There have been a lot of concerns expressed to stewards about the intricacies of a potential strike. I understand the concerns, fears, and general insecurities about withholding one's services for a principle one feels strongly about. I hope to address all concerns in the near future, but in order to understand and truly have your concerns addressed, the bigger picture must be understood.
For many, their job is their livelihood. Whether it be for financial reasons, or pure job satisfaction, many Americans define themselves by their work and spend more time and energy for work than home life. Partly because of the current economic crisis and partly because of the economic system, we've become workers before anything else. Americans are the world's most productive.
Regardless of your political thoughts and feelings, to truly grasp the complexities of what's currently happening, you must pay attention to politics and analyze how these decisions and laws being made directly affect you. Gone are the days of when politics could be dismissed as irrelevant.
I want to preface the following explanation with the thought of WHY this information was not publicly broadcasted or widely distributed. Because we do NOT want to strike. Plain and simple. Resources were utilized in mobilization to prevent any need for rumblings of a strike. You don't spend months planning for a strike, or it will happen. You prepare for good-faith negotiations and educate your members and the public.
From the SEIU, local 668 Constitution, Article V(Membership Obligations), Section 5:
"All members shall participate in and/or assist in a duly called strike or other work action called for by their bargaining unit in accordance with this and/or the International Constitution."On the surface, this obligation may appear to leave you no choice. That is not the case. What must be considered is the actions preceding this point of the negotiating process. This can be found in the SEIU668 Constitution in Article XVI (Strikes).
Sections of importance in this article are:
"Section 1: In order to initiate a strike action against an Employer, a plurality vote is required from the membership of the affected bargaining unit. The plurality is determined from those voting. The vote shall be held by secret ballot at the shop level, at mass meetings held at convenient locations, or by direct member mailings. The results of such a vote shall be binding on the Negotiating Committee. The Negotiating Committee may be voted the right to call a strike or take other action at their discretion."
"Section 4: All actions and/or sanctions pertaining to strike violations shall be set by the Statewide Executive Board and implemented by the Secretary-Treasurer. The Statewide Executive Board must announce and make public sanctions and/or fines at least five (5) working days prior to expiration of the contract."Section 1 explains the requirement of "the vote" we've all heard about. Keeping in mind the mission of the Negotiating Committee is to get the best possible proposal for the membership, the vote will only occur if the Commonwealth gives a final offer. Meaning they are no longer willing to negotiate with the Union. It's important to note that the Commonwealth would be the initiating-power behind any strike. Good-faith negotiations can legally continue after the current contract expires and would result in the extension of the current contract until an agreement is made.
Section 4 explains the announcement requirements for any strike-related sanctions and/or fines. In short, I would not expect any specific direction in terms of strike procedures until then. Because, again, striking is not the goal of the negotiations.
If the members of the Negotiating Team exhaust their resources and the final offer is made by the Commonwealth, the vote to accept the final offer will be held. It's important to keep in mind when voting that the vote is not 'yes' or 'no' to strike or not; it's whether to accept the contract offer. The strike, or more practically the threat of one, is a negotiating tactic. A 'no' vote does not definitely mean a strike will occur on a specific date. It only validates the membership's commitment to do so.
A potential strike is much more effective than an actual strike. It also causes less stress in an extremely stressful situation. It is absolutely crucial that you spend time and think and discuss your personal circumstances before deciding which way to vote. I believe that Unions allow for democracy in the workplace. Under no circumstances should one vote for reasons they do not personally support. The core negotiating leverage we have is our numbers--the membership.
Solidarity unfortunately has become a slogan-term over the years. But when you honestly put aside all personal prejudices and beliefs, the power that comes from having close to 9,000 individuals be able to speak for one cause cannot be dismissed. It is undoubtedly more effective and beneficial than an individual negotiating their pay, benefits, safety, non-discrimination, law-compliance, personal health, etc.
That being said, it is imperative that if you vote NO to the final contract offer, you be prepared to strike. I understand the myriad of excuses and legitimate reasons why someone would not want to strike and also the other reasons why someone simply could not. If you have come to these or similar conclusions when it comes time to vote, your vote should be 'yes'-- you accept the terms of the proposal.
There's no room for moral votes. These are votes that promise action. It is counterproductive to the fundamental working structure of a union to vote one way and act another. Essentially, if you vote 'no' and cross the picket-line, your vote should have been 'yes.' It has nothing to do with personal feelings; it's the anonymous mathematical truths.
For example, out of 9000 individual votes 7000 votes are 'no.' As stated earlier, this vote does not imminently result in a strike. At this point, it gives the Negotiating Team the leverage of 7,000 workers striking and causing operations to stop. That alone could soften the Commonwealth's position on certain terms of the contract.
The Commonwealth would then either accept or reject our proposal. If rejected and a strike occurs, the 7000 must then back up their votes with action and participate in a strike. If not, that will leave their fellow members, who do strike, out in the cold. While also leaving the Union with little-to-no negotiating leverage.
If only 2000 of the 7000 strike, operations can continue, making the strike ineffective. The 5000, in this scenario, who voted 'no'--they would not accept the terms of the contract, then accepted them, do the plurality vote process no justice; rather injustice for those properly orchestrating the system in place.
I personally have no problem either way, as long as the decision is made by voters who are informed. If the majority of the membership wants to accept:
- 4% rollback of wages, essentially giving back something we negotiated and received in a previous contract;
- increases in healthcare premiums, co-pays, deductibles,while at the same time allowing the Commonwealth to continue to look for cheaper insurance.
- Potentially 5 unpaid days (rolling furloughs)
- Decrease in sick days from 13 to 8 (another 5 unpaid days)
- Elimination of personal days (another 4 unpaid days)
- Forgiving the $780M debt of the loan given from healthcare fund in 09, resulting in the members having to pay it back
- Etc...
Hopefully this explanation will assist you in becoming as familiar and informed about a very important vote that will set the stage for the countdown to the next contract. Any concessions we make in 2011 changes the status quo. In 2014, we could be making what we were making in 2010.
If we allow cutting wages and increasing healthcare costs to be easy targets, they will continually be attacked. If the economy doesn't increase the rate of recovery dramatically, in 2014 they could be asking for another 4 percent. Then what?
