Originally Posted by
Raging white
Come on Dude. Your point that 60% voted for it is specious. They voted for it because they were told hiring could be imminent, that this was a fleeting opportunity to get rid of RJs, etc etc. At least stipulate that the displacements were far from the 60%'s expectations and that the lack of hiring might have ****ed off a few folks.
You can't sell something as a peach and then blame the buyer for not knowing its a lemon.
RW,
Its always "buyer beware," its up to us individual voters to read whats available, consult with others and than make a decision. I don't want to believe that people would vote yes, based solely on the premise that hiring would take place. Every voter has to decide for themselves if the contract meets the expectations that they have, than we have to live with the results.