Please Note:

Before submitting commentary, to ensure readability and maintain credibility, please do your best to:
*Check spelling and grammar.
*Verify authenticity of information and its sources. If possible, include links to supporting information/evidence.
*Do not repost an entire article published elsewhere by another author. Include a link to the original article when possible. Post a few lines, or at most a paragraph or two. Otherwise, you are most likely infringing upon that author’s copyright.
*If you would like to disseminate information posted at this blog, I ask that you give credit where credit is due -please back-link when possible or at least cite these pages as the source when copying.

Thank you.


2012 NYCDCC Presidential Election Results

Stephen McInnis Elected NYCDCC President, 2012-12-20

LU McInnis * ** Milin * ** Franco * ** Maguire * **
20 35 3.0% 0.2% 2 0.2% 0.0% 2 0.2% 0.0% 1 0.1% 0.0%
45 81 6.9% 0.5% 9 0.8% 0.1% 10 0.8% 0.1% 18 1.5% 0.1%
157 325 27.6% 2.0% 164 13.9% 1.0% 120 10.2% 0.7% 103 8.7% 0.6%
740 97 8.2% 0.6% 4 0.3% 0.0% 1 0.1% 0.0% 6 0.5% 0.0%
926 16 1.4% 0.1% 11 0.9% 0.1% 7 0.6% 0.0% 7 0.6% 0.0%
1556 49 4.2% 0.3% 9 0.8% 0.1% 10 0.8% 0.1% 5 0.4% 0.0%
2287 32 2.7% 0.2% 4 0.3% 0.0% 5 0.4% 0.0% 6 0.5% 0.0%
2790 20 1.7% 0.1% 7 0.6% 0.0% 7 0.6% 0.0% 6 0.5% 0.0%
Total 655 55.6% 4.0% 210 17.8% 1.3% 162 13.7% 1.0% 152 12.9% 0.9%

* % of Total In-Person Ballots
** % of Est. Eligible Voters

In-Person Ballots: 1179. No ballots were blank or disqualified. (7.1% of Est. Eligible Voters)

Mail-in Ballots: 36. Were not opened yet. Need to be verified for validity.
Challenge Ballots: 119. Will not be opened because margin between most votes minus second most is greater than # of Challenge Ballots
Total Number of Voters: 1334 (8.1% of Est. Eligible Voters)
Estimated Number of Eligible Voters: ~16,500


2012 NYCDCC Presidential VOTE

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Tomorrow, Thursday, December 20, 2012, is the day that we will elect our next NYCDCC President. It very is important that you take time tomorrow to go to your local union office between 6 AM and 9 PM to vote for the next NYCDCC President.

I am one of the four candidates running for NYCDCC President and I am seeking your support. So, when at the poll tomorrow, please vote DAN FRANCO, Line C, for a better run Council. For information about my Platform, LU Speech, and Essay, and for the Debate videos, please go to my site

Also, for the NYCDCC VOTE flyer go to and for more information about the election go to

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime by text message, email, and/or phone. In advance, I humbly thank you for your interest and support.

In solidarity,
Daniel J. Franco
Certified UBC Steward
Mob/Txt: 917-226-3447


LU157 Delegate Election, Wed, 2012-06-20 Results

(The following preliminary results are subject to correction.)

Fisher, DeFalco, Kineavy elected as LU157 Delagates to the NYCDCC.

Below are the names and ballot positions of the candidates that ran for LU157 Delegate. The election occurred at 395 Hudson St., 2nd Fl. (Clarkson St. entrance), Wednesday, June 20, 2012, between 6:30AM to 5:00PM.

1. Gerry Matthews - 83
2. Dan Franco - 91
3. Anthony Madaio - 43
4. Kenny Bluhm - 49
5. Chris Berlingo - 29

1. Mike Connor - 87
2. James P. Noonan - 78

1. John DeFalco - 213
2. Thomas J. Kineavy - 181 
3. James Fisher - 218

1. Tommy McKeon - 152
2. Tommy Gaulrapp - 133
3. Robert F. Corrigan - 112

Members Eligible to Vote: 99??
Members that Voted: 507
~164 voters by ~10:30AM
~194 voters by 1:23PM

Number of votes in descending order:
  1. James Fisher - 218
  2. John DeFalco - 213
  3. Thomas J. Kineavy - 181
  4. Tommy McKeon - 152
  5. Tommy Gaulrapp - 133
  6. Robert F Corrigan - 112
  7. Dan Franco - 91
  8. Mike Connor - 87
  9. Gerry Matthews - 83
10. James P. Noonan - 78
11. Kenny Bluhm - 49
12. Anthony Madaio - 43
13. Chris Berlingo - 29


Elect Dan Franco LU157 Delegate, Wed, 2012-06-20

Good evening Brothers and Sisters,

I am in need of your assistance. I am running for Local Union 157 Delegate to the NYCDCC. If you are a LU157 member please come down to 395 Hudson St. (Clarkson St. entrance) this Wednesday, June 20, between 6:30AM and 5:00PM, to vote - Dan Franco, the on-the-tools candidate dedicated to the rank-and-file. Even if you are not a LU157 member you can still help by forwarding this message to other members to encourage them to forward it to LU157 members they know. In advance, I thank you for your support.

If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me by email, phone or text message. Additionally, on Wednesday, I will be taking off from work to be available in person all day at the Council for questions and information.

In solidarity,

Daniel J. Franco
Certified UBC Steward
Mbl/Txt: (917) 226-3447
Email: danieljfranco1[at]


UBCJA 2011 LM-2 Report

2011 UBCJA LM-2 Report is now available.

Date Received Filing Type Fiscal Year Total Assets Total Liabilities Total Receipts Total Disbursements Total Membership
03/29/12 LM-2 2011 Report $569,132,139 $4,669,025 $173,472,200 $167,783,585 428,207
03/28/11 LM-2 2010 Report $543,631,754 $5,535,350 $228,150,800 $226,999,469 446,694
03/25/10 LM-2 2009 Report $537,659,002 $4,492,214 $91,097,135 $74,800,746 473,777
03/31/09 LM-2 2008 Report $503,758,263 $6,433,640 $104,360,517 $103,393,467 511,053
03/27/08 LM-2 2007 Report $544,758,747 $7,476,414 $290,222,417 $288,831,213 523,815
04/02/07 LM-2 2006 Report $221,335,049 $6,808,597 $94,695,533 $91,752,453 523,126
04/10/06 LM-2 2005 Report $209,024,312 $8,688,763 $86,442,366 $85,746,122 522,416
05/16/05 LM-2 2004 Report $202,684,349 $7,201,700 $79,175,753 $74,883,960 524,237
03/30/04 LM-2 2003 Report $201,590,905 $8,847,589 $87,127,093 $85,814,922 523,271
04/01/03 LM-2 2002 Report $204,478,959 $10,322,435 $173,261,527 $180,478,791 531,839
05/09/02 LM-2 2001 Report $215,279,496 $14,952,690 $262,971,734 $257,263,794 538,431
04/04/01 LM-2 2000 Report $219,683,974 $16,018,278 $346,106,007 $352,448,935 534,023

See also


I voted NO to the Contracts

And I encourage you to vote NO too.

Many members know I have been and am against 'Full-Mobility', that last year I spoke against it in court and that I collected signatures to petition the Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, to deny 'Full Mobility'. That Petition stated:

Whereas, we understand 'Full Mobility' to be somewhat or specifically defined as: the permitting of a contractor to select the entirety of its workforce, less the steward.

Whereas, it is evident with experience and information that 'Full Mobility' will further embolden and allow contractors additional opportunities to:
  • circumvent Out-of-Work Lists (OWLs).
  • force acceptance of cash payments and forgoing of benefit payments in exchange for current and future work, thereby committing tax evasion, benefits fraud and extortion;
  • ignore OSHA and other health and safety laws, thereby increasing the likeliness for health and safety violations and incidences;
  • enforce work production quotas, which are expressly forbidden in our CBA's;
  • commit age, sex, and race discrimination;
  • increase the hiding of faulty materials and poor and incomplete workmanship;
Whereas, 'Full Mobility' will eliminate for many members job opportunities and opportunities to up-keep and increase one's skills and knowledge;

Whereas, for the reasons above 'Full Mobility' is anti-union; it unequivocally circumvents social justice, one the founding principles of labor unions;

Therefore, we, the members of the NYC carpenters' local unions, affiliated to the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC), petition the Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, to deny the acceptance and implementation of 'Full Mobility' in any agreement with the NYCDCC and/or affiliated organizations until at least December 30, 2014.

At least for the reasons stated in the petition "Full-Mobility" should not be accepted by the membership. However, even if you are in favor of "Full-Mobility" you should still VOTE NO TO ALL THE CONTRACTS. While I am quite pleased that the Executive Committee decided to bring a motion before the Delegate Body for the members to ratify the CBA's and that the Delegate Body approved the motion, I am quite displeased that the members will be voting on the contracts in their current form. The contracts in their current form should not have been presented to the members for ratification because either a majority voting members will vote no, and the vote will effectively be nullified (thereby having wasted our money on ballots and the AAA; expenditures that have not yet even been approved by the Delegate Body, which is a violation of the NYCDCC Bylaws by Bilello and everyone else involved in the expenditures), or a majority of voting members will vote yes, and we will collectively undo years of union advancement. The incomplete contracts will lead to further labor unrest and litigation, to and from both the union and the contractors.

If you vote "yes" to the contracts, you will be voting for additional operating costs to the Council and additional/increased assessments to the members and further litigation related to the Labor Management Corporation (LMC). The Anti-Corruption Measures (ACM) via the LMC will be a huge expense that will ultimately be paid for by the members because the LMC ACM document does not state who will be paying for it. Ultimately, it will be the members that will bear the full cost of the LMC, which is likely to be tens of millions of dollars a year.

If the LMC ACM are to cost us $10 million, which has been stated as the anticipated approximate initial yearly cost, and the Council takes-in 18 million man-hours, this will mean an additional assessment of $0.56 per hour to the members on top of the $0.05 already collected. Over the five year life of the contracts I anticipate the LMC ACM costs to multiply as additional LMC employees (approximately five (5) out of eight (8) employees will be former police officers and investigators) are hired and more contractors sign-up for the "Full-Mobility" program. So, if near the end of the five years of the contract that "Full-Mobility" somehow has something to do with bringing in substantially more man-hours, for example, 28 million man-hours in year five, but the cost of the LMC goes up to $50 million, the cost per hour to the members will then be $1.79 per hour, over three time the initial assessment. Will the LMC cost actually be $50 million in five years? At the very least, the cost is not likely to go down.

Personally, I prefer to hold the line than to move backwards. If we cannot advance, we must at least stand our ground. The acceptance of these contracts will be a retreat. And this retreat will mean subjugation.


From: Daniel J. Franco
Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:52
Subject: NYCDCC Delegate Meeting, 2012-01-25
To: Michael R. Bilello, Bill Lebo


The NYCDCC delegate meeting notice was issued as follows:
The District Council has scheduled a Delegate meeting for Wednesday January 25, 2012 @ 6PM in the Labor Technical College 2nd floor common room.

All delegates will have the opportunity, at that time, to complete paperwork necessary to get any payment from the district council.  All delegates should bring a copy of their passport or drivers license and social security card.  The paperwork (I-9 and W-4 forms) and copies of identification need to be completed for the Council to make any payments.

Due to this notice I now have several questions:
  1. Since the regular NYCDCC delegate meeting is the second Wednesday of the month, the Jan 25 delegate meeting must be a special called meeting. Why does the notice not state that the Jan 25 delegate meeting is a special called meeting?
  2. The notice states, "All delegates will have the opportunity, at that time,..." which strongly implies that the meeting is for another or other purposes. Special called meetings can only be called for specific purposes(s). Being that the Jan 25 delegate meeting must be a special called meeting, why does the notice not specifically state what the purpose(s) of the meeting is (are)?
  3. Why the need to complete I-9's and W-4's? To receive the stipend will the delegates be employees of the NYCDCC? Yes? No?
  4. Who initially called for the delegate meeting? You? Walker? Walsh? Other?
  5. Who wrote-up the notice? You? Walker? Other?
  6. Who requested or mandated that it be posted at the NYCDCC website? You? Walker? Other?
  7. Why only two days notice? When did you become aware of the need for such a special called meeting?
  8. When was the call for the meeting initially issued? What is the date?
  9. Were the delegates notified prior to posting the notice at the NYCDCC website? Yes? No?
  10. Was this notice sent directly to each delegate? Yes? No?
  11. Was this notice sent directly to each local union? Yes? No?
I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

In solidarity,

P.S.: With future notices, I strongly suggest that you also include the date of issuance.