Local 100 Ratifies Contract. Why?
Isn't it amazing that the members of Local 100 voted to ratify the contract offer they had previously rejected? Why vote 'yes' on a re-vote if the answer was 'no' the first time?Union leader Roger Toussaint got what he wanted but I think the Local 100 membership was short-changed. Unfortunately, they did it to themselves on the second vote. Here are some points I want to make:
- They effectively gave up their right to vote by voting a second time on the same issue. Toussaint did not like the outcome of the first vote, so he had a second vote. Is he going to do this with every issue that comes up for a vote? What about the next election for union leadership? If he loses, will he insist on more re-votes, until he is declared the winner?
- The MTA is insisting that the re-vote results are meaningless and are pushing for arbitration. This was made clear before the re-vote actually took place. The Local 100 leadership is pressing for this contract to be accepted by the MTA anyway. Are they (both Local 100 and the MTA) not embarrassed in the least about how they handled this contract from before the strike to present day?
- The MTA's position to go to binding arbitration is merely a smoke and mirrors magic act. In reality they really want this contract. They know that if they go to binding arbitration that anything can happen. The last contracts that went to binding arbitration went the MTA's way. They know that their number is up on the next one. Their public position now is simply to save face. (Remember the politics and ego I wrote about in the last post?) Privately, they want this contract in a bad way.
posted by Slim @ 2:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home