Clinton Cops Sue City Because they Failed to Read the Contract.
A recent article in the Clinton Herald caught my eye. Police Sue City Over Pay Scale.
This story has caused soem strum and drang among both the CAVE dwellers and also among knucle-dragging conservatives who think that if unions are involved then the bedrock of liberty upon which our nation is founded is under existential threat.
Reading about the tortured nature of just performing the basics of self-governance in this city reminds me of Casey Stengal's famous lament from the dugout as manager of the 1962 Mets: "Can't anyone here play this game?"
Couple of things here. One, this has nothing to do with Fair Share. It is kind of sad how ignorant people are about how unions function -- I'm guilty of this myself, but then I can always ask a local Union Thug when I have a question. I say sad, considering that we owe most of the workplace related niceties that we take for granted to the hard work and suffering of union people in the past. Little things, like the 40-hour week, the minimum wage, workmen's compensation, basic workplace safety standards, stuff like that.
You know, it's funny but I've witnessed several occasions where one day a person would be all like, "Unions suck and are useless and drag down businesses and are good for nothing." Then a few weeks or days later that person gets a job that involves union membership -- and union wages -- and turns around and prays twice daily in the direction of the grave of John L. Lewis. Funny how a little cash and job security can change a guy's attitude, huh?
Secondly, it appears that this is a reasonable attempt to resolve a long-standing conflict between labor and management. The cops have been working without a contract for about nine months now. How long would people on this board prefer to work without a contract before taking steps to clarify things? If you were in the cops' place and could sue without loosing your job, would you? 'Vantage number two, said the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake .
What this story fairly screams to me is the usual sort of slipshod, oh-just-do-it-it's-good-enough, attitude that plagues public affairs at every level in Clinton. Didn't know the pay matrix was wrong when they signed the contract? WTF? How could you miss that? Asking the court to "to determine the true intent of the parties, and 'reform the contract to reflect the true intent and agreement of the parties?' " Oh, that's rich. That should work out just fine then.
Here is something the local cops and City Management might want to try after the judge wipes away the tears of mirth and with Solmonic (sic?) dispatch slices the baby in twain: read the freakin' contract before you ratify it!
The Clinton Police Bargaining Unit is suing the city of Clinton over the police department’s expired contract.
The contract was in effect from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006, and covered all sworn and non-sworn officers.
The bargaining unit contends that the pay matrix included in the contract was erroneous. The lawsuit alleges that neither the police nor the city were aware of the error when the contract was signed.
The collective bargaining agreement reflected in the contract was negotiated between the fall of 2001 and winter of 2002. Prior to the negotiations, officers were awarded a 4 percent pay increase for each promotion in rank and for each increase in “longevity.” “Longevity” is represented by incremental milestones for years of service (one, three, five, eight years, and so on).
During the negotiations, the bargaining unit and the city agreed on a 4.5 percent increase for each promotion in rank or increase in longevity. In addition, suit claims that the “negotiations that year revolved around a half percent increase to all rank and longevity positions.”
The suit alleges that the contract “fails to accurately relate or carry out the true intent or intended agreement of the parties.” It continues, “(The contract) as written fails to express the true agreement between the parties.”
The bargaining unit is asking the court to determine the true intent of the parties, and “reform the contract to reflect the true intent and agreement of the parties.”
The suit is also seeking “such other and further relief as is just and equitable in the premises.”
This story has caused soem strum and drang among both the CAVE dwellers and also among knucle-dragging conservatives who think that if unions are involved then the bedrock of liberty upon which our nation is founded is under existential threat.
Reading about the tortured nature of just performing the basics of self-governance in this city reminds me of Casey Stengal's famous lament from the dugout as manager of the 1962 Mets: "Can't anyone here play this game?"
Couple of things here. One, this has nothing to do with Fair Share. It is kind of sad how ignorant people are about how unions function -- I'm guilty of this myself, but then I can always ask a local Union Thug when I have a question. I say sad, considering that we owe most of the workplace related niceties that we take for granted to the hard work and suffering of union people in the past. Little things, like the 40-hour week, the minimum wage, workmen's compensation, basic workplace safety standards, stuff like that.
You know, it's funny but I've witnessed several occasions where one day a person would be all like, "Unions suck and are useless and drag down businesses and are good for nothing." Then a few weeks or days later that person gets a job that involves union membership -- and union wages -- and turns around and prays twice daily in the direction of the grave of John L. Lewis. Funny how a little cash and job security can change a guy's attitude, huh?
Secondly, it appears that this is a reasonable attempt to resolve a long-standing conflict between labor and management. The cops have been working without a contract for about nine months now. How long would people on this board prefer to work without a contract before taking steps to clarify things? If you were in the cops' place and could sue without loosing your job, would you? 'Vantage number two, said the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake .
What this story fairly screams to me is the usual sort of slipshod, oh-just-do-it-it's-good-enough, attitude that plagues public affairs at every level in Clinton. Didn't know the pay matrix was wrong when they signed the contract? WTF? How could you miss that? Asking the court to "to determine the true intent of the parties, and 'reform the contract to reflect the true intent and agreement of the parties?' " Oh, that's rich. That should work out just fine then.
Here is something the local cops and City Management might want to try after the judge wipes away the tears of mirth and with Solmonic (sic?) dispatch slices the baby in twain: read the freakin' contract before you ratify it!
Labels: Clinton


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home