– Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50
In Reply To
Now, explain to me why you seem to back the Council all the time if this is what they allow to go on. NYCDCC is a private, non-profit labor Organization. Once you follow the proviso to NLRA Section 8(a)(3), the 30 day rule before requiring Union Membership or Financial Core (Agency Fee Payer status) and satisfied same....NYCDCC can exclude all others in preference to their own members first.
New York is not a Right to Work State (RTWS) - period, thus the exclusion is allowed. Mobility Clauses within CBA's and the new program of Full Mobility via & through newly chartered Interior Systems Locals are a clear violation of statute/law.
The UBC's one NLRB Board precedent in UBC Local 43 aside. That was a set up/test case proffered & put forth by McCarron, Spencer & the rest of the goon squad. NLRB Board decisions when issued in direct contravention to known statute & law do not invoke pre-emtion within the Federal system, nor do they over-rule State Law where states have not become RTWS. That which is not specifically called out in the US Constitution is left to the States. RTWS or Non-RTWS legislation is one such item.
If you are concerned for all the men & woman within NYCDCC & the preservation of their right to employ their members first, over & above all others, why not challenge this practice. File a suit in State Court & put your name on it - pro-se. Then run with it - win it & you'll get plenty of votes for office...you'd be a shoe-in, a star. Never mind Walsh or excuses, do the homework, research it, develop the causes of action, prayer for relief, back it up with legit citations of laws violated, caselaw in support of the argument and send it in, file it.....this is a winner & should be a no-brainer for a sharp kid like you.
Apply your energy here, you can win this case hands down.
Anon - will you be my sponsor...come on get me on board, hook me up with a decent company full package....nice condo with a view too...That was in jest.