Union logic

[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....