Thursday, December 29, 2011


By Joseph




  2. The UBC is hiring a professional speaker to talk to the delegates before the vote on January 10.Some have already referred to it as "brainwashing the delegates".Naturally by the very action of the UBC to hire this motivational speaker as the RO has labeled him raises suspicion as to their intent and purpose.

    Would it not be fair to see, before January 9th, exactly who this is.What company it is.Widmeyer perhaps???And for the RO Office to request from the UBC a copy of this speakers agenda and to what purpose he will be speaking to the delegates just before a major contract vote.

    Will the RO office be there and monitor what information this so called speaker will give to the delegates and what methods he or she will use to deliver that information??If the RO finds that this speaker, on behalf of the UBC,provides false and misleading information in an attempt to influence their vote on the contract will the RO Office brings charges against the speaker or their employer the UBC???If this is indeed an attempt by the UBC to persuade the delegates to vote in a certain manner. Who will be there to protect the delegates from any such attempts??

  3. Rather interesting Review Officer forum.

    Some interesting points.

    Members to pay special .o5cents assessment to be fleeced for LMC cost which no one is clear how much will cost

    As was anticipated the cost of the Labor Management Corporation which will be huge is going to be forced on the NYC membership. Walsh said a .05 cent assessment will be forced on the membership. Since the LMRDA and other laws are of no consequence to the UBC,RO Office and Bermans court, you know the one that declares any increase or new assessment must be voted on by the rank and file or at the very least by the delegate body. Nothing to worry ABOUT THOUGHT SINCE THESE LAWS DONT APPLY TO THE NYC MEMBERS. So the burden of this deals cost(amount to be decided later)
    But at what cost... Walsh made it clear he felt that the number of investigators and staff allocated for such a broad area was not enough. So a Primary Investigator and 8 other investigator of which 5 MUST have experience in law enforcement to be paid for out of this assessment is not enough. The issue of the adjustment board Walsh mentioned was misleading. He acted as if there was to be one board and the funding of the boards was up in the air. The documentation of the LMC clearly says the Boards as in plural will "be funded by the corporation" Further the documents indicate there will not be just one board but many. "The corporation shall establish and administer Joint Adjustment Boards for EACH SIGNATORY Employer Association" So how many exactly?? Each board will have 6 members and a chairperson and then UNION and Employer may appoint Alternates. The Union and employers association may appoint an indefinite number of Alternates to serve in place of the 6 members

    This .05 assessment has to cover all the investigators, which Walsh has already indicated there are not enough of or enough money to pay for, has in addition to pay for the adjustment boards (as in plural),executive director and all the trimmings to run such an undertaking, support staff, scanners and etc. It is now official the members must pay for it. Anybody else thinking .05 is not going to cover it???

  4. Staying on the LMC.. Lets be clear. All adjustment board member are appointed and none by or with the input of the rank and file membership. How much involvement will Biello and Lbo have in the process one might ask?

    Walsh acted as if there was only going to be one Adjustment board but how many will there be. He never used the plural "boards
    "The corporation shall establish and administer Joint Adjustment Boards for EACH SIGNATORY Employer Association" So how many boards funded by the corporation will there be. Walsh was asked about the boards and why the UBC and the UBC General President was picking the board members. He answered he did not know and it was the way the UBC wrote it.
    "Each board comprised of six members and an impartial Chairperson. Two of the members shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Union and one shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the General President. "If members are unable to agree on a Chairperson he/she shall be designated by the General President of the UBC” So the UBC gets to pick at the very minimum three for each board
    and possibly he Chairperson and the reason why is because they wrote it?
    When questioned who decides if the board cannot decide a majority Walsh Said is was an independent arbitrator. The LMC documents says this is not true the chair decides “deadlocks” Makes McCarrons ability to pick the deciding chair even
    more interesting.”

    Board Chairperson::”The impartial Chair shall vote to break a deadlock”

    Board Vote:Three appointed by the Union and General President ad three appointed by the Employers shall have one vote. All affirmative decisions must be unanimous,. Deadlocks
    shall be submitted to the impartial Chairperson for resolution

    But the most compelling rule is:“The decisions of the board and or the Chair are final and binding and not subject to further review” NO APPEAL

  5. A Judge once asked:The last question I want to put to you is in a
    somewhat more narrow scope, but it did catch my eye in reading
    the stipulation. During the history of this case there's been
    a constant refrain that the purpose of the consent decree is to
    restore democracy to the union, honest democracy. And of
    course, that's a general objective which everyone shared, or
    said they did, which leads me to a particular provision in the
    stipulation. lt has to do with the review officer's authority
    in respect of the supervision and conduct of elections,
    page 12, subparagraph K, and then over on 13, subparagraph 4.
    And it says this:
    "Any candidate seeking to run for a position as an
    officer of the district council during the review officer's
    tenure must first be approved by the review officer, who will
    determine whether, in light of the terms and objectives of the
    consent decree, the candidate is qualified to run for office
    and represent the union membership. Any such decision by the
    review officer will be final and nonreviwable."
    Is this
    democracy at work "You cant run for office and you cant appeal my decision”And how about if someone wants to run for District council office but for some reason or other does not ingratiate
    himself or herself sufficiently with Mr. Walsh and Mr. Walsh
    says, "No, you can't run, and there's no appeal from it"?
    Anything to worry about there?

    Wow Judge Haight how prophetic..

    Judge Haight Page 30&31 May 20th 2010.. Considering to appoint Walsh review Officer and questioning the democratic integrity of "No Appeal' and giving "one man" the right to that much power. Is this restoring democracy and democratic rights to the membership in New York with the LMC.
    Some more democratic rights of the LMC are:
    A notice of grievance can be served on the grieved party with only 24 hours notice

    Each grievance shall be responded to by a representative of the grieved party.The representative may NOT be a member of a state,federal or Territorial bar. As is what No Lawyers???So the person is being denied the right to be represented by legal Counsel in violation of his or her constitutional rights.

    The board shall have only two hours to reach a decision. After two hours it is ruled a "deadlock" to be decided by the chair

  6. Hey Richard do you support the Amalgamated movement in Albany?

  7. Hey Richard do you support the Amalgamated movement in Albany?

    Please detail what Amalgamated movement in Albany you refer to..


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.