Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Union only?

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 6:59

The NJ senate has voted to exclude any non union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects.

How can they receive federal funds and specify that they only go to union members? Not only that, the huge delay in projects and cleanup is so unfair to the residents of NJ. Will be people of NJ, will the governor, will the federal government allow this?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Union only?

mrskjun, I was thinking recently, that some elected officials were either totally crazy or well on the way there. So I checked
Snopes and changed my mind somewhat.


 o
RE: Union only?

Just so you know ron, the two things are not related.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Union only?

mrskjun, quite sorry for making a connection that was not there.
I have reverted to my former opinion of elected officials.


 o
RE: Union only?

Sure doesn't seem right. I hope it isn't true.


 o
RE: Union only?

Not only that, the huge delay in projects and cleanup is so unfair to the residents of NJ.

That would be the delay from the GOP members of Congress, most of whom seem to not want to send any aid to the Northeast?


 o
RE: Union only?

I know people who were turned away from helping in NJ because they were not union workers in the early days of the relief effort. It seemed grossly unfair then and still does.


 o
RE: Union only?

mom, 9.7 million was allocated immediately, and I can promise you, that it will take years for the money from this second bill to filter in. All the money designated for Katrina recovery has yet to be allocated. And you can blame one side or the other...but it's how our federal government works...or better yet...doesn't work.


 o
RE: Union only?

People may not remember to controversy after Katrina with the influx of not just non-union but also undocumented workers coming in to cleanup and repair.


 o
RE: Union only?

marshall the controversy was not among the population. If it weren't for the Mexican day laborers, New Orleans might still be in the midst of cleanup. Never a problem of non union..Lousiana is a right to work state. We had people come from all over the country, and yes there were a few sleazebag companies, but they were quickly run out of town. Not a lot of people were interested in hauling off those thousands of refrigerators and freezers filled with rotting food and cleaning them and making them safe for disposal.


 o
RE: Union only?

mrskjun, I was thinking recently, that some elected officials were either totally crazy

Crazy? no. Greedy? Well, this isn't the first time the unions have made a payoff under the table.


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 8:45

Text of "Amended" Bill P.L. 2002:

New Jerseys Senate bill S. 2425

Sponsored by:
Senator STEPHEN M. SWEENEY
District 3 (Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem)
Senator DONALD NORCROSS
District 5 (Camden and Gloucester)


SYNOPSIS
Revises definition of "public works projects" to permit project labor agreements for more projects.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.

AN ACT concerning project labor agreements and amending P.L.2002, c.44.
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 2 of P.L.2002, c.44 (C.52:38-2) is amended to read as follows:
2. For the purposes of this act:
"Apprenticeship program" means a registered apprenticeship program providing to each trainee combined classroom and on-the-job training under the direct and close supervision of a highly skilled worker in an occupation recognized as an apprenticeable trade, and registered by the [Bureau] Office of Apprenticeship [and Training] of the U.S. Department of Labor and meeting the standards established by the [bureau] office, or registered by a State apprenticeship agency recognized by the [bureau] office.
"Labor organization" means, with respect to a contracted work on a public works project, an organization which represents, for purposes of collective bargaining, employees involved in the performance of public works contracts and eligible to be paid prevailing wages under the "New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act", P.L.1963, c.150 (C.34:11-56.25 et seq.)and has the present ability to refer, provide or represent sufficient numbers of qualified employees to perform the contracted work, in a manner consistent with the provisions of this act and any plan mutually agreed upon by the labor organization and the public entity pursuant to subsection g. of section 5 of this act.
"Project labor agreement" means a form of pre-hire collective bargaining agreement covering terms and conditions of a specific project.
"Public entity" means the State, any of its political subdivisions, any authority created by the Legislature and any instrumentality or agency of the State or of any of its political subdivisions.
"Public works project" means any public works project for [the] construction, reconstruction, demolition or renovation [of buildings at the public expense, other than pumping stations or water or sewage treatment plants,] for which:
(1) It is required by law that workers be paid the prevailing wage determined by the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development pursuant to the provisions of the "New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act", P.L.1963, c.150 (C.34:11-56.25 et seq.); and
(2) The public entity estimates that the total cost of the project,

exclusive of any land acquisition costs, will equal or exceed $5 million.
(cf: P.L.2002, c.44, s.2)
2. This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT
This bill amends P.L.2002, c.44 (C.52:38-1 et seq.), the law authorizing project labor agreements (PLAs) to allow PLAs in certain kinds of public work contracts which that law now excludes.
That law currently allows a PLA for a public works project only if:
1. The project is worth at least $5 million (excluding land acquisition costs);
2. The workers in the project are required by law to be paid the prevailing wage set by P.L.1963, c.150 (C.34:11-56.25 et seq.); and
3. The project is for the construction, reconstruction, demolition or renovation of buildings at the public expense, other than pumping stations or water or sewage treatment plants.
The current law therefore excludes many projects, such as highways, bridges, pumping stations, and water and sewage treatment plants, from having PLAs.
This bill removes from the definition of "public works project" all references to the kind of structure or improvement, instead identifying a project only as "construction, reconstruction, demolition or renovation." That change extends the option of using a PLA to projects excluded under the current law, such as highways, bridges, pumping stations, and water and sewage treatment plants. The bill leaves unchanged the provisions of the laws definition of a public works project that require a project to be worth at least $5 million and have workers subject to the prevailing wage law.

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: Union only?

Ohio, reading governmentese makes my eyes blur. Can't you briefly summarize that info--"in a nutshell"--and indicate why it is relevant? That would be such a big favor.

: )

Kate


 o
RE: Union only?

marshall the controversy was not among the population.

That's not what I remember from reports at the time. The complaints were that firms involved in the disaster clean up were employeeing immigrants rather than locals / LA residents.


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 9:52

I will try to translate, and I am more than sure if I am wrong someone will beat me with a wet noodle :)

..project labor agreements (PLA) contain provisions that states a "union gives up its right to strike or conduct a slowdown and agrees to arbitration to settle disputes while continuing to work. Since 2002 the PLA on the books for highways, bridges, pumping stations and water and sewage treatment plants were exempted from the labor agreement. This bill, if I am reading governese correctly, includes PLA's.

Of course the voting, like everything in this country is along political/idealogical lines.

So what's new .. fiddling while Rome burns

Oh and by and by ... the unions endorsed Christie in the last election, so he has an option also. Sign or shred the bill.

If nothing else I sure would feel more secure if well trained (union or not) workers were employed to "fix" a devastated infrastructure, this is not exactly handyman work.

1/2 penny

Here is a link that might be useful: linky dink


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 10:23

The NJ senate has voted to exclude any non union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects.

....no the senate passed a bill "allowing" union workers on some of the Sandy projects, big difference.

Show me ONE sentence in the above text that excludes non union workers, you can't because it is not true.


 o
RE: Union only?

nancy they couldn't get local residents to come back and take the jobs, and in some cases that was understandable. There was no housing...at all. Immigrants were willing to live, maybe ten or twelve in the same trailer. Residents always had first dibs, many came back when they got FEMA trailers and many didn't come back at all.


 o
RE: Union only?

MsK, I heard the interviews, live from NO, complaining that immigrants were being used because the costs were cheaper than hiring local / LA residents. There were also numerous charges of exploitation of the immigrants re wages, food, and lodging. Disaster capitalism at its finest.


 o
RE: Union only?

I was listening to some show on NPR yesterday about the shortage of trained, competent craftsmen - electricians, plumbers, finish carpenters, tile setters, etc. and now that housing is starting to recover, that the general contractors are having big problems hiring.

Also pointed out that - at least with one contractor - when they do a criminal back ground check and do drug testing, this immediately disqualifies 60% of the applicants.


 o
RE: Union only?

Also pointed out that - at least with one contractor - when they do a criminal back ground check and do drug testing, this immediately disqualifies 60% of the applicants.

*

Yep, and if they were hungry and living on the streets and so were their kids, they might clean up their act, stop indulging their nasty drug habit and get a job earning lots of money in these trades.

You get more of what you subsidize.


 o
RE: Union only?

So, subsidizing jails is a bad thing?

Because once you've been to jail you have a criminal record, and there isn't much you can do about that for the rest of your life.

And I don't think we subsidize drugs. Unless we're talking about legal prescription pain killers and mood altering drugs, which we subsidize the heck out of via Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance.


 o
RE: Union only?

demifloyd wrote,

if they were hungry and living on the streets and so were their kids, they might clean up their act, stop indulging their nasty drug habit and get a job earning lots of money in these trades.

Your advocating making innocent children homeless and hungry as a means to pressure adults to change their behaviors is chilling.


 o
RE: Union only?

Also pointed out that - at least with one contractor - when they do a criminal back ground check and do drug testing, this immediately disqualifies 60% of the applicants.

Many employers also have a problem finding workers with driver's licenses, or clean driver's licenses.

One of our former drywall subs has to provide the transportation for most of his workers as most have DUIs, no licenses or no vehicles. Most of his workers are pot smokers with criminal records.

We used to have several subs that we'd only use in a pinch, and then only on supervised unoccupied renovations as the many of the workers had criminal records.

Many job seekers that can't pass background checks and drug testing end up working as construction laborers as many tradesmen and subs don't perform background checks and drug testing.

We can't help much of our job seeking population find jobs as they have no driver's license, a poor driving record, no vehicles and/or can't pass background checks and drug testing.


 o
RE: Union only?

mrskjun wrote,

The NJ senate has voted to exclude any non union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects.

This statement is false. I suggest that you not rely on the characterizations of extreme right-wing web sites when assessing current events, as they often mislead readers, as has happened here. Rather, I would advise that you read the actual legislation or at least peruse news reports from non-partisan sources.

I expect you would not want such a flagrantly erroneous statement to stay on the record here without correction, so I hope you issue a suitable retraction.


 o
RE: Union only?

Are you stu-nod??? (jersey tawk). The amendment allows for PLA's to be negotiated on public works projects! Does not necessarily exclude non-union or apply to personal home guts, etc!

If you saw what has been coming in here from out of state...."lineman" from other states that want to work at our public utilies that are not trained? no thanks! But, as far as homes go...I know more people than I can count that have gotten riped off - elderly and vunerable people. OUr town has set up a approved contractor list now for people to take advantage of or not but it is BAD!!!!

Good description, OM but there is one very important component missing. PLA's are all about negotiated wage or union scale. The are not good for unions at all! My husband is on PLA job since Sandy hit working 7 days a week making well below his rate.

Do you really think the highway dept, sewer plant, or utility companies are hiring off the street?

Common sense. Jeesh!


 o
RE: Union only?

The NJ senate has voted to exclude any non union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects.

COMPLETELY false claim. What I read in that bill is that IF Union members are hired for these jobs, they must agree to abide by possibly worse working agreements than they would normally.

Where on earth have some folks acquired their reading comprehension skills? Incredible.


 o
RE: Union only?

"Yep, and if they were hungry and living on the streets and so were their kids, they might clean up their act, stop indulging their nasty drug habit and get a job earning lots of money in these trades. "

You are assuming these folks aren't getting good paying jobs in construction and are some how being subsidized. Not all employers require drug tests and/or criminal back ground checks...this was the comment on one contractor.

My youngest brother has drug issues and has never missed a day of work in his life. As far as criminal backgrounds , I can understand why it may matter in some jobs but, depending on the crime, construction??? Why should that be a disqualifier....so no rehabilitation, no work, keep them on welfare and then complain about them????


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 13:15

9.7 million was allocated immediately 9.7 Million...

That's laughable... and it's taken more than two months to get anything else through Congress.

How you dare whine about delays and unions. You got aid and you got it fast after Katrina. And it wasn't even winter down there.

Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005, and early in September, 2005, Congress authorized a total of $62.3 billion in aid for victims

Hurricane Sandy. made landfall in the northeast on October 29 and 30, 2012, but it wasn't till December 28, 2012, that the Senate approved an emergency relief bill to provide $60 billion dollars for states affected by Sandy,but the House (in effect) postponed action until the next session (which began January 3) by adjourning without voting on the bill.

Finally...........on January 15, the House approved 50.5 billion, but now it has to be approved by the Senate again, before it goes to the President.


 o
RE: Union only?

mom, complain to your president...you guys sure complained about Bush not acting quickly enough after Katrina...Obama had an election to win...he did show up for a photo op didn't he? Or is this another one of those blame the republicans for everything moments. Anything to say about the senate?

And no retraction about union labor.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 13:38

"The NJ senate has voted to exclude any non union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects"

The NJ senate did not vote to exclude non union members from post Sandy cleanup projects.

Really MrsK, no retraction even though your OP is totally false?


 o
RE: Union only?

mrskjun wrote,

And no retraction about union labor.

Can you explain why not? What you posted was provably false. Why would you want to remain associated with the propagation of a falsehood when you now know it is untrue? Help me understand your thinking.


 o
RE: Union only?

As I mentioned before Mrs never retracts or admits to being wrong. Her reputation in that regard is legion. The best you will get is that she will stop posting on the thread.


 o
RE: Union only?

The best you will get is that she will stop posting on the thread.

You can expect the topic to be reintroduced, and all the facts that have been presented to negate the original premise will be ignored.


 o
RE: Union only?

chase wrote,

As I mentioned before Mrs never retracts or admits to being wrong. Her reputation in that regard is legion. The best you will get is that she will stop posting on the thread.

Thanks, chase. I am getting the picture. I am interested to know what the thought process is behind discovering that one has made an error, yet deciding to stand behind the error, even when there is an undisputed finding that it is wrong. That behavior fascinates me, and I suspect it lies beneath much of the political discord among the citizenry; taking a position, then failing to modify or discard it even in the face of objective facts. That syndrome -- the attachment to a selected position, regardless of contrary truths -- seems to me to be a very dangerous characteristic. So I try to take the opportunity to explore it when the moment presents itself, as it has done here on several occasions.

I still hold out hope that mrskjun will think this over and explain why she feels she can choose the truth of something because it comforms with her desires, rather than accepting the actual truth.


 o
RE: Union only?

What intrigues me even more is why one would do this over and over again? You would think after your "sources" were debunked several times you would be somewhat more diligent in doing your homework before posting.....fascinating, absolutely fascinating..


 o
RE: Union only?

It is a burgeoning new internet phenomenon that people are paid (quite well) for propagating on discussion fora whatever their client, often a political marketing organization, wishes them to propagate. Certain phrases are issued to increase their visibility to online search engines. There have been times online when I become absolutely certain that this is the case because it jibes with a very familiar pattern of repeated proclamation, even gleefully so, without the least effort to back up the claims.


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 14:19

The Big Lie - say it often enough and loud enough, and it becomes truth. Hitler knew this, so does Fox News.


 o
RE: Union only?

circuspeanut wrote,

It is a burgeoning new internet phenomenon that people are paid (quite well) for propagating on discussion fora whatever their client, often a political marketing organization, wishes them to propagate. Certain phrases are issued to increase their visibility to online search engines. There have been times online when I become absolutely certain that this is the case because it jibes with a very familiar pattern of repeated proclamation, even gleefully so, without the least effort to back up the claims.

Certainly, if someone were being paid to post certain claims, that would explain why they would never retract them. Let's try to find out if that's the case here.

Mrskjun, are you being paid to post anything here?

Thank you.


 o
RE: Union only?

Not a chance.......


 o
RE: Union only?

Would it help if I posted even more sources chase? I could post 500 and if someone could find one that refutes them, mine would be negated. In fact, if a liberal disagrees with me, no sources needed right?


 o
RE: Union only?

Mrs... I said not a chance in reference to the question asking if you were paid.

Mrs, it isn't an issue about posting sources.....it's that the content is very often , as in this case, untrue. The validity of the information is what counts, not the number of sources.


 o
RE: Union only?

I know chase, it is never valid if a liberal disagrees.


 o
RE: Union only?

MsK, you didn't read Ohiomom's post of 8:45AM, complete with a link to the NJ Legislature's posting of the bill?

I guess if you don't read the responses, you can maintain that you haven't been proven wrong.


 o
RE: Union only?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 16:56

The bill, in full, is right there for the reading ... it is from the legislature itself how much more of a "source" can you ask for?

The NJ Senate DID NOT vote to exclude non union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects ... period.

You can post a thousand sources and the fact is the bill speaks for itself.


 o
RE: Union only?

Mrs...the facts are the facts...it's not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing.

We are all free to have our OPINIONS with regards to the FACTS but not our own version of the facts.


 o
RE: Union only?

mrskjun wrote

Would it help if I posted even more sources chase? I could post 500 and if someone could find one that refutes them, mine would be negated.

Can you clarify? Are you continuing to claim that the NJ Senate voted to exclude any non-union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects, despite the proof that this is false?

Do you believe that each source creates a truth, and you can pick which one you would like, and they are all equally true even if they directly contradict one another?

Do you believe that in this case, there is a single truth about whether the bill in question excludes any non-union members from any post Sandy cleanups and projects?

Do you believe that the actual bill itself -- as opposed to a particular source's characterization of it -- contains the truth?

Have you read the bill?

Do you believe that it is possible that the source(s) you read are wrong?


 o
RE: Union only?

The way I read it, the bill allows union people to bid. But I could be misinterpreting; those bills are usually filled with trickery (and pork).


 o
RE: Union only?

elvis wrote,

The way I read it, the bill allows union people to bid.

That is correct. Thank you for acknowledging that mrskjun's claim is false. It is far too rare that one conservative points out another's error.


 o
RE: Union only?

So Facto, you believe that the aim of a discussion is to keep harping on the faults/mistakes of your fellows. Have a good time.


 o
RE: Union only?

elvis wrote,

So Facto, you believe that the aim of a discussion is to keep harping on the faults/mistakes of your fellows. Have a good time.

That's silly. The aim of a discussion is to make progress towards a better understanding and perhaps towards improvements or solutions. However, a prerequisite for any such discussion is the acceptance of facts by all parties. If one party makes a declaration that is erroneous, they must acknowledge that error for the discussion to progress.

That's the stage we are at, on several fronts. Multiple false statements have been made, and proof of their falsity has been presented. Yet, the original poster refuses to participate in a sincere discussion by admitting her errors and retracting her statements. So the conversation stalls.

Perhaps you could encourage mrskjun to change her approach to discussion by promptly admitting her errors when they are demonstrated. That way, the discussion can move forward, which I'm sure you would appreciate. Until then, no discussion that includes mrskjun can move forward, as there remain two opposed positions on certain questions of fact.


 o
RE: Union only?

What mrsk doesn't understand is that Fox News will report something and then Drudge, and Red State, and Malkin and all the other copycat right wing "so-called news" sites will pick up the story and report it. And that is why mrsk thinks her 500 sources are correct, when in fact, they are just spreading the same rumor and lies from the original web site just like a virus.


 o
RE: Union only?

"If one party makes a declaration that is erroneous, they must acknowledge that error for the discussion to progress."

ROFL; really! ;D

You ARE new. Like I said, have a good time. Too, too funny ;D


 o
RE: Union only?

elvis wrote,

"If one party makes a declaration that is erroneous, they must acknowledge that error for the discussion to progress."
ROFL; really! ;D

You ARE new. Like I said, have a good time. Too, too funny ;D

I don't understand your response. Do you disagree that participants in a discussion need to be honest for a productive dialog to occur? Why do you laugh so much but evade substantive issues?


 o
RE: Union only?

Post moved to the correct thread.

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 21:51


 o
RE: Union only?

"Perhaps you could encourage mrskjun to change her approach to discussion by promptly admitting her errors when they are demonstrated. That way, the discussion can move forward, which I'm sure you would appreciate. Until then, no discussion that includes mrskjun can move forward, as there remain two opposed positions on certain questions of fact."

good luck with getting that done facto


 o
RE: Union only?

We are not done. We haven't gotten to 'you did it too, or first' or my most recent favorite

"Most of us that participate in threads usually follow out the conversation until we are no longer interested--we're done with it.
I was and am"

Which is a tidy way of avoiding the icky part of saying-oops! Which of course any poster here is free to do-bail under pressure I mean, but your credibility is going to suffer...just saying.

I applaud Mrsk for
" epi, I apologize, I had only seen the list I posted. I'm ashamed of those reps that voted against the aid pkg from my state." which means she can admit a failure of information source. This is from the walking post.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here