# Sneaky SOB's....



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

i gotta hand it to you union guys...your agents have to be some of the sneakiest rats and worms in society today...i wonder if they lie to you guys as much as they lie to contractors....


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

oldman said:


> i gotta hand it to you union guys...your agents have to be some of the sneakiest rats and worms in society today...i wonder if they lie to you guys as much as they lie to contractors....



Now you know that is all in the past.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Now you know that is all in the past.


sure it is...the phone call was just delayed for years and I only received it today:laughing:

dumb ****s....:laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

oldman said:


> dumb ****s


I told you to stop calling me that 



> i wonder if they lie to you guys


 The business agents are all honest, they swear. :whistling2:



> as much as they lie to contractors....


 You're not signatory, are you?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Sometimes the line gets crossed into a legal issue.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Zog said:


> Sometimes the line gets crossed into a legal issue.



I am thinking that in some circumstances a union affiliation is not going to cut someone any slack. :thumbsup:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

oldman said:


> i gotta hand it to you union guys...your agents have to be some of the sneakiest rats and worms in society today...i wonder if they lie to you guys as much as they lie to contractors....



Why start a thread with such a vague statement. What happened?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

the story doesn't matter...just know that I spoke with one of the BM's where we are working last week...we had an agreement...he got sneaky...he just caused about 15 of his men to not get a call in 2 weeks for about 6 months worth of work...just cause he wasn't honest...and he got sneaky...

and there is nothing they can do about it...no requirement to use them.....


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

oldman said:


> the story doesn't matter...just know that I spoke with one of the BM's where we are working last week...we had an agreement...he got sneaky...he just caused about 15 of his men to not get a call in 2 weeks for about 6 months worth of work...just cause he wasn't honest...and he got sneaky...
> 
> and there is nothing they can do about it...no requirement to use them.....



I'm still not understanding what's going on. 

But I will say that some BA's really suck at there job. There's a BA in South Jersey's local 351 that should give all his salary back to the local there.

Actually my experience in general with the NJ BA's has been less then impressive. 269, 351, and 102.

269 and 102 especially. I think they refuse to acknowledge there PA jurisdiction. When I was non-union I didn't even know the IBEW existed in those area's.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

I was supposed to do A, B, C....I did A, B, C....

He was supposed to do D, E, F and was not supposed to do G, H, I...

Well he did D, E, G, H....and he did it knowingly and on purpose...so...his men lose...


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

for the record, this was an agreement between him and me....not a contract, and nothing legally binding...he just got sneaky...


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm at a lose. I'm not that bright, I don't understand secrete code language.

But whatever the case may be, I feel bad for the men not getting the work no matter who's fault it was.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> 102 especially. I think they refuse to acknowledge there PA jurisdiction.


Good, F-them all. All the Pennsyltuckians did was take our money in exchange for no work.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

I think it time for some hugs! :tt2:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Good, F-them all. All the Pennsyltuckians did was take our money in exchange for no work.



What money and who took it. You guy's seemed so much nicer when my local was nice enough to put a couple hundred of ya's to work.

Lot's of work has been going on up that way for years. Same thing in 269 PA jurisdiction.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> What money and who took it. You guy's seemed so much nicer when my local was nice enough to put a couple hundred of ya's to work.
> 
> Lot's of work has been going on up that way for years. Same thing in 269 PA jurisdiction.


If there was so much work, why are all the Pennsyltuckians driving into NJ every morning to take our work? I got 3 of them on my job right now. But I don't hear of any NJ guys going out to PA at all.

They took our money when they merged for their pension, millions.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

> HackWork;295339]If there was so much work, why are all the Pennsyltuckians driving into NJ every morning to take our work? I got 3 of them on my job right now. *But I don't hear of any NJ guys going out to PA at all.*


That's because you guy's don't police your jurisdiction in PA at all. If your not there, how do you know what's going on. As far as Pennsyltuckians taking your work, that's because it's easy too.

Local 98 has 90% market share and everyone knows it. It's easier for the nonunion to work in your area then mine, sorry.

Your BA's need to get off there ass and do there job's.



> They took our money when they merged for their pension, millions.


Who is they??


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

slickvic277 said:


> Who is they??


they= F.O.O.T = Fraternal Order Of They

Keeping the man down since ?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

i take it back...the union reps are just used to dealing with union men...the reps are trained to figure the men won't remember anything...no sense is making pretend they do...lord help this f'ing country...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> That's because you guy's don't police your jurisdiction in PA at all.


Of course they do.


slickvic277 said:


> Who is they??


Who did I say when you started questioning me? This isn't hard to follow.


----------



## Split Bolt (Aug 30, 2010)

Sorry, I don't get it! And I consider myself to be of above average intelligence!


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Here's a story for ya HackWork,

One time before I was union I was working right outside Atlantic City. Not a huge job, but pretty big. The first day of the job a 351 BA came out to the job, he said _"Hey guy's how you's doing?"_ he handed us a business card and then said, _"Look I gotta put up a picket line here. If you weren't out on a main road I wouldn't even care"_. Then after that I worked there for about 3 months and never, ever saw a picket line, not at all.

That's a disgrace.

Another time I worked in Roselle before I was union. The job was close to being finished except the service. The GC had a personal beef with the union EC there and didn't wanna give him the rest of the work. So, we got the job.
No business agent, no picket line, no walk off's, no nothing.

Another disgrace, why even pay due's if you can't get half decent 
representation.

I got a million other examples too. If you think that sh*t fly's in Philly, you better ask someone.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

HackWork;295358]


> Of course they do.


It's a shame you think so.



> Who did I say when you started questioning me? This isn't hard to follow.


Give me a local#.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

oldman said:


> i take it back...the union reps are just used to dealing with union men...the reps are trained to figure the men won't remember anything...no sense is making pretend they do...lord help this f'ing country...


I asked you earlier if you were a signatory contractor, you never answered. You aren't, are you? So what do you expect? You have been taking work from the union men for a long time and by not signing you are telling them that you will continue to take work in the future. Hanging a carrot in front of them of 15 men going to work for 6 months doesn't make up for that. You know well enough by now that if you aren't with us you are against us, so don't complain when someone does something "sneaky". 

If you were a signatory contractor, then you would have a leg to stand on, but this would never happen because the Locals bend over backwards for the contractors


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

i expect nothing of them...and that's exactly what I got...i'm not surprised, nor am i really complaining...simply stating...

but make no mistake...becoming a signatory contractor involves risking a lot of money on their ability...if they can't do something simple without being sneaky, why risk anything with them? especially when they lost 90% of the job market out there? it's like betting on a dying horse...might get a good race or 2 out of them, but at the end of the day, still gonna be a dead horse...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

oldman said:


> i expect nothing of them...and that's exactly what I got...i'm not surprised, nor am i really complaining...simply stating...


I don't know about that. You expected something and didn't get it which made you mad enough to vent here in a pretty aggressive way.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

far from aggressive...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

oldman said:


> but make no mistake...becoming a signatory contractor involves risking a lot of money on their ability...if they can't do something simple without being sneaky, why risk anything with them?


 Right now you are competition, for all intents and purposes, you are the enemy. You know this as well as I do. You will stay that way until you sign. You know I'm not the biggest fan of today's unions, but I see it this way and I'm calling it the way I see it.


Further, in big business a backroom handshake doesn't mean much. If you want to hold someone to what they said, you put it on paper.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Right now you are competition, for all intents and purposes, you are the enemy. You know this as well as I do. You will stay that way until you sign. You know I'm not the biggest fan of unions, but I see it this way.
> 
> 
> Further, in big business a backroom handshake doesn't mean much. If you want to hold someone to what they said, you put it on paper.


let me put this to rest...you are right, that is their thought...not mine, but theirs....

the sneakiness doesn't affect anything with me...didn't cost me a dime...didn't affect my project...

it was just a stupid thing for him to do...he just made me think of him as the enemy, rather than be willing to work with him...

really just an example of pettiness...

carry on, i'm done...:thumbup:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

It's like UPS messing with FedEx, it's all in the game. You choose which side you're on.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

oldman said:


> the story doesn't matter...just know that I spoke with one of the BM's where we are working last week...we had an agreement...he got sneaky...he just caused about 15 of his men to not get a call in 2 weeks for about 6 months worth of work...just cause he wasn't honest...and he got sneaky...
> 
> and there is nothing they can do about it...no requirement to use them.....


I agree with Slickvic, you have to be more specific in order to get a proper agreement with you...or not. What happened, we've got the time to listen?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> I'm at a lose. I'm not that bright, I don't understand secrete code language.
> 
> But whatever the case may be, I feel bad for the men not getting the work no matter who's fault it was.


Slick it is a basic as OM did what he promised to do, the BM got underhanded and tried to F the OM. SIMPLE, PLAIN and UNCOMPLICATED.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> Slick it is a basic as OM did what he promised to do, the BM got underhanded and tried to F the OM. SIMPLE, PLAIN and UNCOMPLICATED.



Really???? And you ascertained that from a few vague sentences? I'm not saying that the agent did or didn't screw the pooch.

But a couple of things are clear, the OP is not signatory so he is not inclined to work with the union to begin with._(and possibly could be trying to just stir up sh*t) _And the other thing is, he provided no substance at all, how about some details. 

I know as a contractor your sympathetic to the oldman but as a worker I'm a bit more skeptical.


What if I started a thread that said,

Well I decided to try out working for this open shop and was told XYZ but ABC happened, what a bunch of dirty scabby liars.........

And then decided not to elaborate. All the open shop guy's would rip me and would demand facts and call me a troll.

That's all I was getting at.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Why not give the factual happenings, as Slick said?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Really???? And you ascertained that from a few vague sentences? I'm not saying that the agent did or didn't screw the pooch.
> 
> 
> That's all I was getting at.


I did not say OM was right or wrong, I did not say the BM was right or wrong all I said was the basic concept that OM posted was simple to understand, YOU SAID you did not get it. Seemed very simple to me.

If OM feels he was wronged the whole story means nothing, he is set in his future actions.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

jesus, the specifics don't matter...as I said, he didn't do anything I didn't expect...and it wasn't anything that mattered...it was the equivalent of him promising not to eat a cookie, and me walking out of the room, then immediately back in to find him with his hand in the cookie jar...

it just showed that he wasn't honest...that's it and that's all...

christ, it's not an inquisition...simply stated I hope he's more honest with his men than he was with me...

edit to add - doing what he did would have gained him nothing...there was no upside for him...i guess i'm just amazed that the people that union members entrust with their livelihoods are so myopic...


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Seems pretty simple to me. 

Oldman was prepared to use union labor if the BM did what he promised.

Doesn't matter what the BM promised. He either didn't do it, or didn't do it in the manner in which he promised he would. 

Now, due to his disgust with the BM's performance, oldman is not going to use union labor. That should make the union guys mad as hell.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I asked you earlier if you were a signatory contractor, you never answered. contractors


He HAS NOT taken anything, I assume he bid a job and won the bid, HIS WORK NOT THEIR' s. The union has no rights to any job.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> He HAS NOT taken anything, I assume he bid a job and won the bid, HIS WORK NOT THEIR' s. The union has no rights to any job.


You might see it that way, but others don't. He is taking work away, it's as simple as that.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HackWork said:


> You might see it that way, but others don't. He is taking work away, it's as simple as that.


 
Only according to some mis-guided notion the union has, one more MAJOR issue the union better learn to deal with as their share of a shrinking market dwindles away.

It seems the unions (based on post under union topics) have a lot of issues they need to deal with and how they deal with open shops affects the membership in a major way.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> Only according to some mis-guided notion the union has, one more MAJOR issue the union better learn to deal with as their share of a shrinking market dwindles away.
> 
> It seems the unions (based on post under union topics) have a lot of issues they need to deal with and how they deal with open shops affects the membership in a major way.


:sleep1:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

HackWork said:


> :sleep1:


You summed it up perfectly, the union is asleep at the wheel as the car is heading over the cliff.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

brian john said:


> You summed it up perfectly, the union is asleep at the wheel as the car is heading over the cliff.


You forgot your position at the podium constantly preaching. I'll be happy to go over the cliff just so I don't have to keep hearing the same thing over and over. :thumbup:


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Hack. You are a typical 1 sided union guy. You can't see the other side of the coin and probably have never lived any other life but union. Non union contractors are not the devil like you think, but I can talk all I want, your not gonna listen because it is your way of life. Good or Bad that's the only way you know.
Scott


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

H.W. takes any position that gets him your negative attention.

Its not a union / non-union issue. The issue is he is feeling needy. :no:


----------

