Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Watch us on YouTube
sponsored links


Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 92

Thread: nemf...

  1. #51
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    I'm sure you have heard this question asked.

    sponsored links
    Quote Originally Posted by grovedog View Post
    i have heard that ms is a great guy he provides many people a great job. who cares about the past he is providing a lot of families opportunities and a good lifestyle
    You ask who cares about the past ? I would think that alot of people do.

    Many times the question is asked if NEMF is a union job......When answered yes they are in the machinists union. Then the next question is usually, why are they not in the Teamsters union ?

    If you Google the owners name and read some of the RICO transcripts pertaining to M.S. & NEMF's dealings with the Genovese crime family, you will find the answers.

    Its very interesting reading. they even have wiretaps spelling out how the mob decided to let NEMF get out of its NMFA contract.

    The only reason I am rehashing all this is because logisticsnyc's post leads people to believe that it was the unions fault & that the owner's paying off of the mob was just a business transaction.(the transcripts show at least a 15 year relationship between M.S. & the mob)

    When Puff Driver comes back on he will probably post that the men went along with all this because they were afraid of the union.

    If you read the transcripts (there is more than 1 case) you will see that even the union leaders themselves were afraid of the mob.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
    sponsored links
     
  3. #52
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    nemf...

    Quote Originally Posted by logisticsnyc View Post
    Since I do not work directly for NEMF, I can not comment on driver pay scale. I can comment on the NEMF union situation...
    The bother of the leader of the Teamster local (I believe 529) did work for NEMF, at one time. A deal was made and the Teamsters went away. Dont blame MS, business is business and God forbid that a union leader may not take into account what is best for his local but for himself...

    The Machinists Union now represents some of the drivers and staff.

    The new drivers and staff at the recently opened facilities are non union as well as the all drivers and staff for Eastern Freightways and Carrier Industries.
    logisticsnyc......I don't know what your agenda is and you certainly have a right to post what you want. You seem to know whats going on at todays NEMF .

    But you are either misinformed or just trying to put a positive spin on M.S.'s past dealings with the mob.

    This is taken from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit # 91-5440 & 91-5441 August 18, 1992

    Based on these three pieces of evidence, the district court concluded that Sciarra was following instructions from the Genovese Family about NEMF in [**24] order 1) to prevent disclosure of past criminal dealings between the company and Genovese Family members affiliated with Local 560 and 2) to preserve the improper relationship between the local and NEMF. Id.

    You can look up the evidence if you like .

    My only point is that the Teamster workers at NEMF were working under a substandard illegal sweatheart deal with backing from the mob. The men worked under the fear of being fired, beaten or even killed by the mob if they spoke out against these conditions.

    logisticsnyc.... do you really believe that it was ok for M.S. to have been in bed with the mob beause "business is business" ?

  4. #53
    Puff Driver is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    86

    nemf...

    I'll stay out of this one.

    The teamsters would never screw any of the members..

  5. #54
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    nemf...

    Quote Originally Posted by Puff Driver View Post
    I'll stay out of this one.

    The teamsters would never screw any of the members..
    If you mean the Teamsters as an organization would never deliberately screw any of the members...then in my opinion you are correct.

    But we both know that what we are talking about here is corrupt union officials who's loyalty was to their mob family, not the union or its members.......And a businessman who made illegal payments to mobsters to keep you people in line.

    Your RICO transcripts are proof that back in the 70's & 80's the owner of NEMF had illegal dealings with the Genovese crime family... Illegal dealings that resulted in allowing NEMF to be still prospering today while its employees work under substandard conditions.

    Puff Driver... I really don't remember so please tell me if back in the 70's was NEMF making money or did they need to make payoffs to the mob to get relief from the contract in order to stay in business.?

    Tell me was it NEED or GREED that put NEMF in bed with the mob ?

  6. #55
    Puff Driver is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    86

    nemf...

    Back in my days there the problem was the owners were willing to sign a pact with the devil. They found one with the union. The very union I paid to protect me!

    I never paid the owners for job protection, I paid 560 for that. What did I get for my hard earned dollars????

    MY former employer may have been corrupt but I did not look to them for security, I had an organization that was supposed to do that for me. They failed me, my fellow workers and the entire union movement.

    They should rot in he** slowly......

  7. #56
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    nemf...

    Quote Originally Posted by Puff Driver View Post
    Back in my days there the problem was the owners were willing to sign a pact with the devil. They found one with the union. The very union I paid to protect me!

    I never paid the owners for job protection, I paid 560 for that. What did I get for my hard earned dollars????

    MY former employer may have been corrupt but I did not look to them for security, I had an organization that was supposed to do that for me. They failed me, my fellow workers and the entire union movement.

    They should rot in he** slowly......
    I'll take your non-answer to my question of need or greed as just pure greed. M.S. had been dealing with the mob before you went to work there. I'll ask you again why didn't you go to any of the other 560 jobs that were run by the book ? Why did you go to a job that you knew was under the hat ?

    Back in the 70's NEMF was known as a mob job. You knew it and went there anyway.What did you think your dues were going to do, clean up a mob job ? Get real !!!

    You may think that people are going to believe your anti union posts, but anyone who has been around for a while can see right through your union bashing.

  8. #57
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    Under the hat

    Quote Originally Posted by Puff Driver View Post
    Back in my days there the problem was the owners were willing to sign a pact with the devil. They found one with the union. The very union I paid to protect me!

    I never paid the owners for job protection, I paid 560 for that. What did I get for my hard earned dollars????

    MY former employer may have been corrupt but I did not look to them for security, I had an organization that was supposed to do that for me. They failed me, my fellow workers and the entire union movement.

    They should rot in he** slowly......
    Puff Driver.... If I remember correctly back on the old truckingboards you posted that you had already been a member of local 560 & had worked on the Transcon job (I think)

    The RICO transcripts that you referenced on this site clearly show that the NEMF job was working under a substandard sweatheart contract before Transcon went out of business.

    Everyone on the street knew that NEMF was a mob job, so I would think that you knew it & went there anyway. Even though there had to be at least 25 or 30 other union jobs in North Jersey that you could have gone to. Jobs that were being run by the book.

    Why didn't you go to 1 of the 3 local 560 Roadway jobs that were in that area? Could it be that you didn't want to work for a real union job and have go by the book?

    Could it be that you liked the way NEMF was run back then ? With all the stealing & goofing off & guys hanging out in gin mills.

    Yeah I think thats what it might have been.You went to NEMF because they didn't run a "by the book" union job. You must have liked working "under the hat" Maybe you were just not union material.

    So all of this crap about you paying the union to protect you from NEMF is just more of your endless Teamster bashing.

  9. #58
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    nemf...

    Quote Originally Posted by Puff Driver View Post
    Back in my days there the problem was the owners were willing to sign a pact with the devil. They found one with the union. The very union I paid to protect me!

    I never paid the owners for job protection, I paid 560 for that. What did I get for my hard earned dollars????

    MY former employer may have been corrupt but I did not look to them for security, I had an organization that was supposed to do that for me. They failed me, my fellow workers and the entire union movement.

    They should rot in he** slowly......
    The transcripts clearly show that NEMF was mobbed up before Transcon went out of business ( I'm not sure of the year but it had to be after 1978) I did't include the wiretaps because of the cursing.

    Puff Driver if you bother to read this you will see that under Sammy Pro Local 560 did try to end the sweatheart deal at NEMF but the mob wouldn't allow it.

    This is taken from the RICO transcripts

    During the December 7, 1984 conversation Ianniello and Andretta discussed another subject which is of significance in this case. They discussed the relationship between the carrier New England Motor Freight ("NEMF&quot and Local 560. To understand this part of the conversation it is necessary to be familiar with certain background information.

    Until 1977, NEMF was a party to the pertinent Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement and subject to its terms and conditions. In 1977, Local 560's business agent Henry Slyboom agreed that NEMF would be permitted to continue certain "past practices," namely (i) the use of outside companies to supply labor to be used as an adjunct to NEMF's bargaining unit dockmen and (ii) NEMF's use of contract cartage companies. Use of contract cartage companies involved retaining owner-operator-persons [**47] who owned their own vehicles and on whose behalf NEMF was not required to make payments to the Teamsters' pension and welfare plans. Slyboom's agreement with NEMF was memorialized in an October 14, 1977 letter from NEMF's Director of Operations to Slyboom (Exh. G85).

    On November 2, 1981 NEMF's President Myron P. Shevell wrote to Teamsters Local [*1174] 560 notifying it that NEMF had withdrawn from the National Master Freight Agreement negotiations and would not be bound by any national contract agreed upon by the negotiators. Meanwhile Henry Slyboom died and was replaced by Local 560 business agent Daniel Rubino.

    On February 5, 1982 the International Director of the Eastern Conference of Teamsters issued a directive that any tentative agreement which differs from the proposed National Master Freight Agreement and Supplements "MUST BE APPROVED by the UNION representatives of the Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee." (Exh G87).

    On March 8, 1982 Shevell wrote to Local 560 announcing NEMF's willingness to comply with the economic settlement reached as a result of the National Master Freight Agreement negotiations. He added, "I also agree to extend my present contract, conditions and practices [**48] and existing terms for three (3) years to March 31, 1985." (Exh. G88; see also Exh. G89).

    Without obtaining prior approval from Union representatives of the Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee Daniel Rubino accepted Shevell's offer, advising him on April 16, 1982 "that I have taken a vote with the employees of New England Motor Freight Inc. and they are in agreement with the terms and conditions that were proposed in your letter to me on March 8, 1982." (Exh. G90).

    There were two practices in which NEMF engaged which were of substantial economic benefit to it, and, conversely, were to the very great detriment of Local 560's bargaining position. This can be illustrated by NEMF's employee position in 1985, which reflects the situation which developed after Henry Slyboom's 1977 and Daniel Rubino's 1982 "past practices" agreements.

    As of 1985 NEMF had two general categories of workers -- warehousemen and drivers. Relying on the past practice of using outside companies as an adjunct to the bargaining unit, NEMF contracted with its subsidiary or affiliate Apex to provide 40-50 warehousemen. The Apex employees were members of District 15 of the Machinists Union and their collective bargaining [**49] unit had terms and conditions much less favorable than those of the Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement. In addition to the Apex employees, NEMF hired Local 560 members as warehousemen, and as to them it was subject to the economic provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement. In 1985 NEMF had three Local 560 warehousemen in its employ.

    Also relying on past practices, as of 1985 NEMF retained approximately 70 so-called "owner-operators" as drivers. While the owner-operators may have been members of a Teamsters local, they owned their own vehicles and it was not necessary for NEMF to make pension and welfare benefit contributions on their behalf. In addition to the owner-operators, NEMF had 10 of its own employees performing as drivers and on account of whom it had to meet the economic requirements of the National Master Freight Agreement. Thus as of 1985, out of NEMF's approximately 123-133 warehousemen and drivers, only 13 were a part of the Local 560 bargaining unit. This gave a significant economic advantage to NEMF (an advantage which it claimed was necessary to its survival) and it put Local 560 in a very weak bargaining position, because even if it called a strike [**50] by its 13 members there would be little impact upon NEMF.

    While the foregoing statistics reflected the status of NEMF's warehousemen and drivers in 1985, the situation was generally the same in and prior to 1982 when Daniel Rubino agreed to Shevell's March 8, 1982 proposal to continue in effect the "past practices" arrangement originally entered into by Slyboom in 1977.

    The situation took a sudden change in 1983. Salvatore Provenzano asserted that all NEMF warehousemen and drivers were covered by the National Master Freight Agreement and threatened to destroy NEMF if it did not accede to that position. Local 560 submitted the question to the Joint Local Committee of North Jersey. NEMF instituted an action in this court [*1175] seeking to enjoin arbitration through the grievance proceeding of the question of its use of non-bargaining unit warehousemen and drivers.

    On October 24, 1983 Judge Sarokin, to whom the case had been assigned, set forth his reasons for denying NEMF's application for a preliminary injunction. He viewed the March 8, 1982 Shevell letter, as accepted by Rubino, as determinative of whether NEMF was bound to resolve its labor disputes through the Joint Local Committee mechanism [**51] of the 1979-82 National Master Freight Agreement. He accepted NEMF's position for the purpose of the application "that [Local 560] agreed that plaintiff could continue to use non-bargaining unit personnel as it had in the past" but that NEMF had failed to establish likelihood of success on the contention that the question whether non-bargaining unit persons were being used beyond the past practices exception was outside the agreed upon jurisdiction of the Joint Local Committee. Judge Sarokin did not foreclose the possibility that at a final hearing NEMF might establish that its past practices were not subject to review by the Joint Local Committee.

    After Judge Sarokin's October 24, 1983 opinion and order denying preliminary injunctive relief, discovery was conducted, and the proceedings before the Joint Local Committee went forward.

    That was the status of the NEMF dispute at the time of the December 7, 1984 conversation between Ianniello and Andretta. It is the government's contention that throughout the period 1975 to mid-1976 Shevell, on behalf of NEMF, cultivated a corrupt relationship with Local 560 officials, including Anthony Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, Henry Slyboom, Daniel [**52] Rubino and Peter Granello, as a result of which NEMF obtained a "sweetheart" arrangement from Local 560 throughout the years and was eventually able to deunionize its operations altogether.

    The December 7, 1984 tape recorded conversation provides strong support for the government's contention.

    Prior to Myron Shevell's formation of NEMF his brother Daniel had operated Eastern Freightways. One of Eastern's employees was a fourth Provenzano brother, Angelo. Eastern went into bankruptcy and thereafter Daniel Shevell committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Afterwards Myron Shevell formed NEMF.

  10. #59
    Puff Driver is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    86

    nemf...

    You must really like me. You seem to be very interested in where I worked and where I did not. I never worked at Transcon nor did I ever say I did.

    But you know everything.

    You even know why I worked at NEMF..

    Wow, what I guy. I wish I were as smart as you...

    You go on bleieving the union never did anything wrong and blame everyone else for their failures...I really dont care about 560 anymore, I'm getting my $$$. I had to fight for it but I'm getting something...

    How does that union Boss's bootie taste anyway...

  11. #60
    2631 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    664

    nemf...

    sponsored links
    Quote Originally Posted by Puff Driver View Post
    You must really like me. You seem to be very interested in where I worked and where I did not. I never worked at Transcon nor did I ever say I did.

    But you know everything.

    You even know why I worked at NEMF..

    Wow, what I guy. I wish I were as smart as you...

    You go on bleieving the union never did anything wrong and blame everyone else for their failures...I really dont care about 560 anymore, I'm getting my $$$. I had to fight for it but I'm getting something...

    How does that union Boss's bootie taste anyway...
    I don't like or dislike you because I don't even know you. I dislike your constant Teamster bashing with no facts to back them up with.

    In some of your earlier posts, when you claimed that you were filing a lawsuit against local 560, you said that you had worked at another 560 job before going to NEMF. If you will check my post you will see that I said that I THINK that it was the Transcon job.You are lucky that we can't go back to the old truckingboards & read some of the outragous Teamster bashing post that you made.

    No I don't know why you went to work for that under the hat NEMF job. I asked you a question as to why you chose NEMF. I said might & maybe so don't twist what I posted

    As far as having to fight 560 to get your pension I thing thats more of your B/S the same as all the B/S that you fed us on the old truckingboards.

    But it all goes back to the same thing. Puff Driver continues to bash the Teamsters & NEVER EVER do you back up your bashing with any facts. You just continue to twist my questions & avoid answering them by making snide foxhole & bootie tasting comments.


Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin™
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Image resizer by SevenSkins
Advertising positioning by Digital Point
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com