If there is language in an article that is along the lines of "until the expiration of the agreement", does that mean that whatever is contained in that article is no longer legally binding once a contract expires? I feel like that should be obvious, but my union rep seems to think that's not the case. I do know that terms and conditions of a CBA are to continue under an expired contract (besides strikes/lockouts) but if that language lives in the document, then is that how an employer can get around maintaining whatever benefit it's tied to?
I feel like I read a labornotes article that spoke to this but I CANNOT find it. If anyone can help I would be grateful!
Thanks for that, I think from here on out we are.going to try and pre write a bunch of arguments and will show them to our rep and making a point to tell him beforehand during caucus is a good idea if anything comes up mid bargaining.
I think I just realized, management hasn't put down any proposals really besides a couple, probably so that they can whittle us down to nothing and never be accused of regressive bargaining. Like I think all they've really put down is labor relations committee and will probably put lockout strike down. Our rep included the strike clause in the set of proposals that WE were going to introduce until I said "um, that goes against all morals and dignity I have, if it's introduced they have to introduce it" then he told us that he didn't realize that it wasn't already on the table
I have one question about regressive bargaining which i think i kinda mentioned before. We put down an article yesterday; they struck out a ton of language and included some new stuff and were told that managers have sole discretion to bargain the location of the workplace so put that in, and we ended up countering some other language but left that part alone and our rep only included like half of what we thought he was.going to add so I personally was surprised when he passed out the rewritten proposal. Can we now go back and strike out all of that language? We wouldn't be changing the initial proposal to something more robust but just fighting their position after we already submitted a counter
The time to "correct" your rep's mistake is immediately. If you wait on it, it will be easier to call it regressive and/or bad faith. Management is usually very condescending and I've seen them pull that kind of thing before. They would say things like, "we forgot to include these important changes, please excuse us for not including them initially" and then shrug when there are more questions.
I would also say that it's strange that your rep is just taking notes or whatever and then making the changes and submitting them without review. It is normal for the BC to write its own counters and share them with the committee before submitting.
It is also normal for management to do basically nothing except wait for your proposals and then strike language and add their own. Delays are good for management. It's in your interest to submit your initial proposals as quickly as possible, though of course not rushing it and forgetting anything important. Then it's up to management to show movement. They will usually drag their feet and you can use this as a way to start getting membership pumped to strike. Unless your rep fucks up and lowballs wages etc I would be surprised if management offered more than 2% raises. They may not offer anything at all on that before you need to strike.
If it's helpful I'll outline the basic structure of an ideal contract negotiation. The ideal BC will create strong initial proposals, submit them quickly, not bargain against themselves, get early TAs on the boilerplate stuff (e.g. grievance procedures), and then focus almost entirely on preparing membership to do actions (you can and should do actions before striking) in support of your demands, including demands to bargain, for management to move on your proposals, etc. The BC will identify the key brass tacks around which to message, namely wages, benefits, and one or two salient issues that membership cares a lot about. When there's little left to bargain except those things, you prepare to strike, loudly. Management may move at that point with some counters on those brass tacks. That's when you write your numbers on signs and actually strike. Now membership expects those numbers and wants nothing less (though they might accept a little less and still be very happy). Then it's all up to your ability to grind the company to a halt until they capitulate and you claim victory.
The only reason to not do it this way is if your union is weak, low engagement, nobody wants to strike. But it sounds like you are actually in a fairly strong position.
Dang I thought I wrote a reply to this buy I think it got deleted!
Since these edits were made at pretty much the last 2 hours of bargaining, do you think it would be too much trouble to try and tell them that we don't accept any of their language and we continue to argue our original proposal? I realize that a good 4-6 people would quit, if we did they would be unable to adequately train up new hires so I figure that's pretty good ammunition if they were going to call that regressive. My manager could not even finish the training for my position lol
Yes that is fine so long as you make up some kind of semi-valid excuse. You can't publicly blame your rep since they're on your side but you can say it was sent erroneously due to a miscommunication and attempt the bargaining version of a take-backsy (lol). Management might make it an unpleasant experience but due to the time frame it is not egregious, particularly as this is a new bargaining unit. Regressive bargaining is doing something like adding a brand new, significant demand to an article after both sides have been compromising on it.
It will 100% undermine your rep internally though so I recommend using this as a way to reign them in and say, "stop doing this stuff without us". Of course, you'd want to present this to the rep idea as a unified group and with a respectful framing.