Reply – MOBILITY, the Right of Exclusion & McCarrons 50-State RTW Mobility Scam
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
MOBILITY, the Right of Exclusion & McCarrons 50-State RTW Mobility Scam
— by Ted Ted
Current Count:

28 - Non-Union Right to Work (RTW) States

22 - Union non RTW States

50-28 = 22 re: for all you un-elected, "At Will" Council hacks now selling out the men with this 100% full mobility crap across the country wherein McCarron has usurped the role of Congress to amend, change or alter Federal Law & years of Appellate & United States Supreme Court precedent.

Consolidation of your Locals is for the benefit of the un-elected hacks & stooges kissing McCarron's ring. They line their own pockets all the while and at every opportunity.

Ultimately, Doug McCarron & his Corporate Puppet-Masters (Tutor, Blum, Feinstein & others) will continue the criminal racketeering, theft & embezzlement of your monies/funds via undeclared and very illegal trusteeship's wherein there the Locals thus consolidated/merged had no financial mismanagement and/or improprieties whatsoever; thusly giving Mac & the corporate puppet-masters no legitimate and/or legal means to shut your Local Unions down, nor to seize the assets of said entities & retain 98% at the International UBCJA.

The 'merged Locals' will then receive +-2% back; while Doug & his accountants move the monies around to various accounts & wash it so many times via cheap Accounting tricks, it will then end up being off-shored to Switzerland, the Cayman Islands etc & he & his pals shall collect their booty.

In the end, Doug's plan is to have have two massive Locals; one West of the Mississippi & one East of said river. You will call them Locals while he calls them District Councils & feigns the Harrington v. Chao bullshit relative to the unelected Council stooges; his "AT WILL" NON-UNION shit-bag worshippers who illegally conspire to hold a union book. You know the kind - 'the no tools, no skills, no work ethic maggots', the walk abouts / fuck artists / stewards  / drunks & druggies.

Given every last one of them around the Country are his subjects, all of whom only ultimately answer to King Doug & his make pretend UBCJA Constitution and all of them are "At Will" non-union rat bastards; your all fucked as King Doug can fire any of them or all of them with or without cause at any time for any reason!

Now seriously, given the aforementioned do any of you truly believe that any Council boob, anywhere in the country will stand up for you or any other union brother or sister ?



**********************************************************

F) PROPERTY RIGHTS as applied to NLRA sec. 14(b) & MOBILITY

In, 949 F.2d 199: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Debs, Defendant-appellant United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 949 F.2d 199 at 10 stated:

   Courts have long held that the concept of property under the Hobbs Act is not limited to tangible property, but also includes "any valuable right considered as a source or element of wealth." United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1021, 90 S.Ct. 1258, 25 L.Ed.2d 530 (1970). Intangible business rights, including the business rights of unions, are considered property. United States v. Santoni, 585 F.2d 667, 673 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 910, 99 S.Ct. 1221, 59 L.Ed.2d 459 (1979); United States v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 780 F.2d 267, 281-282 (3d Cir.1985). Intangible property within the meaning of the Hobbs Act includes LMRDA rights. Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union, Local 95, 627 F.Supp. 176, 179 (S.D.N.Y.1985).

In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry,Chief Justice Hughes........At 15 stated:

By contrast, union politics is more like one-party government. The statutory right to participate in union government is not held accountable by anything remotely like a thriving two-party system. Here, the federal legislature and courts have a greater duty to combat labor corruption and electoral vice. The Hobbs Act is an important instrument in service of this democratic objective. For all of these reasons, LMRDA rights are property under the Hobbs Act.

The Geographical Jurisdiction of the NYCDCC defines the primary source or element of wealth for its rank & file members as noted by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir.1969).

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA) SECTION 14(b)
APPLICABILITY TO THE NERCC/UBCJA’S MOBILITY CLAUSE

14(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law. Currently, there are 28 - Non-Right to Work States & 22 - Right to Work States.

NLRA Section 14(b) operates in two ways:

In all Non-RTW States (Union), Federal Pre-emption is applicable to the entire Act.

In RTW States (Non-Union), Federal Pre-emption is waived under the Tenth Amendment, and the NLRB Board & General Counsel are free to apply the “Mobility” Provision to said Non-Union States, as State law(s) are controlling in the Right to Work (RTW) States.

In Non-RTW States (Union States such as NEW YORK), the 12-31-09 slip Opinion issued in Lebovitz has no application.

The reason is fairly obvious, once people understand the base NLRA 9(a) & (8f) Representation issues as applicable to the Construction Industry. Once a “bargaining representative” has been chosen and subsequently “certified” by the NLRB; and, after the Contractor, Firm, Organization complies with the proviso to Sec. 8(a)(3) regarding the collection of Dues & Initiation Fees and the requisite 30-Day hold for Sec. 9(a) and 7-Day hold for Sec. 8(f), and after Workers or Employees are properly advised of their Beck Rights, to refrain from any & all activities under NLRA Sec. 7 – application of the Lebovitz Ruling is out.

The CBA is a “contract”. Within said contracts for particular Locals, District & Regional Councils of the UBC are well Defined Geographical Jurisdictional areas, comprised of cities, towns, counties or combinations thereof as the case may be in a particular Non-RTW (Union) state. The “Defined Geographical Jurisdiction” of a UBCJA Contract (CBA) is “intangible property”.

In Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 US 164 (1979), the United States Supreme Court stated….”one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property – the right to exclude others”.

The exclusion principle thus requires that NYCDCC rank & file members LMRDA Property Rights are enforced by the Federal Court & Jdge Richard Berman. The United States Attorneys Office (U.S.A.O.) and Benjamin Torrance should be taking the lead in this endeavor via enforcing the laws already on the Books, and via utilizing the 2nd Circuit as well as the Supreme Court precedent decisions on the subject.

The right to exclude others thus entails the USAO Torrance & Judge Berman involving themselves squarely in the exisiting standing order of Judge Haight, first and foremost via enforcing the exisiting 67/33% ruling of the Court and second:

Backing it up with hard-core Statistical analysis provided by the Benefit Funds & Mr. Epstein, from 2009 through 2012. Given the millions of dollars spent on Computer Hardware and Proprietary Software used by the Trust Funds, there is no reason or excuse for a Report not to be ordered and issued to Judge Berman for his review and scrutiny.

     How many man-hours were recorded by those living in one of the 5-boroughs from 2009-2012 (current day) vs. how many man-hours were recorded by those who do not live within the Geographical Jurisdiction of the NYCDCC.

The fact is, the UBC International & the DC Attorneys will refuse to produce the report because it will clearly show that they have failed to abide by Judge Haight's 2009 order, thus leading to contempt charges.