Reply – Re: FULL IMMOBILITY how the "full mobility" clause will hurt NYC u...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: FULL IMMOBILITY how the "full mobility" clause will hurt NYC union carpenters
— by Richard Dorrough Richard Dorrough
Mr Butler.
Nice work. Since you already have full mobility which is the right for a member affiliated,by force,with a certain council to work anywhere in the councils jurisdictional area please clarify if you are referring to 100% mobility which was introduced upstate in December 2010 by Thomas Garrison.Garrison explained 100% mobility as "the right for any contractor to bring his entire crew into a given area and not hire a single local Union member".This was not a contractor demand but was put on the table by the UBC. Further the contractor with the "request" system and "shaping" can already his entire crew
            Also the right for a contractor to pick his entire work crew really has nothing to do with mobility.Can you reassess the Intentions of the clause knowing that (1.) the UBC put it on the Table and (2).that you already have full mobility and the contractor can already hire his entire crew .For what purpose did the UBC not the contractor put this in. Does it have anything to do with being able to dispatch workers from an automated system such as manning a job upstate from an office in New Jersey. Might it have anything to do with the UBC switching over from 8F contracts to a 9A which is their intention to do to try and prevent the mass exodus of members.Right now the UBC screws the members on the out of work list and the NLRB lets them because the UBC runs Non Exclusive hiring halls. Is this a preliminary attempt to deal with losing the non exclusive hiring hall status by cutting the balls off the Out of Work system with this contract inclusion. What do you think??