Friday, June 3, 2011

The Second Interim Report of the Review Officer

Review Officer Dennis Walsh has issued his Second Interim Report, this report is a must read for all members.

RO Second Interim Report Text

13 comments:

  1. All Local 1456 Executive Board, Trustee and Advisory Committees Members should resign immediately!

    You all should bow You head in sham and all of You who are responsible should be Prosecuted Criminally and Civilly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Richard DorroughJune 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM

    Where can we find the exhibits

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard DorroughJune 3, 2011 at 7:35 PM

    Also this has NOT??? been filed with the court

    ReplyDelete
  4. The 2nd IRO Report is very interesting. Great job on the vetoes

    Predicated on the Nickel an Hour Political Department assessment for the years 07-09, Total Man-Hours (M/H) are as follows:

    2007 $1,055,132 = 23,102,640 M/H

    2008 $1,055,129 = 21,102,580 M/H

    2009 $882,045 = 17,640,900 M/H

    Two salient points here -

    1) In regard to the major Benefit Funds (Pension, Annuity & Health & Welfare - what percentage of the above total Man-Hours were collected by the Funds trustees & fiduciaries and employees?

    What are the amounts owed for each Fiscal year and what percentage of these missing dollars is anticipated as being recoverable?

    2) With regard to the Man-Hours, the totals for the years 2007-2009 was not available, however, using the 15,294 active member figure from 10/31/10 and an average Hourly wage for rounding of $43.00 per M/H & the FY 2009 M/H Total of17,640,900 total M/H's, on average the rank & file journeyman Carpenter would gross 1,153 M/H x $43 = $49,579.00 per year.

    At say an average of 35% with-holding < $17,353>, net take home pay = $32,226 before the rank & file worker files a short or long form itemized tax return.

    That translates to $619.73 per week net pay, hardly enough to live in NYC.....BTEA wants to reduce this by 20-25%and honestly believes that people living in or around NYCDCC, or the 5-Boroughs are making it in New York.

    It seems appropriate, in light of the proposed Retructuring Plan & Bylaw changes that prior to any change, that more detailed analysis is required.

    The Trustees & Fiduciaries should be required to produce a report detailing numbers for each local union (Total, Average, Mean) and be required to show a demographic breakdown by age, the ratio of apprentices to journeyman employed, the ratio of woman employed and of monorities as data avails itself.

    The reports should also depict the man-hour relation to the dollar volume and type of work produced in any given year, and further be broken down by specific American Institute of Architect (AIA) & Construction Standards Institute (CSI) General Conditions & all Division of Work - shown in detal by Specification Section from reports garnered by & from GC's & Subcontractors.

    Moreover, given the amounts of monies spent on Labor-Management Relations, this should be a mandated requirement by order of the court.

    If the current leadership does not have this info available to them at the snap of a finger, (through the IT dept. & the funds) they cannot begin to address any long term problems, let alone the immediate ones.

    If the NYCDCC employees don't comprehend why these facts, data & numbers are required - they should be summarily vetoed and replaced with competent executives with a comprehensive knowledge of the Construction Industry.

    re: (Live better - Work Union).

    The NYC District Council rank & file deserve far better than cheap, meaningless slogans from appointed hacks who haven't any clue how the Construction Industry runs, and who conjure up these campaigns as a means of job justification, or a means to fooling the members that they are actually doing any meaningful or productive work.

    Ted

    ReplyDelete
  5. This report makes me sick! Our benefits are going into the hole and what is being done to get this money back to the membership?? It looks like crime does pay at the NYCDCC. What are we doing to criminally charge these scum suckers for stealing from the membership? If this report doesn't get more attention and justice for the working men and women of this union, it will be a sad day for our organization and America. I smell a class action suit coming.........

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rich: I am working on getting the exhibits, I emailed the Review Officer with the same question, he said "They just haven't been put up yet."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richard DorroughJune 4, 2011 at 12:18 AM

    Some points... Mr Walsh does not mind if the UBC and McPussy dissolves the locals against our wishes with no say on the part of rank and file as long as the new locals give us our democratic rights. What happened to the existing local allowing us our democratic rights to tell McPussy to stick his mergers in his ass. So Walsh insists on Democratic rights for members but not now and not until McCarron and the UBC dissolves the locals.Am I the only one who thinks this is ludicrous.

    Am I hearing Walsh giving a sob story on the treatment of Spencer at the meeting.Spencer got exactly what he deserved and earned The same Spencer who forced illegal assessments with the blue card and is still stealing the money to this day. The same Spencer who refused to give information or answer to the membership and basically told members to go f.. themselves an he did not have to answer to any local. The same Spencer who with McCarron supported Forde and his corrupt regime and has had two Councils in supervision for corruption.

    Walsh says those who speak on future of Unionism or the NY Council should listen to and have the facts. Well here is a fact jack. The same Spencer your giving the bob hoo for and telling the Judge was disrespected is the same Spencer who has conspired with the UBC to deny and refuse the members the so called facts for years until you came along and now he is pretending to answer the members.I notice you have not included any of that in the report. Boo Hoo Spencer .This same Spencer hand picked most of the people you have vetoed and who have resigned,quit or been charged.This same Spencer took the Eastern District ESTs to Hawaii at the cost of $10,000 per couple just for First Class airfare alone. The rest cost the UBC over $250,000. When will you give Spencer the same investigation you gave 1456.Is this a joke

    Now Mr. Walsh also comments on the shambles of the 157 nominations. Yet Walsh is directly responsible for the fiasco. The meeting before he intimidated Gerry Gausman and told him he was not the legally appointed Vice President and had these idiots like Nee and Biello holding elections for Pres. VP..and recording Secretary.He had people that did not have a clue like Franco and Nee advising him on the constitution and he created a situation that left the legally appointed,albeit by Biellos ignorance, Pro Tem Vp Gausman dangling in the wind and unable to run the local up to the meeting in question. The office personal as well as the remaining jack ass officers like Capello refused to obey Gausman as legal 157 VP..Walsh destabilized the situation to the point that the left over Derrico supporters and jack ass were not going to send out nomination notices on time so there would be no election.These officers need to be brought up on charges and the Office personnel fired for their actions.You had these people attending 157 E Board meeting as voluntary Officers.Did you mention that in your report.What a friggin joke

    ReplyDelete
  8. Richard DorroughJune 4, 2011 at 1:03 AM

    Your now telling the Judge that maybe after the third draft some of these bylaws are in violation of federal law. What!! Now after the third draft. Is it not YOUR job to KNOW if they are in violation of Federal Law and if they are why have you not demanded the UBC and Conboy remove these during your reviews of the first and Second drafts.

    Your what!!! Waiting for comments from the members to decide what is in violation of Federal Law. IT IS YOUR JOB TO KNOW not the members. YOU told the Judge you were justified to hold the RO office due to YOUR expertise and the expertise of the people that work with you. The burden is not on the members.The first two drafts have been reviewed and there should not be a single item in these bylaws in violation of Federal law,State Law or in conflict of any DOL ruling or regulation These bylaws not only violate the LMRDA but McCarrons own constitution but you EXPERTS want the members to show you how. Are you joking. So we have two scenarios. Either your office does not have the expertise as claimed or you want to see how much the members lack of expertise and knowledge will let the UBC get away with.

    You cannot impose or increase assessments without a vote.Federal Law.LMRDA.

    You cannot force locals to be governed by council bylaws when the constitution gives each local the right to write and be governed by its own bylaws under 25B.So you CANNOT force these bylaws on any local.Further the Council,UBC or Conboy cannot create bylaws that conflict with the UBC Constitution. The council does not have the right to create bylaws to govern anybody but their members and despite the BS the US Attorney has declared the rank an file of NY are NOT members of the council.They are affiliated with them as declared by the UBC itself and the Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Therefore these bylaws cannot be written by any council to be imposed on any local by the council. I challenge you to produce one bylaw in writing that allows Councils to write bylaws and impose them on any local.Only under 6C can these bylaws be written and imposed but even then they cannot conflict with the UBC Constitution(The law of the International body)as declared in 6c.Further the General President cannot use 6c to write bylaws to govern the daily activities of a Local or Council but only to Subordinate them.These bylaws are written to govern the day to day operation of the Council and thereby the locals.I suggest you produce a document in writing that says otherwise. There is none. We have demanded the UBC produce one and they have failed to do so.
    How do you answer to the fact that Douglas McCarron through his attorneys in the Federal District Court of California, Link-v-Rhodes et al, that the International has not legal binding authority over the councils and the Council have no legal binding authority over the Locals.McCarrons statement in Federal Court null and voids his power under 6C So under what authority are you trying to impose these bylaws at all

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv01382/225964/34/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Richard DorroughJune 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM

    The docket number listed and disposition of the case is irrelevant and in fact is NOT Link -v-Rhodes. When the case was brought McCarron was named as a defendant. He requested that the Judge remove him self as a defendant by declaring in Federal Court that he was not responsible for the actions of any council or Local because he does NOT dictate policy to council and produces no rules or laws that govern councils or set their policy. He declared the UBC International has not Legal binding authority over the Councils or outside the International..So how is Conboy submitting any of these bylaws""The Union has adopted a three tier structure: The International union, various intermediate bodies and local unions. Though they are affiliated by a constitution these organizations are such separate entities that they can and do sue each other and THEIR AGENTS HAVE NO BINDING AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THEIR OWN UNION ENTITY."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ted


    The provision which ultimately was enacted as Title I was introduced as a floor amendment by Senator McClellan to the Kennedy-Ervin bill, S.1555. 105 Cong.Rec. 5810 (daily ed., Apr. 22, 1959) II NLRB, Legislative [*515] History of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereinafter Legis.Hist.) 1102.

    Senator McClellan believed that:

    ..."we ought to start with the union man, with the worker, and to relieve him from the oppression which has been thrust upon him in some places. We should restore to him his rights. We should vest in him again the power to do something to protect his rights. We must give him the authority again to run his own union. We must pass a law, such as the measure now proposed, which will enable [**9] him to prevent usurpation by would-be exploiters. Let us start to help the worker".


    105 Cong.Rec. 5813 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 1959),

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shame on you for not reporting more on the oowl corruption. WALSH has still evaded the vesting credit fraud that is still taking place. Should a member only get a 1/2 vesting creditfor a 830 hr year ? FORDE & cronys admitted to rigging list but not a word on this. Your a disgrace WALSH + a fraud. FUCK YOU & hope your pension gets fucked over also !

    ReplyDelete

I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.