Friday, October 7, 2011

Court Conference Transcripts of August 8, 2011

THE COURT: So on my list, although the first topic is status of the funds, this is not the right day to ask about status of funds, but we will do it anyway. The order of topics that I am interested in, and then I will hear what you want to talk about, is the funds, and I think there were a couple of funds that we did not hear about last time. Then the status of the bylaws proposed, and also the status of the proposed restructuring. If Mr. Conboy wanted to bring us up-to-date on collective bargaining, that was in progress last time, and if there is anything about year end elections that anybody wants to talk about. Anybody have anything else that they want to talk about? No. Do we have somebody to talk about the funds?
2011 08 08 Ptc Transcript


  1. Walsh, pg 51
    "I fully recognize and I am sympathetic with the immense frustration that they feel when something like the 50/50 rule, which is traditionally decided upon, in a collerberative political context in the Union,is now beyond their grasp".

    "It is within grasp of the UBC who under the law is the fiduciary of the District Council".

    "But it is difficult to come to grips with that frustration when there is such ardent opinion against, for instance this concept of employers being able to select up to 100% of the crew except for a Steward sent by the Union".

    But that is the reality of the situation and to date no one has filed a lawsuit or sought any injunctive reflief to challenge that posture of the UBC at the negotiating table".

  2. Wrong Answer:

    a "Collaberative Political Context" - don't think so, go back and read the NLRA, LMRA & LMRDA and the precedent NLRB, Appellate & Supreme Court decisions. You are an arrogant and condescending little man.

    You are far outside of your scope of authority in directly participating in (alleged, not proven)Contract Negotiations with the UBCJA & Contractor Associations.

    The Consent Decree is a private contract and your role is very limited in that regard; and rank & file members do not lose the protections of the Act because you are dealing directly in areas to which you have no business participating in the first instance, and in which you readily ignore federal law and the precedent and landmark decisions which flow therefrom.

    You, Conboy and Roger Newman authored the little gem called Rule 13 which gave Picketers a preference in employment opportunities over non-picketers - in direct and flagrant violation of NLRA Section 7 which has allowed all Union Members from all trades and walks of life to "refrain" form such coercion and intimidation - especially via and through the USAO's office and the IRO's Office acting under color of a Federal Court civil consent decree whereby your actions should be beyond reproach. You have a heightened duty to follow the laws, not a lesser one!

    The right to "refrain" has been the law since 1959 under the LMRDA via the Kennedy-Irvin bill.

    This is labor law 101 and you, the USAO & the Court flunked the exam!

    That you colluded directly in these affairs with a former Federal Judge, himself a man who ruled upon a Teamsters Civil RICO case, and that you have both come through the Revolving Door known as the NYCDCC, to again feed at the Trough,the Open Checkbook or ATM should you prefer is also a matter of Record.

    You have a very direct conflict of interest in having any position with regard to this case, as does former Judge Conboy and both of you should recuse yourselves and go do something else, before you lose your bar card and ability to practice any law. You & Conboy are crooked - bottom line.

    The two of you, in direct collusion with NYCDCC officials then went to Court with language specifically & collectively designed to make your actions appear legal by re-naming the Vacation Wage Extortion scheme "working dues", therein convincing a senile old Judge that your actions were within the bounds of the laws... they were not and both you, Conboy, Newman & Doug McCarron very well knew that before stepping into Court.

    Haight missed it, as did his Law Clerks. Beyond their grasp - My Ass!

  3. NYCDCC currently operates as a Non-Exclusive Hiring Hall subject to the Haight Ruling for a 67-33% ratio of Company Men to those referrred from the Hiring Hall.

    To date, relative to the alleged Contract Negotiations, the UBCJA International and their Officers under the extension of the LMRDA Trusteeship have revoked all Local Union and District Council autonomy.

    Under the law, Doug McCarron and Frank Spencer and their fellow cohorts are under the law of agency, and as such are directly liable for any/all willful and wanton acts of fraud, extortion, racketeering etc. (so are you when ou join them)

    The fact that the USAO's Office, the IRO's Office and the Investigators along with the DOJ, FBI ignore these simple facts and refuse to act, does not negate the illegal actions, the continuance of prior illegal acts of extortion, such as the Blue Card - which is an ongoing Hobbs Act extortion scheme, nor does it preclude the rank & file members going after the Trust Funds and their attorneys who have also direclly participated in the furtherance of said schemes known to violate the laws.

    The fact is, the Contractor Association in a bold move, in direct collusion with the USAO, UBCJA and your Office have made a threat to refuse to bargain unless the Court granted the 100% free mobility to them.

    To date there has been zero negotiation or bargaining to impasse and BTEA and other Contractor associations have executed two (2) MOU's which evince nothing more than their original threat to reduce the wages and benefits by 25%. That is exactly what has occurred to date.

    Everyone of you, as highly compensated executives are far outside the scope of a legitimate and bonafide and duly elected representative chosen by the workers and the employees (Policy of the United States) as the Act reads and was designed, and as the landmark decisions mandate.

    The end result is, the direct collusion between & amongst you amounts to nothing more than a direct threat aimed squarely at Judge Berman and the authority of his Court. You are a threatening a Federal Judge.

    The UBCJA, USAO, IRO, Contractor Association attorneys (Holland & Kinght...another firm well known to crush employee rights) need to put your directed threats to refuse to negotiate or bargain to an actual impasse in the form of a proper motion to the Court...and then we will see how forecfully you argue for their positions for 100% mobility when you have to sign your name to an offical Court document.

    The relaxed conferencing procedures and letter writing just don't have the same weight do they?

    Walsh, all you are is a rubber stamp...Whatever Doug Want's Doug gets.

    Your job description is not that of head cheerleader for the UBC International, rather, it is in unison with the USAO's office as parties with direct standing sworn to defend the rank & files interest in these matters.

    So far all you have done is defended Doug McCarron & that is a direct conflict of interest, nothing more, nothing less.

    The grant of 100% mobility and reversion of all hiring decisions to the Employers effects a closed shop preferential hiring agreement and has long ago been outlawed. It effectively negates any need to have a Union at all.

    You got scared in May and you lawyered up - and to date you have not told anyone why? Now would be a good time - let's have it.....

  4. Remember the battery commercials - Robert Conrad..."I dare you to knock it off".

    Well, Walsh just double dog dared all of you to file a suit in Federal which team running for office will take up the challenge and take care of business?

    The one who does, is the one worthy of the rank & file's Vote.

    If none of you do, it shall be business as usual.

    So, which team has the stomach for it? Anyone?



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.