Doing business in New York

[Elok]

I didn't know you could "sue" unions.

Why not? You can sue pretty much anybody in this country AFAIK.

[dannubis]

Because, the way I understood it is that unions are no legal entity (something my be lost in translation here but what I mean with that is that the union itself can't be held leaglly accountable for damages done).

If you can show that some members of the union were engaged in illegal stuff you can charge them personally but not the union itself.

This is how it works here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A little bit of, before we fly off the handle (too late for some, I see):

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/584669/sticky-lips-bbq-owner-taking-on-department-of-labor/

- Under New York’s Constitution and Labor Law, contractors and subcontractors must pay the prevailing rate of wage and supplements (fringe benefits) to all workers under a public work contract. Employers must pay the prevailing wage rate set for the locality where the work is performed.

- There are two conditions which determine whether a construction project is public work:
(1) A public entity must be a party to a contract involving the employment of laborers, workers or mechanics; and
(2) The contract must concern a public work project.

- In the present matter, public documents show that Sticky Lips BBQ constructed a building on publicly-owned land. Specifically, the property is owned by the Genesee Valley Regional Market Authority, which is a public entity. Because the building was constructed on publicly owned land and because the agency received a complaint, the Department of Labor (as it is required to do under law) simply advised the owner that the construction project may well be subject to prevailing wages. There has been no decision as to whether or not prevailing wages apply in this case and the matter is under review, as the Department continues to gather information. Further, the Department DOL has not been in contact with OSHA in regard to this matter.

So basically the state just informed him that they MAY be subject to prevailing wages and no decision has yet been made one way or the other. In addition, as pointed out, the land is owned by the State of NY, and the state may consider improvements on its owned land to all be considered a "public work" (as it improves the value of the land).

The article also acts like subpoena to the contractors is some huge, massive thing. Most likely it was for documents, such as their contracts to see if they are subject to prevailing wages. The state simply seems like it is doing a routine investigation.

[Kuciwalker]

Because, the way I understood it is that unions are no legal entity (something my be lost in translation here but what I mean with that is that the union itself can't be held leaglly accountable for damages done).

If you can show that some members of the union were engaged in illegal stuff you can charge them personally but not the union itself.

This is how it works here.

I can't believe that's true. There is a contract between the union and the employer. That can only happen if the union has some independent legal existence ("union personhood"). I believe in the US unions are actually incorporated, though I'm not certain.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, Imran, that is the most pro-union spin you can put on it.

[dannubis]

the dutch term is "rechtspersoonlijkheid".

Translation:

http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/vertaal/NL/EN/rechtspersoon

This means, as far as the judiciary system goes, they don't exist.

[Hauldren Collider]

A little bit of, before we fly off the handle (too late for some, I see):

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/584669/sticky-lips-bbq-owner-taking-on-department-of-labor/

So basically the state just informed him that they MAY be subject to prevailing wages and no decision has yet been made one way or the other. In addition, as pointed out, the land is owned by the State of NY, and the state may consider improvements on its owned land to all be considered a "public work" (as it improves the value of the land).

The article also acts like subpoena to the contractors is some huge, massive thing. Most likely it was for documents, such as their contracts to see if they are subject to prevailing wages. The state simply seems like it is doing a routine investigation.

You are a tool, Imran. I love how you managed to spin this as something routine when it obviously isn't routine, and would not have happened if the guy had hired the unions.

[giblets]

How the hell do you know that? The only point of view you've been exposed to is that of the guy building the restaurant. It could have easily been a routine inspection of construction on public property.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed. I love it when people attempt to assign nefarious ends to relatively routine investigations. After all, working for the US DOL, we're required to investigate when a service provider tells on their clients, and in that investigation we may subpoena the records of the third party investigators and go to the office and look at their books - but in the end there may be nothing there.

The union told on the company, so what? The company is leasing the land from NY State and there may be prevailing wage concerns. The State Agencies appear to be simply looking into it at the moment.

[loinburger]

You are a tool, Imran. I love how you managed to spin this as something routine when it obviously isn't routine, and would not have happened if the guy had hired the unions.

You mean the unions wouldn't have complained if the guy had paid prevailing wage? Unbelievable.

[Felch]

Indeed. I love it when people attempt to assign nefarious ends to relatively routine investigations. After all, working for the US DOL, we're required to investigate when a service provider tells on their clients, and in that investigation we may subpoena the records of the third party investigators and go to the office and look at their books - but in the end there may be nothing there.

The union told on the company, so what? The company is leasing the land from NY State and there may be prevailing wage concerns. The State Agencies appear to be simply looking into it at the moment.

If I understand you correctly, this is not an isolated incident. Instead, government lawyers at both state and federal levels routinely harass and intimidate innocent Americans in order to advance the narrow interests of politically connected groups. That's deeply disturbing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is it better if the government ignores people claiming a potential violation of state and/or federal law? I'm positive that would go over well.

[Felch]

It would go over great with me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That'd work up until you were wronged and couldn't afford your own lawyer. I see it all the time. The most ardent anti-government people are the ones who tend to call up government agencies yelling about violations of the law by their employer, etc.

[Felch]

Is Imran calling me a snitch?