Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Seriously, would you want to take this to a hearing AFTER the alleged public statement? It’s the epitome of unequal representation to benefit people who don’t personally suffer from it. It’s the kind of thing where you lose in the court of public opinion even if you sneak it by in a court of law on some technicality.
Enforcing the contract my @$$. Does anyone seriously believe if the company unilaterally declared 25% profit sharing the union would be fighting to ‘enforce the contract’ rather than taking the money and running? I say, take everything they give you AND everything you can negotiate, FOR EVERYBODY.
The first line in the main body paragraph you attached states, Your union has the duty to represent all employees. Not much of a technicality, this is where the argument simply falls flat on its face. The company (at least as of a 2 weeks ago) has not been willing to meet with the union on this subject, thus the union has been unable to represent them. Just stating law vs public opinion...nothing unequal here when they aren't even contacted before the company implements changes to the CBA.