View Single Post
12-10-2012, 11:31 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
My point was that ONE of the points above should have forced the NHLPA to go back to it's membership and ask them if they really wanted to keep going on the path. Your point is that they can't keep running back and forth. My point is that a good union leadership understands the pressure points for their membership and doesn't commit them to actions without consulting them AT MAJOR JUNCTURES.

And my union just settled after striking, and four of my good friends were on the bargaining committee so I think I'm ok with how the collective bargaining process works.
I love the Internet game of I-know-more-about-stuff-than-you, but if having four friends who sat on a bargaining committee makes you smarter than me, then I am perfectly fine with that. The question was asked about the process. I've been in the process several times, augmented by lots of good training, so I responded about what I know. Feel free to doubt my bona fides.

My experience tells me that good union leadership outlines likely contingencies before the process starts. Consultations happen when unexpected events happen or when the process has broken down. It's not just about it being too onerous; it engenders doubt among the membership. It throws a wrench into bargaining. There are tremendous risks, and the likelihood of a positive payoff is slim.

MeHateHe is online now