The Discussion Continues, On February 22, an anonymous UBC member responding to EST Forde's letter "The Outlook For Local Union 157 Is Very Positive", posted the below comment which raised questions about the UBC constitution and supervision of local 157.
Anonymous said...As a member of the UBC I find it appalling that we have a UBC Constitution but it is only the members that have to abide by it. The International and in this case the NYC District Council can ignore it and violate it at will.
John,
ReplyDeleteCan you start a new discussion called the UBC Market Recovery Program. I think it is also time for the members to have a look at the give away program.Could you obtain an OFFICIAL detailed description of the program and the OFFICIAL statement from the Union hierarchy exactly how it benefits the members to post here on the blog.
We pay the Local, District Council and International officers rather large salaries to organize contractors and create jobs. The NYCDC councils mission statement is
ADMIN. OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
Programs
1. ORGANIZING LABOR STRIKES AND PICKETING ON BEHALF OF ORGANIZED LABOR.
2. RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING AND ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.
3. NEGOTIATING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYER ASSOCIATIONS ON BEHALF OF ITS AFFILIATED LOCAL UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS.
4. ADMINISTERING APPRENTICE TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Their friends over at the Empire Council have a mission statement that reads:LABOR ORGANIZATION
Programs
1. TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT OF ITS MEMBERS TO BRING ABOUT STABLE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY AND TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS.
2. TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL PENSIONS TO RETIRED BUSINESS AGENTS.
3. TO PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS TO SELECTED ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS.
Then Forde and the rest created the NEW YORK CITY & VICINITY CARPENTERS LABOR-MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
So we could pay them again to do the same thing:
Labor - Management Cooperation
Programs
1. Promotes the skills and quality of union jobs.
2. Provides a forum for maintaining & improving a cooperative relationship between representatives of labor & management in the carpentry industry.
3. Sponsor seminars, programs, conferences & meetings concerning issues affecting the industry.
4. Preserving, identifying, & expanding work opportunities for carpenters and their employers.
Their friends at the Empire Council created one and you will find Forde ,Thomesson and Oliveri getting paid a third time as trustees on this one as well for:NEW YORK STATE CARPENTERS LABOR MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mission Statement: To promote the Carpentry Trade in New York State and Establish Relationships with contractors.
It is rather odd that the NYDCC forgot to mention their association with this one to the IRS on their 990 and 5500 financial statements.
So we pay them at least three different times to do the same job and now they have decided that we need to Buy our own jobs with with our dues money by giving money away to Union Contractors. The premise is that we make up the difference between them and the Non Union sector so they get the bid. In return we get jobs.Basically we pay them 3 times to provide us work and then we buy our own jobs.
So how is it working?? Does this make any sense at all.How big is this scheme.Where is the money coming from as they expand it. In our area the loans have been small. $30,000 here. $40,000 there. But what is coming our way. The members need to have a look at the Pacific Northwest Regional Councils of Carpenters LM2s to see over 62 loans for around 8 Million Dollars to contractors under the program.8 MILLION in giveaways???? Are these loans recoverable. What if the company goes under. What if the jobs fail.The Pacific Northwest is McCarrons testing ground. That is also why the new mega Industrial Council is located in Portland. What is very alarming is that word on the street is that the money to continue this program is to come from our Health and Pension funds. A statement has been made that the International is demanding money from the councils around the country to finance this.This has NOT BEEN CONFIRMED.If it is true than all members need to be made aware of this attack on our Welfare funds. You will remember that the Councils seized the Locals Health and Pension Funds to cut costs and give us better benefits. Of course our benefits have declined and pensions have remained stagnant since the seizures. Of course the Empire Council took the seized Pension money and bought themselves a 43% share in a bank(First Trade Union) while our Brothers in Upstate NY just got hit with a 47% increase in their health care premiums. We need to determine what are the facts and conditions of the Market Recovery Program and I would hope the members and yourself are interested in investigating our future.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB)
ReplyDeleteNLRB Issues Proposal to Allow Quickie Union Elections
Some might call it Sudden Election Syndrome. Others might call it the Stealth Employee Free Choice Act. But a new proposal that effectively would bypass standard National Labor Relations Board-supervised elections could revolutionize labor relations in this country. If nothing else, unions could make out like bandits in their organizing drives and corporate campaigns. The source of this initiative: the National Labor Relations Board. On February 26, the NLRB 26 published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that would allow a union and an employer to file a joint petition for a board-supervised election to be held on an agreed-upon date within 28 days. This document, to be called an “RJ petition,” may have a good many dissenting workers crying foul.
Last year, unions swallowed a bitter pill when Senate Republicans successfully blocked passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill already passed by the House in March that would have forced employers to recognize as binding card checks that win a simple majority. In other words, if a union manages to convince at least 50 percent of the employees who are part of a potential collective bargaining unit to sign a card indicating an intention to join, the result would preclude any possibility of holding a secret-ballot election, for decades the template for American union democracy. The RJ Petition would appear to be the NLRB’s way of breaking the EFCA impasse. How workable the plan would be in practice is another story.
Under the proposed rule, no show of interest in joining a union would be required. A union conceivably could set up an NLRB-monitored election without the support of a single worker. That’s quite a comedown from the current minimum threshold of 30 percent. The petition would be filed jointly by the employer and the union. A board-supervised election then would be held no more than 28 days later. Within three days of docketing, the NLRB regional director would notify the parties of its decision to approve the election petition. The board then would send the employer a notice to be posted in the workplace at least three working days in advance of the election. All election and post-election issues would be resolved by the regional director; there would be no chance to appeal a ruling to board headquarters in Washington. Any adjudication would occur after union certification. Finally, the proposal would limit to seven days the period during which employees could file an unfair labor practice charge. On the whole, this looks like a winner of a deal – for organized labor.
The salient reality of the proposal is that it would not give time to either employees or employers opposing unionization to mount any campaign. Moreover, despite the seeming intent by the NLRB of speeding up the election process, there’s a built-in Catch-22 that may prevent elections from happening altogether. Face it: A union isn’t likely to file a joint petition unless it’s fairly confident it will win. But that very act of confidence will make a skeptical employer downright reluctant. This paradox resembles that chimera known as the “friendly divorce.” When one spouse thinks he or she has the upper hand, the other spouse will sense as much, and decline any offer of a joint settlement. Even assuming an employer is eager to hold an election – it does happen occasionally – the union might prefer a more confrontational route. Think only of the United Food and Commercial Workers’ ongoing corporate campaign against Smithfield Foods. Indeed, unwittingly or not, the RJ Petition might serve as a spur to corporate campaigns. To sound off one way or another, e-mail NLRB Executive Secretary Lester A. Heltzer at Lester.Heltzer@nlrb.gov or call (202) 273-1067. The deadline for comments is Thursday, March 27. (Daily Labor Report, 2/26/08; Kreitzman Mortensen & Borden, 2/26/08; other sources).