Good initial coverage (no doubt there’s more coming) from the Freeps on an Irene side-drama that has likely, collectively caused Vermonters’ eyes to start rolling.

The Vermont State Employees’ Association has filed a grievance against the state. They’re claiming that, according to their contract, 91 state employees are entitled to double-time when their work stations were relocated following Irene’s flooding.

The escalating rhetorical arms race is in play, with the state putting a potential pricetag on union demands of $1 million into the media, while the VSEA is indicating that more workers may yet be added to the grievance.

This is not a good fight for either side – and both sides should have done whatever it would’ve taken to avoid it, if they knew what was good for them. Both will end up looking diminished in the public’s eyes – even after this goes to the State Labor Relations Board, which (if the contract language is a s clear cut as it sounds) will inevitably side with the union.

First, the state (again from the Freeps report):

“When you have a complex that houses well over 1,000 employees that could be closed for a long time, that’s a situation not covered in the contract,” Spaulding said.

…”The idea that two employees would be paid 100 percent differently just because you used to be in Waterbury is nonsensical,” Spaulding said.

1. Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding earned a reputation as a steady hand on the financial wheel during his tenure as Treasurer, but for whatever reason he gets all sketchy when he has to deal with the State Employees union. I imagine he thinks he’s going all tough-guy in this latest episode, but he really isn’t.

I like Jeb, but somebody needs to tell him when somebody says “VSEA” in his presence, his face gets a little redder, his eyes open a little wider, and he starts sounding whiny and entitled. That’s what’s happening. It’s not pretty.

Bottom line: does the contract mandate this extra pay or not? Since nobody – not even Spaulding – seems to have made any attempt to dispute this (he’s just calling it stupid), I assume the answer is yes. Yes? Well, too bad for you, then, Mssrs. Spaulding and Shumlin. It may be “non-sensical,” but its nonsense you own. It’s your contract as much as theirs. Step up and take responsibility.

There’s no tough-guy cred to be won, here, there’s only antagonizing political allies and looking bad for the cameras.

Next comes the VSEA:

The grievance says the union approached the administration on Aug. 30, two days after the storm, about the need for official relocation letters. When a Sept. 7 meeting failed to resolve the issue, “Spaulding and Duffy then left the meeting saying the only thing they or the Governor would accept was a complete waiver of all contractual rights” related to emergency closures.

…Casey acknowledged that some union members had voiced disagreement with the leadership’s decision to file the grievance.

2. The VSEA’s Casey, on the other hand, acknowledged to the Free Press that he did not have unanimity on what was clearly going to be an emotional, high-profile battle. Bad move. You go into something like this with a united front, or you simply choose another battleground.

If you don’t have a united front, the clear alternative would’ve been to take your story to the media on your own terms to put pressure on the administration before resorting to a complaint. Pitch the story of the poor, hard-working employees who are being shutdown by the mean government. Go the “gosh, what can we do?” route. “We don’t want to file a grievance, but golly we may have to.” Then file in a couple weeks after the narrative has played out to your advantage, assuming the administration doesn’t relent.

Oops.

The media will now be scouring the rolls to find the VSEA rank and file who did not approve of going forward, and their voices will be magnified beyond all reason. The result will be a big black eye for a union whose power and influence has been teetering for some time – a black eye which will impact their public reputation.

With the breaking of this story, the VSEA already looks self-interested and (at worst) exploitative – like they’ve got a basement of gnomes on the job looking for contract loopholes to exploit in the post-Irene chaos.

This is not a battle that could end well for the VSEA in an era where unions need to pick and choose their battles very carefully and be sure they have the winning hand.

Seriously, kids (and I mean everybody, here). Whatever the merits of either side, you all need to step back a bit and consider how this is going to play out. Cutting off your noses to spite your faces doesn’t cover it.