Unions and management reached a tentative deal early Thursday, averting a freight railroad strike that had threatened to cripple US supply chains and push prices higher for many goods.
The union still has to vote on it, so I don't know why everyone is saying it's over and averted already.
It's a tough position to be in for union leadership. Striking means all the members won't be getting paid for an indeterminate amount of time and missing even a single paycheck, can lead to serious, perhaps even catastrophic, consequences to some member's lives. I personally think it should ALWAYS be up to rank and file to reject a deal prior to a strike.
Leadership's role in the negotiating room is to get the best contract that the cultural, political and financial environment allows. Their role is not to unitarily decide whether the deal is good enough. Of course there are common sense, "go fuck yourself, this isn't enough" stances that are perfectly appropriate for negotiators to adopt, say if an aspect of the deal is not ratifiable on its face, but if there's a strike on the horizon, membership should be deciding whether or not to turn the wheel and avoid the collision not leadership. The real power of the union is it's members and they should be making decisions, not leadership.
This can lengthen time lines and delay justice and get people seeing conspiracy where there isn't, but it's NECESSARY if you want the kind of union that doesn't end up with a boss tweed type calling the shots and enriching leaders at the expense of the members.
It's a tough position to be in for union leadership. Striking means all the members won't be getting paid for an indeterminate amount of time and missing even a single paycheck, can lead to serious, perhaps even catastrophic, consequences to some member's lives. I personally think it should ALWAYS be up to rank and file to reject a deal prior to a strike.
Leadership's role in the negotiating room is to get the best contract that the cultural, political and financial environment allows. Their role is not to unitarily decide whether the deal is good enough. Of course there are common sense, "go fuck yourself, this isn't enough" stances that are perfectly appropriate for negotiators to adopt, say if an aspect of the deal is not ratifiable on its face, but if there's a strike on the horizon, membership should be deciding whether or not to turn the wheel and avoid the collision not leadership. The real power of the union is it's members and they should be making decisions, not leadership.
This can lengthen time lines and delay justice and get people seeing conspiracy where there isn't, but it's NECESSARY if you want the kind of union that doesn't end up with a boss tweed type calling the shots and enriching leaders at the expense of the members.