It looks like we accepted the second contract offer with 67% in favor. I voted no. The only change I saw from the previous contract offer, which was terrible in my opinion [and was voted down] was that they added a $400 "signing bonus" [which will end up being about $250 after taxes, or did everybody forget the $1100 bribe to end the strike ended up being about $600?] and to make up for it turned the 30¢ raise into a 20¢ one. So what's different about it? We get $250 up front instead of slowly over the next 6 months. I don't know what we're so afraid of.
The bit I find personally insulting is that they could have given us a two-year offer instead of the three-year offer we got, which would have cost the state the massive sum of zero dollars. Instead, the next administration will be have an anti-transit policy towards the state's transit employees for the first half of the next term, whether they want it or not.
In better transit news, Peter McLaughlin's wife took the train downtown when she went into labor the other day. I like Rybak enough, but this is part of why I voted for McLaughlin. Sidenote: Whenever I hear Minneapolis heralded for electing a liberal mayor I always wonder if anybody remembers that he was the most conservative of the three main candidates.
Comments (2)
I joined the Clerical union at the U last week. I could have just been a non-voting member and had a "fair share" taken out of my paycheck, 85% of dues, but I signed the darn contract thing and am now a full due paying union, member. I seriously thought about not joining and saving my 10.00 a month since I am so poor, but my political (semi-socialist, yeah Zakcq) views made me join. But your post makes me feel a bit discouraged. . . maybe I should just take my name back and keep my money???
Posted by Anna | January 31, 2006 8:55 PM
Posted on January 31, 2006 20:55
definately not! i would have been furious if i wasn't a part of the process.
--------Posted by ryan | January 31, 2006 9:43 PM
Posted on January 31, 2006 21:43