Can’t come soon enough.
What’s the word ?
So does that Mean Mr Franco regains control of the company?
Well with a cool 75m hopefully that’s enough for him to start up a new shop and bring on those who will soon be drowning that supported him.
I’m sure folks would give him a decent deal if things were done right.
I guess we will see.
Chris - I am actually pretty good at making money and I have a lot of grey hairs these days (thanks for calling me a kid though). Los Angeles and San Francisco are great ports for Centerline!
Pure nonsense, go double check your sources.
I do have a lot of good experience in M&A which is a key reason the company was able to complete the Saltchuk asset swap and Bouchard equipment acquisitions. With that said, Centerline is not for sale.
All this internal bullshit. Meanwhile honest hard working people and their families are being shit on. Experienced people are leaving left and right. What the fuck.
2 Likes
It’s the free market system. Workers involved are of little consequence. They can get another job if they are unhappy. Luckily the job market is good currently.
4 Likes
Seems like lots of drama going on at that company. Not worth it considering the current job market. Best to move on before economic slowdown sets in.
7 Likes
This literally proves what everyone has been saying but the company denies.
I would believe it to be 100% true the company is not for sale - who the hell would buy a disaster like this. The only other company that stirred up so much BS when the name was mentioned was Bouchard. Hence it’s very fitting the ended up with a bunch of Bouchard equipment.
The way the CEO answers threads is the exact same way Morty Bouchard would pop on here.
At least with Morty you knew where you stood and he screwed you to your face haha. I am now a few years out from working at centerline but they are the talk of the industry. I work shoreside and was recently promoted to a more senior management level in the petroleum industry and the gossip about centerline (which outside of centerline everyone still refers to as Harley) is sickening. I just skip over the fact that I worked there anymore when talking to people. Better not to have it tarnish me.
And this goes more for shoreside. The guys on the boats everyone knows are being screwed. The management is the one failing everyone. That’s why besides a select few there is hardly anyone that stays more than a year or two. Look at the office in Bayonne across the river from where I work. There is literally more assistants to help get things done properly working in my department than shoreside in the entire Harley east coast office lol.
3 Likes
1 Like
Did the ruling get overturned?
SMD = SAVE MY DECKHAND
Interfering with employee rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1))
Employees have the right to unionize, to join together to advance their interests as employees, and to refrain from such activity. It is unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights. For example, employers may not respond to a union organizing drive by threatening, interrogating, or spying on pro-union employees, or by promising benefits if they forget about the union.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities.”
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the Act. For example, you may not
- Threaten employees with adverse consequences, such as closing the workplace, loss of benefits, or more onerous working conditions, if they support a union, engage in union activity, or select a union to represent them.
- Threaten employees with adverse consequences if they engage in protected, concerted activity. (Activity is “concerted” if it is engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself. It includes circumstances where a single employee seeks to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action, as well as where an employee brings a group complaint to the attention of management. Activity is “protected” if it concerns employees’ interests as employees. An employee engaged in otherwise protected, concerted activity may lose the Act’s protection through misconduct.)
- Promise employees benefits if they reject the union.
- Imply a promise of benefits by soliciting grievances from employees during a union organizing campaign. (However, if you regularly solicited employee grievances before the campaign began, you may continue that practice unchanged.)
- Confer benefits on employees during a union organizing campaign to induce employees to vote against the union.
- Withhold changes in wages or benefits during a union organizing campaign that would have been made had the union not been on the scene, unless you make clear to employees that the change will occur whether or not they select the union, and that your sole purpose in postponing the change is to avoid any appearance of trying to influence the outcome of the election.
- Coercively question employees about their own or coworkers’ union activities or sympathies. (Whether questioning is coercive and therefore unlawful depends on the relevant circumstances, including who asks the questions, where, and how; what information is sought; whether the questioned employee is an open and active union supporter; and whether the questioning occurs in a context of other unfair labor practices.)
- Prohibit employees from talking about the union during working time, if you permit them to talk about other non-work-related subjects.
- Poll your employees to determine the extent of their support for a union, unless you comply with certain safeguards. You must not have engaged in unfair labor practices or otherwise created a coercive atmosphere. In addition, you must (1) communicate to employees that the purpose of the poll is to determine whether the union enjoys majority support (and that must, in truth, be your purpose); (2) give employees assurances against reprisal; and (3) conduct the poll by secret ballot.
- Spy on employees’ union activities. (“Spying” means doing something out of the ordinary to observe the activity. Seeing open union activity in workplace areas frequented by supervisors is not “spying.”)
- Create the impression that you are spying on employees’ union activities.
- Photograph or videotape employees engaged in peaceful union or other protected activities.
- Solicit individual employees to appear in a campaign video.
- Promulgate, maintain, or enforce work rules that reasonably tend to inhibit employees from exercising their rights under the Act.
- Deny off-duty employees access to outside nonworking areas of your property, unless business reasons justify it.
- Prohibit employees from wearing union buttons, t-shirts, and other union insignia unless special circumstances warrant.
- Convey the message that selecting a union would be futile.
- Discipline or discharge a union-represented employee for refusing to submit, without a representative, to an investigatory interview the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.
- Interview employees to prepare your defense in an unfair labor practice case, unless you provide certain assurances. You must communicate to the employee the purpose of the questioning, assure him against reprisals, and obtain his voluntary participation. Questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization and must not itself be coercive. And questioning must not go beyond what is needful to achieve its legitimate purpose. That is, you may not pry into other union matters, elicit information concerning the employee’s subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfere with employee rights under the Act.
- Initiate, solicit employees to sign, or lend more than minimal support to or approval of a decertification or union-disaffection petition.
- Discharge, constructively discharge, suspend, layoff, fail to recall from layoff, demote, discipline, or take any other adverse action against employees because of their protected, concerted activities.
Connect With NLRB
National Labor
Relations Board
About
Resources
- Inspector General
- Fact Sheets
- Fillable Forms
- Related Agencies
- E-file via FOIAOnline
- Section 508
- Employee Rights Poster
Other
As a believer in collective bargaining, she prepared to strike in 2000 as union contract negotiations with management broke down. On November 21, 2000, Godden walked out with other guild members from both Seattle daily papers, beginning an acrimonious strike that lasted 38 days for P-I workers and 49 for the Times. When the strike ended, Godden learned that her prominent Sunday column had been permanently reassigned to Nicole Brodeur, who had crossed the picket line during the strike. Things wouldn’t be the same.
The sad thing is the moronic leadership probably applauds this type of behavior.
They have a very high up manager who is famous for once being the sole culprit of spooling a whole tow winch drum while towing a tandem tow. The compressors were keeping him awake while at the dock(on the clock BTW)and he decided to turn them off. Well he forgot to turn them back on once underway and once they started stretching out the wire outside they lost the tow.
I believe this same “Manager” once had the brilliant idea to buy a bunker barge full of diesel to fuel the tug boats with. He forgot or just too stupid to check the sulfur content and it could not be used. I believe it was sold back to oil company at pennies on the dollar.
These are the people running this company!
1 Like