Today, Monday November 7, 2005 I had a meeting with John Latiolet the vice president of the Smith-Emery company.
The first thing that I addressed in the meeting was the fact that the company had been shorting me eight dollars an hour when not working on Prevailing wage jobs. To this the response was a definite will look in to it but don’t hold your breath. “You were hired by the Smith-Emery Company to work in the Smith-Emery Labs and in the Labs no one makes eighteen dollars an hour.
This was basically a waste of time.
The second and most important subject that needed to be addressed was the fact that the company never paid the State mandated Prevailing wage to any one.
I asked what the technicians were paid prevailing wage as because it sure as hell isn’t as an inspector and produced a copy of the prevailing wage determination for Los Angeles and handed it to him.
He then looked at it and said that we are a different category of inspector.
I told him to look closely at the document I had just handed him and explained that we should be Group 1 inspectors and that we are not getting paid as group one inspectors.
He responded by asking how did I know that I was not getting paid as a group one inspector? I broke down every thing on the list and to each issue he grasped his Prozac mug and asked “how do you know you are not getting that?”
I finally stuck my finger in his face and asked point blank “Are we or are we not getting the state mandated prevailing wage?”
He started to answer with a “well…”, and I cut him off with “yes, or fucking no, Are you or are you not paying the state mandated prevailing wage.”
He fingered his Prozac mug for a while then answered me “We are not paying the proper prevailing wage. We have been aware of this problem for quit a while now and have been working on it” he then turned to his computer and told me that Smith-Emery had all the payroll records on the computer and typed some thing in to it that I could not see and I assume was a instant message to some one else in the company.
He then came back with “we owe you some where in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars.”
I smiled, than I asked what about all the other prevailing wage jobs? I informed him that I knew that UCLA was not getting it and asked about all the technicians in the Anaheim office?
I had just turned down the attempt at a pay off.
He told me that the Anaheim office has 45 guys and they mostly work on Caltrans jobs which are not prevailing wage. And that between UCLA and USC the company was looking at paying out about 250,000.
Now just do the math, USC has had about four guys on it for two and a half years and I am getting around 50,000 so that job alone should be about 200,000 for the pay out. Now I have a very hard time understanding how UCLA which at this point has been running for about 5 years with at least two technicians would split the remaining 50,000 for the prevailing wage they were not receiving.
He then asked what my intentions were on this matter.
I informed him that I had consulted a union and not Local 12 because I wanted to get unbiased advice and I knew that Local 12 and Smith-Emery had bad blood, I told him that I went to the President of the Ironworkers Business Agents and that he informed me that I should go to the labor board.
He responded to this asking “why would you go to them? They only care about the workers!”
To this I responded that “That is exactly why I did it”
He then tried to explain how they were a good union company even though they work very hard to keep the technicians out of the union (let’s see, they are embezzling over 15 dollars an hour off the technician by keeping him out of the union) and pointed out his window to two Ironworkers on a rig working of a curtain wall that was being tested.
Now he decided to escalate to the next level of desperation and guilt by shifting blame and consequence to me.
If you go to the Labor Board we will have to fire over 300 people and close our doors and go out of business. Your decisions affect many more people than just my self and he asked me to think about that.
I told him that I was not the one who was robbing the employees of there pay and that any actions the labor board would be because of actions that the company took and not me.
He asked me if I wanted to see 300 people loose there jobs (this is basically the threat that I would get fired if I went to the labor board)
At this point I decided that the Smith-Emery Company was not worth supporting and that I was going to have no part of this unethical dealing. I then informed him that as of the next day I would be working with the Ironworkers and that I really did not care what the labor board did to them.
He turned pale and white knuckled his Prozac mug and asked if I had told any one that I was quitting?
I informed him that Mr. Peete was aware of it and it was not my problem if no one in the company talked to each other. ( Point of fact that on October 28, 2005 I had a meeting with Ted Peete at 05:00 where I asked about my pay and why it had been cut. He told me that it was just how it was going to be and if I didn’t like it I should go back to doing what ever it was I was doing before Smith-Emery. I told him that I would have to leave.)
He told me that he did not hear this from Mr. Peete.
I then got up to leave, he asked me if I ever wanted to work for Smith-Emery again (Another threat?)?
I told him that I would not turn work with them down in the future, but that we would have to see.
1 Comments:
At 5:37 PM,
Administrator said…
Today, Monday November 7, 2005 I had a meeting with John Latiolet the vice president of the Smith-Emery company.
The first thing that I addressed in the meeting was the fact that the company had been shorting me eight dollars an hour when not working on Prevailing wage jobs. To this the response was a definite will look in to it but don’t hold your breath. “You were hired by the Smith-Emery Company to work in the Smith-Emery Labs and in the Labs no one makes eighteen dollars an hour.
This was basically a waste of time.
The second and most important subject that needed to be addressed was the fact that the company never paid the State mandated Prevailing wage to any one.
I asked what the technicians were paid prevailing wage as because it sure as hell isn’t as an inspector and produced a copy of the prevailing wage determination for Los Angeles and handed it to him.
He then looked at it and said that we are a different category of inspector.
I told him to look closely at the document I had just handed him and explained that we should be Group 1 inspectors and that we are not getting paid as group one inspectors.
He responded by asking how did I know that I was not getting paid as a group one inspector? I broke down every thing on the list and to each issue he grasped his Prozac mug and asked “how do you know you are not getting that?”
I finally stuck my finger in his face and asked point blank “Are we or are we not getting the state mandated prevailing wage?”
He started to answer with a “well…”, and I cut him off with “yes, or fucking no, Are you or are you not paying the state mandated prevailing wage.”
He fingered his Prozac mug for a while then answered me “We are not paying the proper prevailing wage. We have been aware of this problem for quit a while now and have been working on it” he then turned to his computer and told me that Smith-Emery had all the payroll records on the computer and typed some thing in to it that I could not see and I assume was a instant message to some one else in the company.
He then came back with “we owe you some where in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars.”
I smiled, than I asked what about all the other prevailing wage jobs? I informed him that I knew that UCLA was not getting it and asked about all the technicians in the Anaheim office?
I had just turned down the attempt at a pay off.
He told me that the Anaheim office has 45 guys and they mostly work on Caltrans jobs which are not prevailing wage. And that between UCLA and USC the company was looking at paying out about 250,000.
Now just do the math, USC has had about four guys on it for two and a half years and I am getting around 50,000 so that job alone should be about 200,000 for the pay out. Now I have a very hard time understanding how UCLA which at this point has been running for about 5 years with at least two technicians would split the remaining 50,000 for the prevailing wage they were not receiving.
He then asked what my intentions were on this matter.
I informed him that I had consulted a union and not Local 12 because I wanted to get unbiased advice and I knew that Local 12 and Smith-Emery had bad blood, I told him that I went to the President of the Ironworkers Business Agents and that he informed me that I should go to the labor board.
He responded to this asking “why would you go to them? They only care about the workers!”
To this I responded that “That is exactly why I did it”
He then tried to explain how they were a good union company even though they work very hard to keep the technicians out of the union (let’s see, they are embezzling over 15 dollars an hour off the technician by keeping him out of the union) and pointed out his window to two Ironworkers on a rig working of a curtain wall that was being tested.
Now he decided to escalate to the next level of desperation and guilt by shifting blame and consequence to me.
If you go to the Labor Board we will have to fire over 300 people and close our doors and go out of business. Your decisions affect many more people than just my self and he asked me to think about that.
I told him that I was not the one who was robbing the employees of there pay and that any actions the labor board would be because of actions that the company took and not me.
He asked me if I wanted to see 300 people loose there jobs (this is basically the threat that I would get fired if I went to the labor board)
At this point I decided that the Smith-Emery Company was not worth supporting and that I was going to have no part of this unethical dealing. I then informed him that as of the next day I would be working with the Ironworkers and that I really did not care what the labor board did to them.
He turned pale and white knuckled his Prozac mug and asked if I had told any one that I was quitting?
I informed him that Mr. Peete was aware of it and it was not my problem if no one in the company talked to each other. ( Point of fact that on October 28, 2005 I had a meeting with Ted Peete at 05:00 where I asked about my pay and why it had been cut. He told me that it was just how it was going to be and if I didn’t like it I should go back to doing what ever it was I was doing before Smith-Emery. I told him that I would have to leave.)
He told me that he did not hear this from Mr. Peete.
I then got up to leave, he asked me if I ever wanted to work for Smith-Emery again (Another threat?)?
I told him that I would not turn work with them down in the future, but that we would have to see.
Post a Comment
<< Home