I didn’t think they were great or necessary, hence why I voted against one and didn’t second the other.
I didn't realize you were a delegate, that changes my reaction a little.
I don't want to get into a debate now; it won't change the vote and there's time enough before the next convention.
(Having said that I will proceed to get into a debate...)
I do think you're being a little myopic. I won't deny that the Slate Book extension was the catalyst for the amendments, that's obvious. But personally I was shocked when I realized that a contract extension wasn't subject to ratification already. (Of course, I then looked the case law further and discovered that
contract ratification itself isn't necessary or even binding on the parties, which makes this whole thing kind of moot. Democratic unionism is a thing that is very much not ubiquitous and is not protected by law.) To me this seems like something that should be part of our Constitution on general principle, regardless of the justification for why they did or didn't extend the contract in one specific instance or another.
But I can definitely see why that first proposal could be taken the way it was and voted down. What flabbergasts me is the fact that no one thought it would be a good idea to
ensure the membership are polled prior to opening negotiations. How else would a bargaining team know what to fight for and what to let go? How else would the membership feel that they were well-represented at the bargaining table? I freely admit that I'm new to the job and to the Union, and it's possible that every other contract negotiation has started out with a poll of the membership—in which case, why shouldn't we codify that practice?
Perhaps my experience with contract bargaining has been colored by talking with my family members about their bargaining struggles—they're in academia and not Federal employment—but I just don't understand what issue anyone could have with that second proposal. I would sincerely appreciate knowing what, if anything, you (or anyone else!) would change about it to make it acceptable, if you have the time to respond.
If you would, explain the timing of why the contract was extended.
I have heard some explanations about this, third-hand, and I accept them as justifiable. But that's the thing—I heard them third-hand and after the fact. We don't require member ratification on every single MOU the Union signs with the Agency, but for something as big as this I feel like the leadership should have to present their justification and thought process to the membership to approve... or not. Apparently the delegates didn't agree. Something to discuss in two years, perhaps.
