association have done an end run around the NY State Legislators authority to write, enact & pass legislation & declared by autocratic fiat that is be so, so it is so.

For those in Doubt, all RTW States are Non-Union, all Non Right to Work States are Union and allow Unions, via the security clause to exclude & limit membership and to create jurisdictional areas for work opportunities available to its members. The NYCDCC 50/50 Rule all but declares NY a RTW State and the UBC has usurped the powers of the State of NY to write and enact its own laws. It should be challenged & it should not stand.

That is what Mobility is, or Full Mobility.....the right not to exclude and the Elimination of the Union Security Clause under Collective Bargaining Agreements which allow Unions to have jurisdictional control of the areas they work & live in. The 50/50 rule as implemented here hands all control to the Contractor Associations & Thomassen, although playing the Court here as a caring fartherly figure, concerned for his boys....he is just play acting as he is deep in bed with them - against the interest of his membership.

re: The UBC's proffered test case, which the UBC created to test these very Waters in UBC Local 43 (McDowell Bldg & Fndn) and Kevin Lebovitz. Note that this case issued from Hartford, CT branch of the NLRB & that Harrington v. Chao issued from a case in Boston with NERCC. Note that the PNWRCC 20/20 system is being tried out on the West Coast....all of them evince diversionary tactics by the UBC.

They play around with differing issues in different courts & venues.....does anyone find it ironic that all these issue never were put forth in New York Courts? Of course not, then you'd get the Federal Scrutiny warranted under the consent decree, and their motivations and fraudulent acts would be seen for what they are and be exposed.

EXCERPT FORM FRANCIS MCARDLES's letter
___________________________________________________________________________
The rules for selecting additional workers or for satisfying the geographic local requirement are critical to contractors. They need the ability to find people that can fit into the team, both with the skills and the ability to team. The contractor should never be asked to take on an unknown, with unknown job skills and unknown teaming abilities. They do not want to be burdened with someone who can't do the work required and/or work in a team. If they get such a person, they will just send them back. They will keep sending people back until they get what they need. To do otherwise is to cost them productivity and profit. Carrying someone who can't do the work or work in a team becomes apparent to all and punishes the team to which the individual is assigned. The team will throw them out if management doesn't, particularly in the many circumstances where there are bonus opportunities based on safety and productivity.

The current agreement, won at the table in the context of the over all financial and conditions settlement that was reached, provides that the contractor may request people to meet the District Council's 50% manpower off the out-of-work list by name, provided that they are from the local that geographically covers the work site. This provision, now under challenge by some, allows the contractor to expand its work force with people whose skill set and team building skills are known. It reduces the number of people that are 'tried out and sent back'. It cuts the contractor's costs of work force acquisition and the time and production lost on a job when someone who is referred cannot meet the expectations of the job.
___________________________________________________________________________

Reading the above puts forth a lot of the "code" language GC's & Sub's use to get 100% of what they are after.....always, always attack the skill level of the worker, always say they are fat, drunk, stupid, lazy, unqualified etc....always claim they are not team players.

This is all part of the game they play to cover for the fact that they regularly abuse workers, do not come equipped with the proper tools, do not work safely and when caught, challenged & the steward or men on the job Question or challenge being made to work like dogs, or animals, like the non-union element - the modus operandi is to attack the man, make up some horse-shit about how they are not team players.

This crap is as old as dirt & should be recognized for what it is.

Bonus opportunities based on safety & productivity, CODE for "Piece Work" which they have been bringing back, albeit slowly

EVERYONE in the business, any trade or any other business for that matter has that very samll percentage of assholes with no skills, dead weight w/o a work ethic who want to stand around & do nothing all day....got that, but it certainly is not every single man or woman who comes out of a Union Hiring Hall.

You have to view it this way.....this shit, when presented in Court sounds true to people who've never been on a construction site, so with a good bullshitter & liar like Thomassenn & the Contractor Association's rehearsed speel & a smart ass attorney.....they can & do sell it, but overall it is a false proposition.