Friday, December 6, 2013

Transcript of Court Conference on December 4, 2013

THE COURT: So following our last session I was quite concerned about some of the issues that we discussed and that appear to be going on here, and for that reason I issued the November 25, 2013 order and have received some helpful submissions from all of you, including the Mr. Walsh's latest report, the seventh interim report of the review officer, which I think is very helpful. It also raises some issues or perhaps they've been bubbling under the surface which I'm quite concerned about in addition to the issue of the technology and the technology fixes which I want to discuss today.

So I'd like to get right to it. In a subsequent memo endorsement of mine dated November 27, I indicated an order in which I would like to proceed today and I indicated that I'd like to hear from the government first and then the district council and then Mr. Walsh. And let me just tell you why I think that's the appropriate order and mechanism.

So first, obviously, this is the government's case historically and currently. It's U.S. v. District Council, et al., and the origin of the case has to do with, among other things, what were undeniably a history of bad practices and corruption in the union.

So I thought that given that context and given that one of the central problems I'm concerned about now is the implementation, the very belated in my opinion implementation of these electronic reporting systems which were, as I indicated in my order, part and parcel of approval of the collective bargaining agreements going back over the last month, given the fact that those very reporting requirements were presented to me and described by you all -- and by "you all" I mean, for example, Mr. Murphy and others -- as anti-corruption measures, I wanted to start and get the government's take on this particular issue about how these collective bargaining agreement aspects are being implemented from the bigger perspective of what this case has been all about.

And I don't have to remind you as I indicated in the order dated November 25 that there was on my part, and others, as well, there was an enormous change in these collective bargaining agreements which was the implementation of what is described as full mobility. And that was done with considerable thought, but it did represent a sea change in how hiring took place with these contractors. These contractors got a huge benefit in that regard in my opinion. And the quid pro quo for that full mobility was the implementation of -- one of the quid pro quos was implementation of these anti-corruption measures. And so clearly the full mobility was implemented but the measures were not.

And as I read these materials -- by the way, I haven't read all of them in detail, but I've read most of them in the main including the seventh interim report, including Judge Jones' letter dated December 3, and including the additional supplemental letter dated December 3, 2013 from Kauff McGuire & Margolis that has to do with pension issues.

So before I just turn to all of you because I don't want to monopolize the conversation, but there was one other point that I would like to make. And I don't know if it's become obvious, but from my point of view when we have these proceedings and hearings, one of the most beneficial aspects from my point of view is to hear actually from the people who implement whatever it is we're talking about.

So, for example, when we're talking about the benefit funds, you know, we have the most talented lawyers in the world sitting right here in front of us, but sometimes it's preferable to get beyond the lawyers and to hear from the people who are actually doing the work and I would like to continue to do that going forward. We had that experience particularly with the benefit funds, and I think that has worked quite well actually hearing from those people who are in charge of investments and the benefit funds as employees, not just as lawyers.

And I would like -- there's a lot of mention in both Judge Jones' letter and in the seventh interim report of the people who were actually implementing these technology changes. It would be useful and beneficial for me to hear directly from them. And I'm always happy to hear from lawyers as well, but those are the people who really are doing the job and so I would like to hear from them as well.

But anyway, enough said by me. I would start with Mr. Torrance.

6 comments:

  1. DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !

    ReplyDelete
  2. See thread titled "MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion" under Mobilized Membership (all issues directly excerpted from members June 30, 2011 Response tot the Restructuring Plan.

    In regard to H & K's commentary that the Contractor Associations not having the right to interfere with the internal workings of the Union (the District Council). Bingo, now time to educate Judge Jones on the basics of Labor Law 101 relative to long settled precedent on the issue of "Full Mobility" & the lack of the proper utilization of I.T., software/hardware despit the D.C. having spent millions of dollars on upgrades.

    With regard to Mr. Forrest's idea that the rank & file and/or their elected delegates have no right to re-open illegally enacted contracts (CBA's) and/or the R.O. Dennis Walsh or Judge Berman have no right to expunge/cancel/void the CBA's, wrong on both accounts:

    First - See the posts above, the long settled law and precedent decisions & orders at the Board, Appellate Courts through to the U.S. Sup. Ct. with regard to NLRA Sec.14(b) & the right of property & exclusion all prove you wrong, and; Second, the D.C. & all Contractor Associations fraudulent demands for Full Mobility, (which remain an extortion of property rights & a source or element of wealth for all NYCDCC members) came with the demand or joint mandate that both you & the D.C. execute the Compliance procedures simultaneous to the award of Full Mobility & you've both failed miserably in that simple task, thus both parties are violating the contract.

    ReplyDelete
  3. - CONT.--

    The R.O. is correct, but now that Judge Jones scope was made amply clear in that she was hired to defend the inept/incompetent in-house counsel Murphy (bullshit excuses aside) and that she does not know labor law, one, or the other must go. This hiring is beyond the pale of stupidity irrespective of her expertise in other areas of the law or her performance on the bench.

    Here, we have a Criminal RICO action which morphed into a Consent Decree now approaching a quarter century in duration involving one of the largest labor Unions in the U.S.A. and the D.C. hires a former Judge who admittedly has no experience in Labor law. This is asinine in plain english!

    The Technology issue inclusive of the Magic Stewie Wand (the tablets) has been a subject of discussion since ex Federal Judge Conboy & UBCJA G.P. Doug McCarron first proposed breaking the law via the UBC's Restructuring Plan dating to May 2011, thus. the R.O. is again correct.

    The simple fact of the matter is that after the D.C. spent millions of dollars upgrading its internal IT & Benefit Funds hardware & software and after the D.C. was authorized to spend an additional $1.4 Million up front & $22k per Month in basic maintenance (Before Change Orders) for the Tablets (+- $3-4 Million), Std. Data Corp, the D.C. & the Benefit Funds & Contractor Associations have produced a pile of meaningless Reports (at less than a junior high level) in which the 4-entities cited above cannot talk to one another and/or share information.

    SDC's response, they blame another proprietary software program claimed to be 10-years old fROm another vendor/consultant as the reason their newly written proprietary software program failed, rather than blaming their own incompetent software engineers and the boobs down at the council who refuse to own anything.

    The D.C.'s main argument w/o staing it outright is that the staus-quo of the LCD mindset of never having an intelligent response to any concern should rule the day and that the Review Officer should be fired (wink-wink) because we hired a Judge with zero experience in Labor Law is idiotic on its face.

    Ole Forrest Gump once said, "stupid is as stupid does" and quite obviously this mindset prevails at the District Council wherein the left doesn't know what right is doing and everyone hides or runs trying not to make waves to save their do-nothing, produce nothing council jobs. It's a bottom up survival of the dumbest of the dumb kind of Organization wherein accountability is scorned as an evil. Walsh changed that; and, damn it, that standard is just too tough to bother making an effort to live up to and the R.O. is a big meanie, so he's got to go -----WRONG ANSWER LADIES,either step it up or resign; or....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pg : 16 McInnis::
    "THE COURT: I don't think these things are comparable 2 to that. I don't think this is in any way comparable to 3 Affordable Care Act issues and problems. I don't think it's 4 anywhere comparable to the CityTime, which is the subject of a 5 criminal court proceeding as we sit here right now. I think 6 this is far more finite. 7 And it didn't take any, it didn't take any time to 8 implement full mobility, right? That was a fundamental change 9 that a lot of the people who are in your union were not happy 10 about. That you did overnight. That was also a big change. 11 So this, you know, I'm just. 12..................... 15 THE COURT: I don't get it. You're either at 16 95 percent compliance or you're in unchartered territory. You 17 can't be in both places at the same time."

    You can if your are in the TWIGLIGHT ZONE!

    Kudos to Judge Berman for calling McGinnis's failed logic. Do these people actually possess any critical thinking skills? Can they open a Fed-Ex package without a journey-man upgrade course and new UBC Certification from the Labor Technical College. We better find out & put out an RFP to interview & hire a consultant because the leadership at the D.C. more than likely cannot perform this simple task w/o instruction.

    They think working 8-hours is a long day, You gotta love it.

    When you are a white collar salaried employee, the 7 or 8-Hour Day is out the window. You do what it takes to get results - period. This entails 60-80-hour work-weeks at a minimum. How many D.C. employees work more than 35 or 40 hours per week?

    Half the D.C. employees could be terminated & no one would notice, less the CPA and the auditors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the only thing that has changed is the members are taking a beating and we are hemmoraging money by the millions. do nothing reps,do everything to put us out of business review officer/dictator and you have the formula for disaster for the members. in 30 years its the worst ive seen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. excerpt from 2nd Interim Report of the Review Officer dated June 3, 2011 regarding I.T. INFASTRUCTURE (a 2-1/2+ year old subject)

    at page 24

    G. IT Infrastructure

    Since the issuance of the First Interim Report, the District Council has taken stepsto develop its own information technology (“IT”) infrastructure, rather than continue toutilize the infrastructure of the Benefit Funds. See infra at 50-51. Unfortunately, theBenefit Funds have made little progress with modernizing their own IT infrastructure.Segal’s Operational Review Report advises that the Funds are in the process of upgrading its current system and implementing a web-based system created by a vendor. The earliest they expect the system to be completed is August 2012. The slow pace of this

    Guidelines. On July 8, 2010, I issued a formal recommendation that the trustees conceive and implementsuch a program. As noted, I think developing such a program must be one of the highest priorities of whoever is retained as CCO.

    at page 25

    25endeavor is unacceptable and hard to understand. The District Council has made significant progress in the same period of time and had no system whatsoever upon whichto build. The trustees have asked Segal to assess and report on the vendor’s efforts. Of course, this project must be completed promptly and should be directly and activelysupervised by the Director of Operations or a Special Projects Manager and an ITDirector (with frequent progress reports).

    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.