Reply – Re: hall vs company
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: hall vs company
— by bill lebo bill lebo
You all make good points. I've seen great carpenters on both sides, hall and company. I've seen great union men on both sides as well. I've also seen terrible carpenters and union men on both sides. Bottom line is we have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The contractors that we work for have to be profitable. That's why they're in business. They're not there to put us to work, they're there to make money. We as union carpenters are a commodity. We supply the labor that makes the contrators profitable. If we supply an inferior product, then we're not worth the money we cost and the contractor loses. If the contractor loses he goes out of business. If he goes out of business we have no one to work for and we go out of business. Everyone loses. The problem is, like it or not, and believe me I don't like it, we haven't been putting out the the best product when it comes to members and stewards coming off the OWL. There is a reason for this, members have been putting qualifications on their lists that they don't have, including stewards. Example, I'm on a job as a steward for one contractor, another contractor who has the main work in the building, had to replace their steward because the steward they had retired. Yesterday the replacement steward came to the job. The steward was asked to frame out a wall, when he was done the studs were at 17 inches 20 inches etc, took him all day and it had to be redone. Today, they had him do ceiling grid, when the forman checked on him he was hanging the grid, problem was he hadn't put up any wall molding. He was removed today, and told the BA he was filing charges for wrongful dismisal. This is the problem. How do we fix it? A few years ago, the council was going to test members who put new qualifications on their list of quals. I was dead set against this. I felt after 20 some odd years of working on as many jobs as I have , nobody had the right to question my abilities. Today after seeing this problem over and over again, I would be more than happy to take whatever test I would be given because this is an epidemic that is hurting everybody. If a member gets laid off after only a couple of days on a job that should have lasted an inquiry should be made. Why? If the answer is that the foreman felt the member wasn't skilled then the member should be tested on a practical basis. If the test finds the forman was right that skill should be removed. I know there are alot of people that are going to disagree with me on this, but this very thing is why the contractors are asking for full mobility. I am totally against full mobility for a variety of reasons but I recognize the problem and it has to be dealt with because it is hurting the qualified skilled members of our union who work off the OWL. Now I know I'm going to take a lot of flack for this but just think about it. If you have a better way to fix the problem I'd love to hear it.