ONE OF THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS OF UNION MEMBERS IN HISTORY??

HERE WE WILL FOLLOW WHAT IS SHAPING UP TO BE ONE THE WORST SELL OUT OF UNION MEMBERS  WE HAVE SEEN.IT INVOLVES THE US ATTORNEYS OFFICE IN SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY.A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE.MORE FEDERAL COURT JUDGES AND OF COURSE THE ICE CREAM CRAPPER DIRTY DOUG MCCARRON AND HIS UBC RATS.

THE CONSENT DECREE IN NYC IS UNDER ATTACK

THE NEW CONSENT JUDGE IS SCREWING NYC MEMBERS 

AFTER ONLY TEN DAYS WITH THE CASE THE JUDGE BASED ON NO MOTION TO BE FOUND IN THE DOCKET FILE HAS RULED THE CONSENT DECREE TO BE LIFTED BY MARCH 2018 THE ONLY PROTECTION AGAINST THE RAT ICE CREAM CRAPPER MCCARRONS  RAID ON NYC LOCALS AND THEFT OF THEIR FUNDS.

FURTHER THE JUDGE HAS LIMITED THE COURTS ABILITY TO REVIEW BENEFIT FUNDS DESPITE EVIDENCE OF FIDUCIARY BREACH.HAMILTON LANE.MACQUARIE.STATE ST BANK AND BS ULLICO

AFTER BERMANS SUDDEN AND WITH NO EXPLANATION REMOVAL WE HAVE THREE JUDGES IN TWO WEEKS

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Judge Richard M. Berman is no longer assigned to the case. (ad)

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge P. Kevin Castel. Judge Jed S. Rakoff is no longer assigned to the case. (wb)

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Victor Marrero. Judge P. Kevin Castel is no longer assigned to the case. (wb)

  Two days prior to the Second Circuit's Order, this case was reassigned to this Court. The path to reassignment from Judge Berman to this Court was not a direct one: On April 12, 2017 this case was reassigned to Judge Rakoff from Judge Berman; on April 13, 2017, the case was then reassigned
to Judge Castel from Judge Rakoff; and, finally, on April 19, 2017, the case was reassigned from Judge Castel to Judge Marrero. (See Notice of Case Reassignment, Apr. 12, 2017; Notice of Case Reassignment, Apr. 13,
2017; Notice of Case Reassignment, Apr. 19, 2017.) This case remains with this Court. Because the consent decree referenced in the Summary Order is now under the supervision of this Court, the Order should be read to refer
to Judge Marrero.

ON APRIL 21,2017 THE 2ND CIRCUIT RULED AGAINST THE NYC COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE  NLRB JUDGES RULING THAT THE UBC AND CAPELLI COULD SCREW NYC UBC MEMBERS OUT OF THEIR JOBS AND BENEFIT HOURS,

NLRB:The actual

dispute is between two of the Regional Council’s of the Carpenters International Union. That dispute relates to under what conditions or limitations, an employer member of The Cement League (or a signatory to The Cement League collective-bargaining agreement), that is doing work in New York City, may hire individuals who are not members of local unions that are not part of the NYC Council.  CAPELLI AND DIRTY DOUG WHO IN MY OPINION PLANS TO SCREW EVERYBODY INTO THE BS NORTHEAST FRANKENSTEIN FUND DID NOT LIKE LOSING OVER $1 MILLION IN RECIP HOURS OVER A YEAR.IT WENT DOWN FROM THE 5.05 MILLION LISTED

But in more recent years, the flow has been in the opposite direction with suburban carpenters going to New York City and transferring their membership to locals of the NYC Council.

HERE  BEGAN THIS PHASE OF THE SCREWING OF THE UBC UNION MEMBER.


THE FIRST PHASE WAS WHEN DESPITE BEING TOLD WHAT HE WAS RUBBER STAMPING CONTRACTS WITH ILLEGAL LANGUAGE IN THEM BERMAN APPROVED THESE CONTRACTS.LET US REMEMBER THESE WERE REVIEWED BY THE US ATTORNEY,DENNIS WALSH THE NYC COUNCIL. BASICALLY ONE LIED.THE OTHER SWORE TO THE LIE AND BERMAN RUBBER STAMPED THE LIES.

THE NLRB RULED.

The NLRB was not a party to this lawsuit and as far as I can determine there was no consideration by any of the parties or the judge as to whether any of the contract’s provisions might have been in conflict with the mandates of the National Labor Relations Act

 THE LEGAL NYC COUNCIL MORONS DECIDED TO IGNORE THE NLRB .NOW ENFORCEMENT WILL HAPPEN UNLESS WITH US WATCHING AND WITH THE FEDS CONSPIRING THEY USE THE NEW JUDGE TO SCREW THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ON BEHALF OF THE UBC

WE SHALL SEE

 MORE TO COME

MORE TO COME

2ND CIRCUIT UPHOLDS NLRB RULING BUT GIVES CONSENT JUDGE A BACKDOOR.BERMAN GONE

116-0495-ag(L)
The Cement League, et al. v. NLRB, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
 

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ‘SUMMARY ORDER’). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the21st day of April, two thousand seventeen.

 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
THE CEMENT LEAGUE, NEW YORK CITY AND
VICINITY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS,
 Petitioners–
Cross-Respondents,
 -v.- 16-0495-ag(L),
 16-0972-ag(XAP)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent–
 Cross-Petitioner,

NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
Intervenor.




 FOR PETITIONERS–CROSS-RESPONDENTS:
 MICHAEL SALGO; New York, NY.
James M. Murphy, Gillian Costello;
Spivak Lipton LLP, New York, NY.
Andrew D. Roth, Adam Bellotti;
 Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC,
Washington, DC.
 Paul Salvatore, Andrew E. Rice;
 Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT–CROSS-PETITIONER:

KYLE A. DECANT, Robert J.
Englehart; National Labor
Relations Board, Washington, DC.

 FOR INTERVENOR:
 RAYMOND G. HEINEMAN; Kroll
Heineman Carton, Iselin, NJ.


Petition for review of an order of the National Labor
Relations Board.

 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DENIED, the cross-petition for enforcement is GRANTED and the issuance of the mandate is HELD IN ABEYANCE; the Clerk of Court is directed to deliver a copy of this order to U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman, and the mandate SHALL NOT ISSUE until the lesser of days from the issuance of this order or until the parties advise this court as to Judge Berman’s view whether this order
 bears upon matters that are within the jurisdiction of his
 supervision of a consent order in United States v. NYC Council, No. 1:90-cv-5722. This order shall be subject to any further measures that may be appropriate in light of such views as he may express.

 Petitioners–Cross-Respondents New York City and Vicinity
 District Council of Carpenters (“NYC Council”) and The Cement League petition this court for review of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”), which held that a provision of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the NYC Council and The Cement League violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and ordered that the provision not be enforced. The NLRB, joined by Intervenor Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters  Council”), cross-petitions for enforcement of the NLRB’s order. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
 
The NYC Council and the Northeast Council are regional
councils--i.e., intermediate bodies--of the United Brotherhood
 of Carpenters & Joiners of America. The NYC Council is composed
of union locals principally within New York City, and the
 Northeast Council is composed of union locals principally in
 northern New Jersey, upstate New York, and on Long Island. The
Cement League is an employer association that bargains on behalf
of its membership, which includes large construction contractors
 doing business in New York City.
The Cement League has, over many years, executed a series
 of CBAs with the NYC Council. Several versions of the CBA have
provided that covered employers could select fifty percent of
 their employees from any source, without regard to union
 membership, and had to hire the other fifty percent from an
out-of-work list that is maintained by the NYC Council but is
 open to nonmembers. A recent modification of the CBA afforded
 employers complete discretion to hire anybody they wish without
 use of the out-of-work list if and only if the people they hire
are members of the NYC Council. Employers who hire nonmembers
 must still match their selected employees one-to-one with hires
33 from the out-of-work list.
 Given this “full-mobility” provision, an employer that has
 a regular crew of employees and undertakes a project in New York
 City covered by the CBA has an incentive to encourage its
 employees to join the NYC Council in order to bypass the
requirement of matching them one-to-one with hires from the
 out-of-work list. (Members of the Northeast Council can
Case 16-495, Document 170-1, 04/21/2017, 2016332, Page3 of 5
4
 transfer their membership easily and freely.) The Northeast
 Council challenged the provision as an unfair labor practice
 before the NLRB, on the ground that it effectuates a hiring
 preference based on membership in the NYC Council, in violation
 of § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)). That subsection
prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing employees in the exercise of their § 7 rights under
 the NLRA, including the right to join or refrain from joining
 a labor organization. Following a hearing, the administrative
 law judge (“ALJ”) found that The Cement League’s CBA violated
 the NLRA as alleged. The NYC Council, joined by The Cement
League, filed exceptions, and in February 2016, the NLRB issued
its decision agreeing with the ALJ.
 The Cement League and NYC Council have petitioned for  of that NLRB decision and the NLRB has cross-petitioned for
 enforcement. The Northeast Council has intervened in support
 of the NLRB.
“Our review is deferential: This court reviews the Board’s
 legal conclusions to ensure that they have a reasonable basis
 in law. In so doing, we afford the Board a degree of legal
 leeway.” Long Island Head Start Child Dev. Servs. v. NLRB, 460
F.3d 254, 257 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We uphold “the NLRB’s legal determinations if not arbitrary and
 capricious.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Neither The Cement League nor the NYC Council argued before
The ALJ that the challenged provision of their CBA comports with
 the NLRA; nor, after the ALJ concluded that the provision
violates the NLRA, did either of them file an exception to that
conclusion. We are therefore statutorily barred from
 considering any challenge to that ruling now “unless the failure
 or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of
 extraordinary circumstances.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).
Petitioners point to no extraordinary circumstance. We
 therefore accept as uncontested for purposes of this proceeding
that the enforcement of the challenged provision of the CBA
 violates the NLRA.
 The NYC Council and The Cement League’s only argument is
 that any violation is merely technical or de minimis and was
Case 16-495, Document 170-1, 04/21/2017, 2016332, Page4 of 5
5
 in any event validated by court order. They contend that the
 challenged provision furthers the anticorruption objectives of
a consent decree that the NYC Council entered in 1994 to settle
 a civil RICO action brought by the Department of Justice. The
 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
 (Berman, J.) monitors that consent decree and must review any
 CBA that the NYC Council enters; acting in that capacity, the
8 district court approved the CBA in question. The NYC Council and The Cement League argue that the NLRB should defer to that approval, notwithstanding any technical NLRA violation. The NLRB rejected that argument, reasoning that the district court did not consider compliance with the NLRA and did not premise approval upon it; that the challenged provision did not appear to have been approved on the basis of an anticorruption  purpose or effect; and that any such anticorruption goal could  be served instead by NLRA-compliant hiring provisions. To the extent that the NLRB is correct about the district court’s analysis, the NLRB’s order has a reasonable basis in law and is not arbitrary and capricious.
 

 Accordingly, and subject to any further measures that may be appropriate in light of such views as U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman may express, we hereby DENY the petition for review of the NLRB’s decision, GRANT the cross-petition for enforcement of the order, and the issuance of the mandate is HELD IN ABEYANCE; the Clerk of Court is directed to deliver a copy of this order to U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman, and the mandate SHALL NOT ISSUE until the lesser of 30 days from the issuance of this order or until the parties advise this court as to Judge Berman’s view whether this order bears upon matters that are within the jurisdiction of his supervision of a consent order in United States v. NYC Council, No. 1:90-cv-5722.
 

FOR THE COURT:
 

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

DID THE UBC TANK YET ANOTHER MEMBERS PENSION FUND??!!!

AND NOW WANTS TO STEAL FROM THE PLANS RETIREES USING MPRA 

(LETS NOT FORGET HOW THEY DESTROYED THE ADIRONDACK PENSION FUND)


ATTENTION

 Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin

      You are considering letting the UBC screw the fund retirees under MPRA..
 https://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Southwest-Ohio-Regional-Council-of-Carpenters-Pension-Plan.aspx
The legislation written and created by McCarron and other NCCMP Union leaders. The Legislation paid for by the NCCMP rats using UBC members money without their knowledge.. The legislation put on the books by deceit and fraud..The UBC retirees in the Southwest Ohio Fund already screwed by cuts without MPRA are now facing even worse cuts using MPRA.So why . Why is the fund in the condition it is in....??DID THE UBC TANK THE FUND!!!

       In 2011 the Indiana,Kentucky Regional Council listed this Defined Contribution Plan for a retirement plan..EIN 351833932 called the Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Defined Contribution Pension Trust Fund .In 2011 it was declared on the 5500 as a new "profit sharing plan" created at the same time as the forced merger of the Ohio and Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters (OVRCC) with the Indiana/Kentucky Regional Council of Carpenters (IKRCC)ordered by McCarron and Yeggy of the UBC International..The Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan EIN 316127287, now under attack, was and is a defined benefit plan which in 2011 received contributions from signatory's for members of the Ohio and Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters.

OHIO UBC PENSIONERS TO BE RAPED USING THE RATS MPRA LEGISLATION

The Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan Trustees have applied to Treasury to rape our own UBC Pensioners.

Using the MPRA legislation written by our own Union leaders to cover for their mismanagement and in the UBC case looting of our funds.MPRA Lobbied for using millions of our own UBC funds.MPRA Financed with our UBC money in the form of dues to the NCCMP.MPRA Made law by deceit and fraud because they knew it could not survive open debate and an honest process..They backdoored it on the Omnibus bill in Dec 2014 .Again in Dec 2016 they tried and failed to back door "composite plan" legislation written by this same pack of rats. It is part 2 of the rape of retirees. A Personal letter sent to Congress by Dougy "the Ice Cream crapper" McCarron telling Congress they must pass this rape of retirees MPRA legislation so we retirees do not become a burden on the taxpayers.This letter contains false statements and lies by McCarron such as "The proposals are voluntary" and "It will strengthen the multi employer system".BS.It will destroy our multi Employer funds and part two written by them is legislation to allow them to change our funds to composite plans and destroy our plans completely.

LETS REVISIT THE 8F TO 9A CONTRACT SCAM

THE AUTHORIZATION CARD SCAM
 
WHEN MCCARRON LEFT THE AFL-CIO TO AVOID ARTICLE 19, WHICH PREVENTED THE UBC FROM RAIDING OTHER TRADES, HIS FIRST RAID WAS AGAINST THE IUPAT IN NY. HE FORMED A TAPERS UNION LOCAL 52 AND MOVED FOR AN NLRB REPRESENTATION ELECTION . 
  "A week after the March 17, 2005, decision, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America chartered a new local union, Local 52, to represent drywall finishing workers in the State of New York. Local 52 was not affiliated with the Trades Council, and is therefore not bound by the New York Plan"(“New York Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes” (“New York Plan”)
THE IUPAT STUCK IT IN HIS ASS. 
 LOCAL UNION 1974 OF I.U.P.A.T., AFL-CIO, v. NASTASI & ASSOCIATES INC.,-VS- Carpenters Local 52
HE AGAIN TRIED IT IN CALI WITH HIS PALS AND FELLOW RATS AT THE RAYMOND GROUP.

AGAIN THE NLRB STUCK IT IN DOUGYS ASS. 

AFTER THE LOCAL 52 ATTACK THE IUPAT MOVED TO SWITCH ALL THEIR CONTRACTS FROM 8F TO 9A. A 9A CONTRACT HOLDS MEMBERS HOSTAGE TO THE UBC AND LIMITS THEIR.ABILITY TO GET AWAY FROM THE UBC. AN 8F ALLOWS REPRESENTATION VOTES ANYTIME. MCCARON IS NOW DOING THE SAME.THE UBC STARTED TO AGGRESSIVELY DO SO WHEN MEMBERS IN NY,NYC AND NEW JERSEY BROKE AWAY FROM THE UBC. HAD TRUMPKA NOT SOLD OUT THE RESOLUTION 70 EFFORT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO.

          THERE ARE TWO WAYS FOR THE UBC TO BE ABLE TO DECLARE A 9A CONTRACT.BOTH CALL FOR "PROOF" THAT THE UBC HAS MAJORITY RECOGNITION FROM ITS MEMBERSHIP.ONE IS TO CALL FOR AND HOLD AN NLRB MAJORITY RECOGNITION/REPRESENTATION ELECTION. THE UBC AVOIDS THESE AT ALL COSTS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT WIN ONE.SECOND IS "VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION" FROM CONTRACTORS.THIS IS THE EMPLOYERS TELLING THE NLRB THEY HAVE PROOF IN THE FORM OF AUTHORIZATION CARDS FROM A MAJORITY OF THEIR  UBC EMPLOYEES.THIS BRINGS US TO THE UBC FRAUD OPTION 3.THE UBC FLAT OUT LIES AND JUST DECLARES THEIR CONTRACTS TO BE 9A DESPITE THEM BEING 8F AND HAVING NO PROOF OR AUTHORIZATION CARDS.

      A 9A IS ALSO MORE RESTRICTIVE TO CONTRACTORS AND A CONTRACTOR WOULD NOT COOPERATE WITH A 9A WITHOUT REWARD IN RETURN. CONTRACTORS HAVE HAD 8F CONTRACTS FOR YEARS AND HAVE NO NEED TO CHANGE OR RESTRICT THEMSELVES WITHOUT A PAY OFF.THUS THE UBC FULL MOBILITY PROVISIONS.IN RETURN FOR THE "FULL MOBILITY" PAYOFF SIGNATORY'S HAVE AGREED  TO LIE AND TELL THE NLRB THEY HAVE MAJORITY RECOGNITION WITH NO AUTHORIZATION CARDS. YOU WILL FIND MEMBERS  DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEMAND AND THREATS FOR AUTHORIZATION CARDS ARE FOR AND DO NOT FILE AN NLRB CASE. 
  
             THE ILLEGAL CORRUPT ACTION BY THE UBC TO COERCE MEMBERS TO SIGN AUTHORIZATION FORMS IS WELL DOCUMENTED. FURTHER IN THE RECENT RAT CAPELLI/UBC ORDERED ATTACK ON ITS OWN UBC MEMBERS IN NYC THE NLRB JUDGE RULED FULL MOBILITY ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF THE NLRA.THE UBC DID NOT CONTEST THIS FACT.

PLEASE FOR US ALL.FILE THE NLRB CASE AND THEN SUE THEIR ASS UNDER THE LMRDA IN FEDERAL COURT .FORGET ABOUT EXHAUSTING INTERNAL REMEDY'S. YOU HAVE AMPLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND THE FEDERAL JUDGE WILL LET YOUR CASE GO FORWARD.

THE AUTHORIZATION CARD SCAM

RECENT USER COMMENT

I have commented here before and perhaps painted a picture in reality that would be considered " insinuating" or extreme. I will refrain from that but will not refrain from continuing to point out the corruption. So Mr Silence Dogood here is another.

  The NRCC has been taking dues check off from Phila carpenters illegally for over a year. Without authorization!!! In an effort to cover their asses they sent out a disingenuous mix 20/ 20 form with the instructions that if it wasnt filled out you would not have access to work. ( typical intimidation) The last part of that application was an area that needed your signature which turned over your " cba" rights and dues withdraw from your check. They are scrambling because they are open to a huge lawsuit of direct payroll theft. Many men read this and refused to sign. We are on to them..

Part 2. The claim that without registration there is no work .... All of the sudden puts the council in a bad spot as it can no longer claim that it is not a hiring hall ( agency) which has huge implications for tax purposes and they are calling it a " referral service" but either way its BS. Laufenberg saw or was witness to this NRCC third party collection agency and took umbrage. 

    The bottom line is that there is a huge problem here. The shifting of over 1.6 BILLION dollars out of the Pennsylvania economy and across state lines had to set a warning buzzer off somewhere. The same way a pac contribution of over $735,000 dollars made its way to George Norcross the 3rd from Edison NJ to John Dougherty ( biz mgr of ELECTRICIANS LU 98) to the PHILADELPHIA mayorial candidate jim kenney. Nothing to see here good citizen.

 

  WE HAVE ALL FACED THE AUTHORIZATION CARD SCAM

 

 2016 NORTHEAST COUNCIL

IN DESPERATION FOR AUTHORIZATION CARDS THE JERK OFFS AT THE NORTHEAST COUNCIL HAVE NOW CREATED A BYLAW SAYING THAT ANY LOCAL THAT DOES NOT GET 90% AUTHORIZATION CARDS SIGNED WILL FACE FINES

DEAR BALLANTYNE CALL 1-800-FU

NYC COUNCIL

http://local157.blogspot.com/2012/04/council-authorization-cards.html

Contract Update: Should I Sign Council Authorization Cards?

In a letter (below) to the membership dated April 19, EST Bilello would like members to sign an authorization card that will authorize the District Council to represent members, for the purpose to "strengthen the negotiating position of the officers and Executive Committee that are currently engaged in negotiations with contractors associations" for wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Since I have received numerous questions from the membership about signing these cards, I sent the following questions to the District Council for an answer.

1. The contract that was voted on by the membership was it an 8(f) or a 9(a) contract?

2. If 9(a), why was the contract presented to the membership without the membership signing authorization cards?

3. A 9(a) contract appears to be more restrictive on the contractor, was full mobility negotiated in exchange to sign a 9(a) contract?

4. The UBC has negotiated a 90-day wage freeze, a $2.13 wage give back and full mobility, all in opposition of the will of the membership. Given this track record members may be reluctant to sign an authorization cards. What assurances can you give the membership that the Council will bargain in good faith, in the best interest of the membership?

 

Union Members Don’t Even Trust Union

by Publius
The New York City carpenters union has been in trouble with the law for many decades. Organized-crime has been endemic with the union for a long time and union chief after union chief has gone to jail over the ties and other corruption. Even shop stewards have gotten into the corruption game with four recently convicted on charges of fraud, conspiracy or bribetaking. It’s so bad that even the rank-and-file member doesn’t trust the union to legally carry out union business. That distrust was seen again recently with a dispute arising between union members and union leadership over a plan to withhold quarterly benefit checks from members that refuse to sign away greater power to union officials who want to fine members that refuse to fall into line.
The union has a convoluted scheme of taking workers’ vacation pay and placing it in a welfare fund to provide life insurance, hospitalization, medial care, pension and vacation benefits to members. Instead of receiving vacation pay upon returning from a vacation, members are disbursed a quarterly vacation fund check each year. It happened that union chiefs wanted members to sign authorization cards to allow the union to fine any members found not paying into the welfare fund by working jobs off the books.
Many union members, however, are refusing to sign the cards giving the union power to take unspecified and vague “fines” out of their pay.

“That card was a threat,” said a carpenter who agreed to be interviewed this month only on condition of anonymity because he said he feared retribution. “It was like signing a blank check to let them take out whatever they want, whenever they want.”

Since many union members were either reluctantly signing or refusing to sign the cards, the union leaders upped the ante by halting benefit payments to any member that wouldn’t sign the card.

The dispute escalated in March, when the union’s welfare fund trustees voted to stop sending vacation-pay disbursements to anyone who had not signed the authorization card, infuriating rank-and-file members.

The legal basis for withholding vacation-fund payments is unclear. The fund’s trustees, comprising five union officials and five employer representatives, voted to stop distributing vacation checks without seeking the consent of the fund’s lawyers, said Stuart GraBois, the welfare fund’s executive director.

Yet, these same leaders that have repeatedly been thrown in jail for cheating the union, stealing union funds, working with the Mob, and any manner of other corrupt practices are claiming the moral standing to fine members for working jobs off the books? It’s these thug union bigwigs that members fear giving the power to begin “fining” members without defined restrictions on what those fines are for. Many members rightly fear that the power once given to the union chiefs will later be misused for any and every reason that those union leaders can imagine.
But, this incident really does show what a union is made of. It proves pretty starkly that union “leaders” don’t care a whit about what the workers want. Even worse, if shows that the workers themselves are afraid of the union itself. These workers are afraid of “retribution” from the leader’s thug armies and from the union’s scorched earth practices.
What sort of “voluntary” organization is it where the members are afraid of the very organization that claims to be speaking for them? Unfortunately, this is the ultimately logical end of any powerful union effort. Eventually, given enough power, all unions end up treating friend and foe alike in an effort to increase its own power.