Union logic

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/1071804.html

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/1071804.html

Not that I'm a union guy, but what does this have to do with the Union? The way I read it - there was an arbitrated dispute which resulted in the union being awarded this compensation:

In September, the racing board awarded the track 52 dates under the condition that state workers represented by AFSCME Local 1805 work 130 days at the track, due an arbitrator's prior decision back in September.

Sounds like the labor attorneys for Fairmount need to go back to Contract Negotiations 101.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Not that I'm a union guy, but what does this have to do with the Union? The way I read it - there was an arbitrated dispute which resulted in the union being awarded this compensation:

In September, the racing board awarded the track 52 dates under the condition that state workers represented by AFSCME Local 1805 work 130 days at the track, due an arbitrator's prior decision back in September.

Sounds like the labor attorneys for Fairmount need to go back to Contract Negotiations 101.

not in Chicago, IL, Homie don't play that way. When you have a Union that represents State employess and quite possibly the arbitrator who decided the case and also the employees who clerk, clean, fix and guard the building where the arbitration takes place, it's a stacked deck to say the least.

BTW I could care less about Fairmont personally and if it means these 6 State employees work three days instead of 75 or 53 it's all good!

[Rudeboyelvis]

Dell,
The vast majority of collective bargaining contract language is ambiguous on purpose - to protect both sides. And to your point, given the deck stacked against them, an arbitrator would usually side with the union, especially in the scenario you present.

However there almost always exists language that is hard and fast; that which pertains to wages, vacation time, vacation selection, sick leave, COLA adjustments in multi year contracts, etc.

For there to be no language to directly correlate wage schedules based upon a sliding scale relative to the total amount of racing days granted by the commission (the CBA predated the commission's assignment of racing days) seems foolhardy.

If the AFSCME bargaining agreement had binding language regarding the amount of racing dates vs. work days, there would be no leg to stand on in arbitration.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Dell,
The vast majority of collective bargaining contract language is ambiguous on purpose - to protect both sides. And to your point, given the deck stacked against them, an arbitrator would usually side with the union, especially in the scenario you present.

However there almost always exists language that is hard and fast; that which pertains to wages, vacation time, vacation selection, sick leave, COLA adjustments in multi year contracts, etc.

For there to be no language to directly correlate wage schedules based upon a sliding scale relative to the total amount of racing days granted by the commission (the CBA predated the commission's assignment of racing days) seems foolhardy.

If the AFSCME bargaining agreement had binding language regarding the amount of racing dates vs. work days, there would be no leg to stand on in arbitration.

they would have never signed it!
Possibly the only counter move Fairmont has is 'do' an a'la Arlington and start stacking up on fire insurance. The fact a track will basically shut down because of six jobs is 'poetic' justice.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

they would have never signed it!
Possibly the only counter move Fairmont has is 'do' an a'la Arlington and start stacking up on fire insurance. The fact a track will basically shut down because of six jobs is 'poetic' justice.

seriously, 6 jobs might be half the staff..what a joke. they are crying about a few days for 6 jobs. that must be a great track. yeah, unions are bad. everyone should get treated like they work at wal mart. it will be a great place to live in....

[Cannon Shell]

But the union representing state employees who work at the horse-racing track are not so sure this will be the end of it. They have been trying to secure 130 work days for six employees, but so far the Collinsville horse-racing track has balked because the Illinois Racing Board has only granted a maximum of 52 race dates at the track next season.

So you dont see a problem with the union wanting its workers to get 130 work days during a proposed 52 day meet? Regardless of the Arbitrators decision a union is supposed to look out for its members best interests which if it insists on 130 days wont be. Cause there wont hardly be any meet and then they will get three days.



In September, the racing board awarded the track 52 dates under the condition that state workers represented by AFSCME Local 1805 work 130 days at the track, due an arbitrator's prior decision back in September. Recent negotiations between the track and union has left a proposal for 75 working days during a 52-race season.

It sounds like the state (racing board) just passed the buck to the track and let them worry about the issue despite the fact these are state employees.


In Collinsville, Illinois Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association Executive Director Lanny Brooks said the union has declined 75 work dates in previous negotiations. He said he does not know about any other proposals.

"I don't know if they're doing that," Brooks said. "I had a conversation with one leading negotiator, and he told me early on everyone realized that 130 isn't the number, but 75 isn't the number."

So getting paid for 75 days when there is 52 days worth of work isnt enough?

Bowen said the major issue in arguing for more work days is that the state workers need to work 130 days, which is the same number of days they worked at the track last year, to receive health insurance coverage.

Again these are state employees, not Fairmont employees. Why Fairmont should be forced to spend the extra money so that state employees get health insurance is a good question.


"Again, we're offering up to 75 days of work for 52 days of live racing," he said. "We think it's extremely generous."

Most people would think the same especially when the alternative may be 3 days which would in effect probably be a 97% cut in pay.

[Rudeboyelvis]

I see a problem with leaving a loophole in a labor contract that would give a union this much leverage, at this stage of the game. That's all I'm pointing out -

Believe me, AFSCME realizes this and cannot and will not afford the negative pub they will get if they hold fast - they are simply trying to coerce every dime they can for their 6 members, which is their job... but if they want to be greedy, I'm sure the place can run just fine without them.

Because at the end of it all, the meet should go on with or without them.

It's not 1972 - regardless of how badassed organized labor is there, the economy is as bad as I can ever remember and frankly every job is valuable, whether a teller, hot dog concessionaire, or backstretch worker, AFSCME is doing nothing to feed my family.

If they caused me to lose my livelihood and the livelihood of hundreds of other individuals all because 6 overstuffed, overprivileged, state employees can't bilk unearned money from my employer I can honestly say that I'd not only cross their fucl<ing picket line, I'd spit in their faces as I did.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I see a problem with leaving a loophole in a labor contract that would give a union this much leverage, at this stage of the game. That's all I'm pointing out -

Believe me, AFSCME realizes this and cannot and will not afford the negative pub they will get if they hold fast - they are simply trying to coerce every dime they can for their 6 members, which is their job... but if they want to be greedy, I'm sure the place can run just fine without them.

Because at the end of it all, the meet should go on with or without them.

It's not 1972 - regardless of how badassed organized labor is there, the economy is as bad as I can ever remember and frankly every job is valuable, whether a teller, hot dog concessionaire, or backstretch worker, AFSCME is doing nothing to feed my family.

If they caused me to lose my livelihood and the livelihood of hundreds of other individuals all because 6 overstuffed, overprivileged, state employees can't bilk unearned money from my employer I can honestly say that I'd not only cross their fucl<ing picket line, I'd spit in their faces as I did.

Did you read the story? A meet most certainly will not go on without them if the racing board maintains its stance. If they dont get a deal done the meet is 3 days long. And being that 2 of them are stewards and one is the state vet some are necessary in order to run.

75 days of pay for 52 days of work. Only unions think this isnt a good deal especially in this economy.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I see a problem with leaving a loophole in a labor contract that would give a union this much leverage, at this stage of the game. That's all I'm pointing out -

Believe me, AFSCME realizes this and cannot and will not afford the negative pub they will get if they hold fast - they are simply trying to coerce every dime they can for their 6 members, which is their job... but if they want to be greedy, I'm sure the place can run just fine without them.

Because at the end of it all, the meet should go on with or without them.

It's not 1972 - regardless of how badassed organized labor is there, the economy is as bad as I can ever remember and frankly every job is valuable, whether a teller, hot dog concessionaire, or backstretch worker, AFSCME is doing nothing to feed my family.

If they caused me to lose my livelihood and the livelihood of hundreds of other individuals all because 6 overstuffed, overprivileged, state employees can't bilk unearned money from my employer I can honestly say that I'd not only cross their fucl<ing picket line, I'd spit in their faces as I did.

again this is IL you know where we have a JUNIOR U.S. Sen. leave to be Pres., a Gov. who gets indicted for 'selling' said seat to a cast of bidders, that include a U.S. Rep who's daddy had a bastard child and the blood of MLK on him, a sitting senator who's been given a pass after investigation because his knickname is tombstone?, a U.S. Chief of Staff who's alleged to have conspired to 'keep his seat warm' so he could be Pelosi? Rosty, Ryan, Rezko, Verdoliak, et al. You get the rest of the story. And it's friggin cold despite the microclimate effect of global warming....

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did you read the story? A meet most certainly will not go on without them if the racing board maintains its stance. If they dont get a deal done the meet is 3 days long. And being that 2 of them are stewards and one is the state vet some are necessary in order to run.

75 days of pay for 52 days of work. Only unions think this isnt a good deal especially in this economy.

Yup. Read the story. I'll recap it for you - It pointed out that there was a meeting yesterday to discuss this agreement because the current agreement is unacceptable by the union and if not resolved, as it stands, the commission will reduce the meet to 3 days.

Nowhere does it say that the racing commission can't or won't modify their stance, since the agreement, apparently, is between the state and the union, to get their nose out of the middle of it.
It doesn't mention the option of offering these 6 the balance of the days worked at other tracks throughout the year to get them to the 130 in their contract.
It doesn't even really give an explanation as to why, if the track took no part in the original agreement, they ought to be on the hook for paying state wages for work not performed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Yup. Read the story. I'll recap it for you - It pointed out that there was a meeting yesterday to discuss this agreement because the current agreement is unacceptable by the union and if not resolved, as it stands, the commission will reduce the meet to 3 days.

Nowhere does it say that the racing commission can't or won't modify their stance, since the agreement, apparently, is between the state and the union, to get their nose out of the middle of it.
It doesn't mention the option of offering these 6 the balance of the days worked at other tracks throughout the year to get them to the 130 in their contract.
It doesn't even really give an explanation as to why, if the track took no part in the original agreement, they ought to be on the hook for paying state wages for work not performed.

Exactly, it doesnt say that so why would it be so?

Where are Thoroughbred Stewards and a secretary going to make those days up? Dont you think the other tracks union employees arent already locked in there?

Perhaps you are reading it differently to come up with so many possible scenarios. It seems to me to be pretty cut and dry. The union either takes the 75 days or something close or they remain at a stalemate depending on the results of the hearing.

And the racing commission IS the state. The comments at the end of the story are from the Racing commission.

[Cannon Shell]

http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com...vj-park000.txt

This article better descibes the issue which is between the union and the state via the racing commission, not the track.

While the racing commission is being flippant in using the days as a negotiating tactic the union doesnt really have very much leverage here. Unions in hurting industries better get with the program or their members wont have any jobs. Very few unionized industries like the automakers will be propped up by the govt.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com...vj-park000.txt

This article better descibes the issue which is between the union and the state via the racing commission, not the track.

While the racing commission is being flippant in using the days as a negotiating tactic the union doesnt really have very much leverage here. Unions in hurting industries better get with the program or their members wont have any jobs. Very few unionized industries like the automakers will be propped up by the govt.

all i know is when i was working (sheetmetal). the building trades unions are different. i worked in a non union shop at first, when i got into the union my pay and benefits went up substantially. if i had to work in NYC or Conn. they paid me "rate" for that locals district, which is a hell of alot more than you'll make in upstate ny. in building trades the owners are all union or former union members. they have no qualms about paying their people and the companies are all making money. of course i've been retired for 5 years so i imagine they are hurting now because of the economy. i know some of these unions hurt business but before unions people worked everyday for whatever they could get. next weekend, thank the unions for such a thing. when your kid does not get his hand cut off in a machine at age 12 or 14 , again , thank the union. when people are able to negotiate a contract through "COLLECTIVE" bargaining, thank the unions. try getting a better deal from a non union shop by yourself. like my example, wal mart, non union, selling crap from china where "assistant managers" make about 9 bucks an hour. they are scared to death of the unions becuase they are getting away with modern day slavery. yeah, we get to pay a dollar ten for a widget, but what is the real cost to our society? take a look around, blue collar skilled work used to pay something. theres a reason unions are being demonized.

[dellinger63]

Just curious, I wonder how much Union pension money is invested in WalMart stock?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

all i know is when i was working (sheetmetal). the building trades unions are different. i worked in a non union shop at first, when i got into the union my pay and benefits went up substantially. if i had to work in NYC or Conn. they paid me "rate" for that locals district, which is a hell of alot more than you'll make in upstate ny. in building trades the owners are all union or former union members. they have no qualms about paying their people and the companies are all making money. of course i've been retired for 5 years so i imagine they are hurting now because of the economy. i know some of these unions hurt business but before unions people worked everyday for whatever they could get. next weekend, thank the unions for such a thing. when your kid does not get his hand cut off in a machine at age 12 or 14 , again , thank the union. when people are able to negotiate a contract through "COLLECTIVE" bargaining, thank the unions. try getting a better deal from a non union shop by yourself. like my example, wal mart, non union, selling crap from china where "assistant managers" make about 9 bucks an hour. they are scared to death of the unions becuase they are getting away with modern day slavery. yeah, we get to pay a dollar ten for a widget, but what is the real cost to our society? take a look around, blue collar skilled work used to pay something. theres a reason unions are being demonized.

Before unions? Like the 30's?

Like many things they were needed and useful at one time. However the role they play now is not what they were designed for and a lot of those jobs lost overseas were simply because unions demands were outrageous enough to encourage them to leave. Unions = great for the members, terrible for everyone else

[SCUDSBROTHER]

The meet should be about 3 days. If it was baseball, it'd be called "Half A" ball.