Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2968
UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

  1. #11

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Leading with a proper direction is not the same as what has happened here. Why do you need to lead? David, you a straight shooting guy and I am sure you no my thoughts on things. What this person is presenting to the washing community is a horrible plan. Vendors should be kept at arms length. I am not sure if you know all that happened in Houston and the back story behind it, but I can assure you that there are well calculated plans behind the proposed BMP's that have nothing to do with benefitting the contractors. Something of this magnitude should have at least been mentioned to the members, if not voted on by them. I thought this org had died of it's own accord, but this may be the final death blow.
    William Page
    www.offdutyfiremanpressurewashing.com
    919-524-3875
    Ken's friend.

  • #12

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    William, I know where stand on this.
    The reason I say we need to lead, is every one seems to be so hell bent against this BMP, but a totally contractor friemdly is what everybody wants. We need to come together and put it into action. I'm all for that.

    William, give me a call. 843-877-3179.

  • #13

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Quote Originally Posted by A-PLUS View Post
    We need to lead. Are any of you willing to help us lead the way.
    If you are the duly elected representative of a for-contractor by-contractor organization you need to act in accordance with the members' beliefs, not make an arbitrary decision that effects every single member's livelihood. I'm going to take my time in deciding how to respond to this action so I don't make a hasty decision. I don't want to let personal relationships or my quick temper cloud my judgement.

    And yes, I offered to help. I called Mike in December and told him I was willing to commit the time and resources to fill a BOD position if some real progress was going to be made.
    Thad Eckhoff
    Apex Services
    (601) 329-5819


  • #14

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    I haven't responded because I'm speechless. It is being said that this bmp mimics the minimum requirements of the EPA. How is it that I put out copies of the Las Vegas BMP and others (one of which is from Northern California) that have NO requirements for HOT water with no soap and yet this BMP still considers hot water the same as soap? The reason for that is because our cleaning REQUIRES hot water and the authors of the BMP know it. It effectively requires all of us to reclaim and the author has been informed of this fact, yet still leaves the hot water issue in the BMP.

    This could only mean two things.

    1) The bod is just trying do "something" because they think they are running out of time.

    or

    2) This is the beginning of a merge.

    Either way it's not good.

    Back to speechless.
    Sonitx
    702-358-7477





    Free FREE Events www.uamccevents.com

  • #15

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Maybe Carlos is back behind the wheel again.
    William Page
    www.offdutyfiremanpressurewashing.com
    919-524-3875
    Ken's friend.

  • #16

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Thad, your offer should of been jumped all over. I know we are friends, but more than that I respect as a man. You see the whole picture better than most I know. Any chance you would still be willing to help.

    William, Carlos is not behind the wheel here.

    Tony, there is NO merger. I don't know about the running out of time. I'll get back to you on this. I have to head out the door right now.

  • #17

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Shelton View Post
    I haven't responded because I'm speechless. It is being said that this bmp mimics the minimum requirements of the EPA. How is it that I put out copies of the Las Vegas BMP and others (one of which is from Northern California) that have NO requirements for HOT water with no soap and yet this BMP still considers hot water the same as soap? The reason for that is because our cleaning REQUIRES hot water and the authors of the BMP know it. It effectively requires all of us to reclaim and the author has been informed of this fact, yet still leaves the hot water issue in the BMP.

    This could only mean two things.

    1) The bod is just trying do "something" because they think they are running out of time.

    or

    2) This is the beginning of a merge.

    Either way it's not good.

    Back to speechless.

    No merger, never even heard mention of it other that what Ron said to me about the PWNA needing to absorb the membership of the UAMCC over a year ago during the PWNA membership drive.

    As far as running out of time? Yes there were some time limits on getting this done and into print for the Houston showdown. From where I stand this BMP is not going to be the fix all cure all BUT if we are to be taken seriously as an industry we need to move into the future.

    Do I want hoses and **** running all over the place sucking crap up that I have to tote off and find somewhere to dump it legally all the while needing more licenses and certifications at my expense? NO!

    What this does do is act as a guideline for proper cleaning, most of the cosmetic cleaning for walkways can be done with only oil socks or at worse a sump pump to divert to grassy areas and at best we have to do nothing as long as it does not leave the property.

    What most fail to realize is that hot water is not that hot once it has become run off anyway, this is not measured at the hose but whats on the ground.

    I could go on and on but this is reasonable and easy to comply with as long as people dont read into whats NOT there.
    Last edited by Russ Spence; 07-15-2011 at 03:23 PM.

  • #18

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Quote Originally Posted by A-PLUS View Post
    Thad, your offer should of been jumped all over. I know we are friends, but more than that I respect as a man. You see the whole picture better than most I know. Any chance you would still be willing to help.
    Yes, I am.
    I had a long talk with Mike this week and it seems we're on the same page just maybe looking at it from different angles. I'll let him make the announcement. Talk to you Sunday.
    Thad Eckhoff
    Apex Services
    (601) 329-5819


  • #19

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Quote Originally Posted by Thad. View Post
    Yes, I am.
    I had a long talk with Mike this week and it seems we're on the same page just maybe looking at it from different angles. I'll let him make the announcement. Talk to you Sunday.
    Thad is a good mixture to have in with the other BOD's. Welcome aboard Thad if you become a UAMCC BOD. They/we can sure use your imput.

  • #20

    Default Re: UAMCC endorses Enviromental BMP

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Shelton View Post
    I haven't responded because I'm speechless. It is being said that this bmp mimics the minimum requirements of the EPA. How is it that I put out copies of the Las Vegas BMP and others (one of which is from Northern California) that have NO requirements for HOT water with no soap and yet this BMP still considers hot water the same as soap? The reason for that is because our cleaning REQUIRES hot water and the authors of the BMP know it. It effectively requires all of us to reclaim and the author has been informed of this fact, yet still leaves the hot water issue in the BMP.

    This could only mean two things.

    1) The bod is just trying do "something" because they think they are running out of time.

    or

    2) This is the beginning of a merge.

    Either way it's not good.

    Back to speechless.
    Tony, I think there is more to this than meets the eye...In a good way sort of. I still have full confidence in the Directors, and while a lot of Members might not like this move I still feel the BOD have the best interests of the Members at heart.

    The "Other Org." has been trying to get us to "Merge" with them for the last 2 years or better. I know that while I was a Director ALL of the other Directors were firmly against this idea, and truly hope they still are.

    I still believe that the UAMCC is the truest Contractor Org. and still stand behind the decisions (Even Though I might not agree totally) of our BOD.

    Kind of like my Wife. I might not like some of the things she does, but we're still together. :)

    Thad for what it's worth you know how I feel, you would be a great asset to the leadership of this (Or any other) Org.

  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

    Thread Information

    Users Browsing this Thread

    There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  
    Single Sign On provided by vBSSO