Quote:
|
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.