Rauner taking final swing at AFSCME
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I’m not sure if Rauner’s claim of “record levels” is accurate, but his claim is just one more example of how the governor’s term is not ending like he’d hoped….
* The governor was asked if he had expected any sort of unionization bump after the Janus decision…
The issue of unit clarification is in no way related to Janus, completely different issue. Completely different process, no relation. Unit clarification is a problem of financial incentives and conflicts of interest with folks who looking out for their best economic interest who are managers have joined a union, been pushed to join a union. Basically economically extorted to join a union, um, uh, illegally.
That’s, Janus has nothing to do with that, Janus is just giving people a choice, um, about whether to join a union or not.
This is about having managers who it’s illegal for them to be in a union, join the union for political purposes to get the union support for financial, for contributions for elections and other political support. Prior governors pushed this level of unionization of managers. And it cost taxpayers significant amount of money because of the conflicts between managers and with the union that they are supposed to be on the opposite side of the table from.
Apparently, the governor has a ton of unit clarification cases before the Illinois Labor Board to kick people out of bargaining units.
* I asked AFSCME Council 31 for a response to the governor’s comments…
A unit clarification petition is filed with the state labor board in order to determine whether newly created job titles are eligible for union representation, or whether such determinations made previously are correct (e.g., if a job title was excluded from collective bargaining, a union could later use the unit clarification process to present evidence that in practice the duties of that title should not exclude it from representation).
In recent months the Rauner administration has brought an unprecedented avalanche of unit clarification petitions in a transparent attempt to strip the rights of large numbers of state workers. The first salvo of these petitions, targeting members of unions such as the Nurses and others who represent smaller numbers of state employees, was brought on the very day of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rauner’s anti-union Janus case. The second salvo launched in July and August included no fewer than 136 separate unit clarification petitions targeting more than 1,000 positions represented by AFSCME.
Our union contract has specific language to enable labor and management to jointly address such questions as they relate to the employer’s legitimate operational needs. The Rauner administration failed to engage the union in this contractual process, suggesting that they are more interested in achieving a political goal of stripping workers’ rights and not at all interested in solving real problems together. AFSCME has filed a grievance over the administration’s failure to follow the contract in this respect.
Many of the Rauner petitions filed with the labor board included no factual justification for their attempt to remove employees from the union. AFSCME has filed responses to every one of the Rauner petitions, which have now been assigned to administrative law judges who will schedule hearings where AFSCME members will be prepared to present evidence that their job duties do not merit exclusion from the bargaining unit.
Make no mistake, Bruce Rauner’s attempts to manipulate the unit clarification process to strip more than 1,000 AFSCME members of their right to collective bargaining is just another ploy to silence working people and weaken unions like ours that stand up to his harmful and destructive schemes. For more than three years in office he never raised an issue with the job titles he’s now targeting; like the failed anti-worker governors of Michigan and Wisconsin who were likewise defeated by the voters, Rauner is simply trying do as much damage as possible to working people before he’s drummed out the door. We’re going to keep standing up for public service workers and their right to a strong union to represent them.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:27 pm:
“Basically economically extorted” You mean they wanted more pay for the work they do? Color me shocked.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:29 pm:
Blago shipped all kinds of state jobs to Chicago and essentially drove state employees to unions.
- @misterjayem - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:32 pm:
“Unionization within state government in IL is at record levels…”
Well, it’s official: By any standard, including his own, Bruce Rauner’s term as governor was a complete and utter failure.
– MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:32 pm:
It’s all Rauner has left.
What a sad man. It’s a wonder people liked him at all given his distain for people..
- NotRich - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
wait till BVR experiences the power of labor in Italy AND THEIR PENSION SYSTEM>>>>
- Whatever - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:37 pm:
The “economic extortion” was Blago’s (and then Quinn’s) policy of not giving pay raises to merit comp. Joining the union was the only way for someone without any clout to get a raise. There were a lot of managers who were getting paid less than the people they supervised. At first, Blago’s administration pretty much let anyone in who asked, but not long before his arrest, top management got them to change the policy because it was beginning to look like everyone except the agency director was going to be union. Quinn got legislation passed that expressly kicked a lot of job descriptions out of the union (such as legislative liaisons, if you can believe Blago actually let them join). Rauner continued the no raises policy, but by then nearly everyone who could unionize had done so, and the stalemated AFSCME negotiations made it less attractive anyway.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:39 pm:
=== illegally ===
Typical Rauner hyperbolic baloney.
Blago did allow a lot of managers and MCs to unionize. Quinn even pushed back on the expansion.
Seeing that I tried to join. At the time, MC salaries were frozen for years. Actually, MCs also lost money because of furloughs.
I can’t wait until Rauner goes to Italy.
- Butch O'Hare - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:41 pm:
OW
Rauner has about $1 bil in personal wealth left. I think he will still be active in trying to shape policy after he leaves office.
He leaves without scandal or indictment. Get used to him. He’s going to be around a while.
- Not a Superstar - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:42 pm:
Back to “Bruce’s Greatest Hits.” I’m waiting to hear *Hotel California.* In all seriousness, he cannot leave the stage too soon.
- NotRich - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:44 pm:
B O’Hare: He is leaving office with about 30 some percent of the vote..Conservatives despise him, whose “policy” is he going to shape? Raunerism?? Really??
- dominionhinny - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:47 pm:
Well, Butch O’Hare, we can only hope Gov Junk remains as impotent and incompetent as he has these last four years then.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:47 pm:
===I think he will still be active in trying to shape policy after he leaves office.===
Yeah, go with that, lol
Rauner has no constituency, was thoroughly embarrassed with the worst incumbent loss in a a century.
No one listened to him in November, whon is gonna listen to him now? The Illinois Senate Republicans? Doubtful. Rauner stiffed then.
===He leaves without scandal or indictment.===
… and no constituency, and no mandate to lead… anything.
Raunerism failed. Imploded.
===Get used to him. He’s going to be around a while.===
You could say the same about Quinn. Congratulations.
LOL
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:48 pm:
So Rauner admitted he failed miserably at union-busting? Did he and the IPI really think workers were going to leave the union so they could be whacked by privileged plutocrats? It shows how out of touch these people are, and no Carhartt or flannel shirt could disguise it.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:49 pm:
Rauner gave state workers a choice that only Mark jAnus fell for - suffer, or join AFSCME. That’s why state workers are more unionized than before. Illinois citizens employed by their state government worked without a union contract. They didn’t receive raises. They were herded into questionaires posing as a helpful suggestion box. They faced offices without money, supplies or personnel.
Rauner was a governor who hated governments or governing. He was a governor like Typhoid Mary was a nurse - fatal.
- Mod Dem - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:50 pm:
The point is valid that too many titles are in the union which shouldn’t be. The results is basically only the most senior managers can remove poor performing union members and their responsibilities are too broad to spend time doing progressive discipline on a single employee. I would very much like to know the attrition rate of the poorest performing union members in the State. My prediction is that it is no high/lower than any other performer.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:50 pm:
Could Pritzker withdraw any pending cases after being sworn in?
- Butch O'Hare - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:51 pm:
He can be a constituency of one and still have $1 billion dollars.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:52 pm:
I don’t know if 93% is correct but that number is way up there.
As for his “illegal” comments, there was nothing illegal about it. That’s just more hyperbole from him. I agree those individuals shouldn’t be in the union but it wasn’t done illegally.
As for the exclusion petitions, many of those are on positions that should legitimately be excluded from the union. PSA managers should have never been put into the union in the first place. Same with attorney’s.
All that being said, Rauner is leaving office holding on to his anti-union beliefs as tight as he did when he came into office. The man despises unions. Unfortunately for the Governor the voters rejected his beliefs.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:54 pm:
–“Unionization within state government in IL is at record levels…”–
Heckuva job, Rauny.
I guess those who joined the unions on your watch were just exercising their First Amendment rights.
And that’s what you were trying to protect, correct?
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:54 pm:
==Rauner: “Prior governors pushed this level of unionization of managers.”==
And yet, you (Rauner), managed to exceed their efforts. Wow.
In Rauner’s mind, workers are forced into unions. He supports Janus, wins, and…wait for it…instead of workers leaving unions, more join.
What have we learned? Workers join unions to get a fair wage, reasonable working conditions, and a stable job situation. Rauner comes in, threatens those three things, and guess what? The unions grow. Go figure.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:54 pm:
===He can be a constituency of one and still have $1 billion dollars.===
What a sad indictment of a man…
…once a governor, with only a constituency of himself now, and his money.
Thanks, this helped. I feel better.
:)
- Perrid - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:55 pm:
So this quote
“The first salvo of these petitions … was brought on the very day of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rauner’s anti-union Janus case.”
and this quote
“The issue of unit clarification is in no way related to Janus, completely different issue.”
seem to be mutually exclusive.
- NotRich - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:57 pm:
If he has a billion dollars why didn’t he spend it to make his case and win the election??
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 1:59 pm:
Burst the bubble. Hundreds of supervisory/managerial positions are in AFSCME and should not be. These individuals responsibilities include interview/selection, evaluation/discipline, assignment of duties/overtime, control daily of processes, and creation and review procedural documentation. Either you are a supervisor/manager or you are a working level employee represented by the AFSCME. AFSCME in turn protects their members from supervisory and or managerial abuse.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:02 pm:
Not even Janus can appease his obsession with union destruction.
- Jocko - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:05 pm:
==Basically economically extorted to join a union==
Incentivized, economically extorted. Potato, potahto.
- Nick - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:06 pm:
Isn’t there something filed against teamsters regarding job classification. Whether they technical positions or not
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:06 pm:
If you’re gonna fail for the first time ever, you may as well do so epically.
- Robert the 1st - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:07 pm:
All the money in the world can’t win some elections. Beto taught us that.
- LW - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:08 pm:
Or for that matter, pay the union what the courts said he owes them?
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:09 pm:
And you know that the Janus decision wasn’t the big win he thought it would be as far as state employees goes. If it was he would have been shouting out the numbers of the masses of people leaving the union. The fact that he hasn’t held a rally about it tells me he didn’t get what he wanted out of Janus.
- Gracchus - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:13 pm:
Do not underestimate him. He can still finance right wing anti-union “think tanks” like the Manhattan Institute and the IPI
. He will be out for payback since he realizes that labor played a large part in his defeat and failure.
- Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:13 pm:
Rainer is correct in stating that some management positions have been unionized and their effectiveness as managers reduced. He had 4 years to slog through this problem.
He failed in this area as well.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
Mod Dem, I absolutely agree that we need to have the correct jobs in the union. But that’s why it needs to be a fair objective process about deriving that. Right now Rauner is spending a fortune (your tax dollars) in private lawyers billing the state to do this work. A thousand positions? He’s trying a different agle at union busting. Plus here’s the unintended consequence. No one is going to want to do certain middle management jobs because they know it won’t make economic sense for them to take it. My current Human Services Casework Manager only took the position a few years ago because it was in the union. He is thinking about just going back to caseworker if they bring him out. Why go through the horror if you’re never going to get a raise and you lose your grievance rights and protections. Forget it. I would never take that job.
No what Rauner is doing is again perfidious. He thinks that he can just pull people out and claim victory.
Look, JB can’t get here fast enough.
We must halt the collapse of the State workforce
- Real - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
Do not underestimate him. He can still finance right wing anti-union “think tanks” like the Manhattan Institute and the IPI
-
Rauner is already an old man and Pritzker will most likely be in office for 8 years. So the soonest Rauner can do anything is 10 years from now when he is a 72 year old man.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:18 pm:
The union has to convert 4 fair share payers to full dues-paying members for every 1 that doesn’t join the union to break even financially.
- Nick Name - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:18 pm:
You’d think he’d want to go out on a high note, show a little magnanimity, but no.
===The Rauner administration failed to engage the union in this contractual process===
My way or the highway. I’m shocked.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:22 pm:
===Do not underestimate him. He can still finance right wing anti-union “think tanks” like the Manhattan Institute and the IPI
. He will be out for payback since he realizes that labor played a large part in his defeat and failure.===
Rauner has no constituency, people rejected his messsge. Spending money when no one is buying… Rauner is a sad little man, angry, as you said, and as a constituency of one, what kind of man, a former governor, is so small that even being humiliated is the enough of a rejection. Yikes.
===All the money in the world can’t win some elections.===
Rauner is unlikeable. That matters in moving politics and policy.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:26 pm:
==Do not underestimate him==
It’s hard not to given his 4 year tenure as Governor. I don’t think he could have been any more underwhelming.
Also, I can’t imagine he’s going to be pouring a lot of money into anything anytime soon. He didn’t go all out this last election with his personal fortune. I don’t see him giving up wads of his money on much of anything related to Illinois politics anytime soon.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:30 pm:
Vanilla, your smart phone autocorrect function works in mysterious ways.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:30 pm:
==Rauner has about $1 bil in personal wealth left. I think he will still be active in trying to shape policy after he leaves office.==
He’s not actively trying to shape policy *now*.
==He leaves without scandal==
Raise that flag outside the veterans’ home in Quincy and see who salutes.
C’mon, look at his body language. That’s a bitter man. He’s as done with IL politics as it is with him.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:34 pm:
===He leaves without scandal or indictment.=== Indictment, I’ll agree with. Scandal? The back porch was awfully smelly, Quincy was certainly not a resume-builder either. And then there’s Sterigenics. Shall I go on?
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:34 pm:
==I don’t see him giving up wads of his money on much of anything related to Illinois politics anytime soon.==
Especially since Jeanne Ives and Dan Proft are now apparently the leaders to follow for majority of IL gop voters. Best Rauner can do is prop up Durkin and Schneider in their futile attempt to slow the hostile takeover coming from the trumpettes, why would he waste his fortune trying to do that?
- Reserved - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:38 pm:
This post seems to sum up the Rauner tenure perfectly, find an problem with a legitimate bipartisan concern about and just go completely overboard and alienate just about everyone including those who agreed there was a concern.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:39 pm:
“The union has to convert 4 fair share payers […] to break even financially.” And? One full member has to join for every 1 that leaves to break even. For every tax dollar that gets cut, it has to raise another to break even. Hurray for arithmetic. It’s like magic, isn’t it?
- Gallactic Cupcake - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:42 pm:
For a union hater, Italy is a weird retirement venue.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:43 pm:
===He leaves without scandal===
The families of the victims of Quincy appreciate that you measure Rauner by his own monies.
I’m glad others called this out. This is not a messaging issues or a brand issue, it’s a character issue…
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:45 pm:
==Italy is a weird retirement venue==
Italy doesn’t pay its debts. He’s drawn to that sort of thinking.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:46 pm:
I have mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand, PSA managers were sometimes making less than the employees they managed. I still see this with some SPSA’s today. So they sought union membership for better pay.
On the other hand, when PSA’s became unionized, seniority played a much larger part in who received vacant positions than it should have. So you had some very poor managers in PSA management positions based on having the most seniority above other criteria such as education or actual skills. This has a ripple effect of shrinking your pool of potential SPSA’s since PSA is a steppingstone to SPSA.
But unions aren’t perfect and that one issue hasn’t stopped me from being a member.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 2:48 pm:
==Italy is a weird retirement venue==
Sounds pretty good to me.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:01 pm:
Rauner wasted $95 million if not more of his own money trying to break AFSCME (Illinois Sunshine website). That is hysterical.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:20 pm:
==The union has to convert 4 fair share payers==
Yeah, I’ve been trying to figure out that math as well. I can see possibly a 1.5 to 1 ratio but I have no idea the back of the napkin analysis that went into that 4 to 1 number.
- Duke of Normandy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:29 pm:
Maybe some jobs shouldn’t be in the union, and there’s a fair argument to be made there. I don’t think this is the time for any union to have that conversation, though. Methinks there’s already enough fronts to the war, let’s not open another.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:31 pm:
Trying to take the lowest level working supervisors out is just more blatant union-busting.
We don’t want it. We voted it out.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:36 pm:
“I’ve been trying to figure out that math as well.” I think his argument is that, for example, a full member pays $100 and a fair share member pays $75, then four $75 people would have to start paying $100 to make up for losing one $100 person, as if this shows that the union is in some sort of a perilous position that the loss of one person will send it spiraling down the drain. Ridiculous, I know, but I think that’s what he’s saying.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:47 pm:
Again, there is no more fair share payer.
Janus took that away.
City Zen’s argument is mute.
We hardly had anyone leave the union. New employees join as fast as they can.
Rauner failed
As a matter of fact
Rauner is the dark savior of labor.
Only Rauner could have united us in opposition.
The greatest unintended consequence of the century
The Second Coming of Labor
plus
History will only record the exploits of Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
Janus took away the name Rauner.
Rauner will have no legacy
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 3:51 pm:
==The union has to convert 4 fair share payers==
That’s just the IPI wihizzing down its leg. No matter how sliced, if Rauner is right about percentage, it’s a union success given the circumstances of the Janus decision.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:03 pm:
Bad bosses build unions.
Rauner got union membership to its highest level in history.
That’s how bad he was.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:09 pm:
==The union has to convert 4 fair share payers to full dues-paying members for every 1 that doesn’t join the union to break even financially. ==
Not sure about your math, but the point is moot because membership grew. Per Rauner: “Unionization within state government in IL is at record levels…93%” Instead of inspiring members to leave and fair-share folks to drop, BR’s efforrts had the opposite effect. AFSCME, et.al, are stronger than ever.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:10 pm:
When someone asked me about Rauner leaving office soon, I told them that I haven’t been this happy in years. Now I know how BVR felt during the impasse…minus the billion dollars in the bank
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:10 pm:
This guy cannot get out of office fast enough.
Is it January yet?
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:24 pm:
It’s sick, Rauner’s hatred of unionized government workers, while having profited off of their pensions for decades.
- X - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:36 pm:
Rauner hates unions, even unions outside of his jurisdiction. However, he appointed people into double exempt high paying positions who did not well represent the job given. At all. For example, placing people with zero managerial background as chiefs of staffs of large agencies. If you’re going to make someone chief of staff of a technologically based agency, for example, make sure that they have A) managerial background, B) a technology background, C) can at least turn on a computer or D) use basic functions of Microsoft Office, E) can remain calm and intelligent under stress. While many appointees were indeed qualified, some over qualified for their positions, the high paying positions of those who were grossly under-qualified is one large piece of the Rauner failure puzzle. Decisions were made on whim and emotions with little thought to long-term outcomes. I encourage the Pritzer Administration to be more thoughtful in filling these high paying double exempt positions, as doing otherwise, mocks the system. Even without the AFSCME hypocrisy.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:39 pm:
==The union has to convert 4 fair share payers==
==Yeah, I’ve been trying to figure out that math as well.==
How much did a fair-share dues payer pay? Let’s assume 80% of what a full dues paying member pays.
100 full members @ $100 = $10,000 plus
5 fair share payers @ $80 = $400
$10,400 total dues revenue
1 fair share payer leaves entirely, 4 sign-on as full members.
104 full members @ $100 = $10,400 plus
0 fair share payers @ $80 = $0
$10,400 total dues revenue
There’s your break-even ratio.
==City Zen’s argument is mute.==
Yet troo.
- Saul to Paul - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 4:45 pm:
What good is joining the union as a new state worker if the pension and health benefits aren’t gonna be there when you need them.
Go to the contractor/vendor side of things,you do work you can enjoy with the risk of checks bouncing when you retire.
- Covert - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 5:18 pm:
Indeed, many supervisory positions should NOT be in
the Union. It presents a conflict of interest.
- Question More - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 5:23 pm:
Many supervisory positions should not be in the Union. It is a conflict of interest.
- Whatever - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 6:02 pm:
==Many supervisory positions should not be in the Union. It is a conflict of interest. ==
I hear that all the time, but no one has ever been able to tell me what the conflict is. Being in a union does not mean you have some kind of interest in the people you supervise that conflicts with your obligation to the employer, even if they are in the same union. Wanting to increase your job security, working conditions, pay and benefits does put you in conflict with your employer, but that conflict is always present for all employees.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 6:23 pm:
== no one has ever been able to tell me what the conflict is==
The main was is the ability of a supervisor to discipline an employee. Union supervisors cannot discipline union employees.
- Whatever - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 8:14 pm:
==Union supervisors cannot discipline union employees.==
Says who? The collective bargaining agreement? There is an easy cure for that.
- walker - Wednesday, Dec 12, 18 @ 10:05 pm:
Recent governors created the “economic extortion“ that drove these employees to choose union membership. Just bad management — as usual.
- Covert - Thursday, Dec 13, 18 @ 4:41 am:
Some incompetent supervisors who were promoted simply because of seniority abuse union members with the support of cms and the union. You can’t make this stuff up.
- Steward As Well..... - Thursday, Dec 13, 18 @ 8:04 am:
There is good and bad in everything. It is the nature of life itself. Now if I have to address a “problem” union brother or sister who is not performing his job whether it’s for management or pertaining to subordinates that person gets the talk. Follow the contract, perform your job or you are going to have trouble from both sides. Quite simple really.
- Haymarket51 - Friday, Dec 14, 18 @ 12:16 pm:
Thanks AFSCME for your great response and continuing the fight for workers rights.