Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2010, 01:49 PM
Rudeboyelvis Rudeboyelvis is offline
Belmont Park
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,440
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-04-2010, 02:33 PM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-04-2010, 04:56 PM
johnny pinwheel johnny pinwheel is offline
Woodbine
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: saratoga ny
Posts: 986
Default

Quote:
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....
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.