Response to Scott's Corner post on "To Strike or not to Strike"

The commentary “To Strike or not to Strike” on Scott’s Corner provides a good perspective of the conflicts going on between the Capital Metro management and the union of workers. The author thoroughly explores the viewpoints from both sides and explains the explicit as well as implicit intents of the management and the union. All the aspects discussed are then put into the current context – the economic crisis in particular. The author’s suggestion that the union and the management should agree on a $1,000 bonus without a contract or with an addition of a 3% increase in the second year for a two-year contract is seemingly an intermediate option. Considering the current economic situation, where those who are getting laid off would rather take a pay cut, the above option seems reasonable. Also, since they are not committed for more than a year, they can renegotiate the terms at the end of a year when things could have improved. Also, like the author says, striking at this time is not the best course of action.

The current proposal seems to provide a good option but with a three year commitment. The current proposal is to provide $1,200 bonus in lieu of a raise for the first year, and then provide 3% raise for the second and third year. The catch here is that this raise does not come entirely at the beginning of the year but is broken down at every six months. That would mean that workers would get 1.5% raise every six months beginning from the second year. According to me, if the union is looking for a long term work commitment, the proposal from the management seems good, but if they want the ability to negotiate better pay once the economy improves, they should avoid getting into a three-year term, and try to negotiate something shorter.