I'm a little mystified by the angry criticism directed to the Vermont State Employees' Association for standing up for its members and demanding that they be paid what they're entitled to under their contract. Whether it's the editorial pages of Vermont's newspapers, or even here, you see complaintsthat the move by the union is greedy, bad, or just bad politics.
It seems to me the critics are ignoring, or acknowledging and then immediately ignoring, some very important points:
1. The workers have a right under the contract to the pay they're asking for.
2. The union asked the state to take the precise action–declare an emergency reassignment plan that would have avoided this precise problem–and the state wasn't interested in doing it.
3. The union has a legal obligation to represent the workers and enforce their contract. The union could actually be liable to the workers if it refused to do so.
4. The union also has an obligation to protect the contract, so that it will be there to protect the workers not only in this immediate crisis, but in any future conflice with management.
Vermont state government, and local governments across the state are incurring huge expenses for flood recovery and reconstruction. Just yesterday the State estimated that cleanup costs could exceed $500 million, and that they don't know where the money is coming from.
Yet I haven't seen any calls for the excavators, backhoe operators, asphalt vendors, or other suppliers to donate their services, have you?
We support workers. When Bennington teachers stand up to the school board people around here are very enthusiastic.
It's not our fight, but that's the point. The workers have to stand up for themselves, and we should support them.
And it must be mentioned as well that, with organized labor under attack everywhere, (particularly state employees) there is an even greater urgency to hold the line.
Strange too that folks are all for Occupying Wall St., yet are giving aid and comfort to Shumlin’s efforts to weaken the VSEA. DUH……………..
I understand your point, but I think you are overreaching by a mile. The workers are being paid for their work and are not being asked to donate anything. At issue is a paperwork problem. As I understand it, the state didn’t file the correct paperwork to declare an emergency and relocate the workers, but of course at the time the state was struggling with a disaster and was in general disarray. The folks required to file that paperwork are human, just like the workers, and the workers should cut them some slack.
Yes, simply because of the missing paperwork the workers may have a legal right to overtime pay to do the work they would otherwise have been doing without the overtime pay, but it’s a request that smacks of greed and insensitivity. The workers and the union should be looking at the actual situation at the time of the missed paperwork, and the hardship (there may be one, but I haven’t seen any listed) inflicted upon the workers. Absent a legitimate need for the overtime the union and the workers should back off.
I’m a supporter of unions, but this issue is a silly point on which to stand ground. There are bigger and more important places to stand firm, and the union will need as many people in its corner as possible when those conflicts become manifest. They should give this one to common sense and the governor.
But I still think the Governor was out of line for attacking the nefarious 90 as a group. It smacks of his confidence that Vermont’s wealthy would have their feelings hurt if asked to pony up more state taxes, and his laughing at wealthy taxpayers who begged to differ. I guess if you’re not rich, how dare you ask for extra money from the state; if you’re rich, oh, sorry, we didn’t mean to imply that you couldn’t keep all of your hard-earned whatever.
What’s missing from all press accounts of the grievance fallout (sans Shay Totten on WDEV this morning) is that, on the Friday immediately following Irene, VSEA was standing on the Berlin Airport tarmac with the Governor, Sec’y of the Admin and the HR Commissioner, singing kumbaya and holding a side letter agreement that the two parties agreed to, allowing state employees “to freely volunteer to help the State and its citizens.” There was a smattering of press there, yet none of them wrote about the agreement and the collaberation early on between the State and VSEA. But these same reporters are all over the grievance issue. Apparently good news/cooperation doesn’t sell as many papers or bring in high ratings. It should have been clear from that conference that indeed discussions were occuring and progress was being made. Then it all went to hell when the State went public (the following week) to the newspapers complaining about the double-time issue and polluting the union in the process. No warning. Just a complete about-face by the State. Why? Good question.
This submission was written on a 15-minute break, which I am granted through my collective bargaining agreement.
The problem here is that, even in a collective bargaining scenario, there can and ought to be times when a party that has the “right” to do something nonetheless opts not to do so. If done properly, such behavior can buy good will from the other side for the next round of negotiating. And if the gesture isn’t sufficiently appreciated/reciprocated down the road, then you can make as much as hay as possible about the behavior then.
This was in a story in the Free Press.
Reed said the pricing has been fair, but doing a project on an expedited schedule does cost more – for material and labor – because contractors are paying overtime and materials are sometimes in short supply. “It’s a premium I think residents will be OK with us paying,” Reed said.
contractors are paying over time but that is ok with people in vermont?
“1. The workers have a right under the contract to the pay they’re asking for.” Maybe. No one is absolutely sure what the term “emergency” means as applied to this situation. That will be determined by review of the past emergencies covered and the notes the parties have related to when the term was placed in the contract.
“2. The union asked the state to take the precise action–declare an emergency reassignment plan that would have avoided this precise problem–and the state wasn’t interested in doing it.” Again, maybe. The administration was dealing with a set of problems which no one ever dreamed would happen. Who knows if the computer program that holds all the employee records was up and running at the time?
“3. The union has a legal obligation to represent the workers and enforce their contract. The union could actually be liable to the workers if it refused to do so.”
While technically probably true, any one who has been involved with union activities knows that union leaders many times find a better way to solve a problem than to file a grievance.
“4. The union also has an obligation to protect the contract, so that it will be there to protect the workers not only in this immediate crisis, but in any future conflice with management.” Great point and it may turn out to be the biggest problem for the union. When public opinion turns against a union it is very difficult to regain a psoitive opinion in the short run. When unions aleinate the management they do not necessarily help themselves.
Unions in the public sector operate in the world of public opinion and politics in general. It is amine field that needs careful passage to avoid greater problems. I support unions, but also support smart actions by them. Not so sure this is one of those.
Is there such a thing? Certainly not when you consider the Current Use program. The state does whatever it wants regardless of agreements.
I’m hearing a lot of liberal crap here about Union Workers needing to ‘be smart’ and ‘wait for the right time’ and act ‘in goodwill’ and behave ‘politely’ (bend over?) when they’re getting shafted. This shafting of Unions, The Working Class, The Working Poor, The Elderly, The Disabled, The Teachers, The Single Mothers, Migrant Workers, Gays, Blacks, The Pashtuns…has been going On and On AND ON. WHEN are people going to get their rights? HOW MUCH SHIT are people supposed to take?!!!
You Liberals just LOVE the Occupy Wall St. movement, and then you turn around and do the Wall Street Bastards’ dirty work for them.
This debate is showing that there are more than a few people on this site who believe in Peace WITHOUT JUSTICE. (Fuck Working People AND The Pashtuns–You Just Don’t Wanna Get Bombed!–FUCK YOU!)
It is ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL that there is ANY debate at all on this Union issue, or the one involving the Bennington teachers and the NEA. Yet, REPEATEDLY, I am hearing that the VSEA and the NEA are…what’s that Tea Party phrase?…oh yeah…UNION GREEDHEADS. UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!!! You make a VSEA member defend herself and her Union? Perhaps some of you would make GOOD DEFENSE LAWYERS FOR RAPISTS AND SERIAL KILLERS! This is the kind of SHIT that will put a NITWIT like Michele Bachman or that asshole Cain in the White House. Then WALL ST. will be able to start a small scale NUCLEAR WAR (just to thin out the surplus population) and you’ll be telling the victims to GET OVER IT.
As Harry Dean Stanton put it: “DILDO DIPSHIT ASSHOLES!!!”
My apologies to you, VSEAleslie, for what some folks here have been saying. I guess maybe some of them have INDEX STOCKS, or TRUST FUNDS, or maybe they’re just on the PAYROLL of the FEDERAL CORPORATE REICH.
Because PAID AGENTS OF THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY could not do a better job of undermining Unions and Workers than what some folks here have already done with their so-called commentary.
Now, go ahead, you fuckers. ATTACK ME. (God, I’m So Pissed) Give you something to do…and keep you from providing more AID AND COMFORT TO WALL ST. AND THE TEA PARTY!
Jesus Fucking Christ! Or is this one of those BACK IN HIGH SCHOOL nightmares?