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.


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.