CBA Contract vote

[idea0001]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

In November the union body will be voting on a new contract with our company. If we vote no on the new contract, are we also voting for a strike or is a strike vote seperate?

If the company "lockes us out", can we apply for unemployment?

Thanks

[eerelations]

What did your union say when you asked it these questions?

[justalayman]

any union or contract I have dealt with required a separate strike vote. Voting the contract down is simply put; not accepting that contract, nothing more.

Of course, if there is something in your current contract that states differently, then that is what it is.

[racer72]

As specified by the NLRB rules, the vote to authorize a strike and the vote to accept or reject the contract will be separate. It is possible, it happened with my employer and union in 1998, to vote to reject a contract but not authorize a strike. Yes, you can apply for unemployment if you are locked out, it does not mean it will be granted though.

[gmcgann]

I just went through this a my company. The ratification and strike votes are separate, but if yo reject the contract the only leverage you have to force the company back to the table is a strike. If you do not strike, then the contract goes into effect without being ratified. This is called "backing into a contract."

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by gmcgann

I just went through this a my company. The ratification and strike votes are separate, but if yo reject the contract the only leverage you have to force the company back to the table is a strike. If you do not strike, then the contract goes into effect without being ratified. This is called "backing into a contract."

no, you are wrong. A contract, if required to be ratified, it cannot "go into effect" unless it is ratified. What the next step is dependent on the requirements of existing/expiring contract, and how everybody wants to deal with things.

I can assure you that a new contract will not take effect until it is either ratified or some clause in some contract somewhere states that it takes effect without ratification.

Basically, if the contract is not ratified, the parties have several choices;

extend the existing/expiring contract
stop working until a contract is accepted (strike)
continue to work without a contract

just so you are aware, there are situations where there is no strike allowed. There are actions put into place if they cannot agree to a contract that will force some form of contract on to them but it is not up to either party as to the details.

[racer72]

Originally Posted by justalayman

no, you are wrong. A contract, if required to be ratified, it cannot "go into effect" unless it is ratified. What the next step is dependent on the requirements of existing/expiring contract, and how everybody wants to deal with things.

I can assure you that a new contract will not take effect until it is either ratified or some clause in some contract somewhere states that it takes effect without ratification.

Basically, if the contract is not ratified, the parties have several choices;

extend the existing/expiring contract
stop working until a contract is accepted (strike)
continue to work without a contract

just so you are aware, there are situations where there is no strike allowed. There are actions put into place if they cannot agree to a contract that will force some form of contract on to them but it is not up to either party as to the details.

Not true. What this happened to gmcgann is the same thing that happened to me in my post. In my case, 66% of the membership voted to reject the contract but only 58% voted to authorize a strike. The strike vote required a 60% supermajority. This meant the new contract was automatically accepted. We backed into the new contract.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by racer72

Not true. What this happened to gmcgann is the same thing that happened to me in my post. In my case, 66% of the membership voted to reject the contract but only 58% voted to authorize a strike. The strike vote required a 60% supermajority. This meant the new contract was automatically accepted. We backed into the new contract.

then there had to be verbiage that would direct such an action. Having been a member of about a half dozen different unions and being involved with about 20 contracts, I can assure you that unless there is something that directs such an action, it will not happen.

it does not happen simply based on just the actions you presented or the other guy presented. There is no "automatic acceptance" only by virtue of failing to ratify a contract combined with a failure to support a strike vote.

there is more within your contract that apparently controlled the acceptance based on the situation you were faced with.

as such, unless that verbiage is included in either the contract or your unions bylaws, the new contract will not take effect unless ratified.

and further, in my current position, if we vote a contract down, we cannot strike but the proposed contract still does not take effect.

[idea0001]

Okey then, it takes two seperate votes. one to turn down the contract and another vote to strike. Just a few more questions.

If the company "locks us out", can they still call in "scabs", to work my job?
If we go on strike, then settle after some time, do i have the right to get my job back from the "scab"?

[justalayman]

If the company "locks us out", can they still call in "scabs", to work my job?

do you mean they actually prevented you from entering the site to work? Then they would be in disagreement with the NLRA and charges should be filed with the NLRB.

If we go on strike, then settle after some time, do i have the right to get my job back from the "scab"?

that is a negotiated point

[idea0001]

No, they have not locked us out yet. If we vote no for the first package that the company presents, i assume that one of their options would be to lock us out and then call in "scabs" to take our jobs. If they do lock us out it seems that they would be forcing us to strike.

[justalayman]

Are things this bad that the company may lock you out if a contract is not agreed upon? I have been around and involved with labor agreements for most of my life. I have seen many times where a contract was not agreed to before the old contract expires. Both sides can agree to continue to work under the old contract indefinitely or either side can invoke a job action (strike/lock out).

You do not have to strike if they lock you out. In fact, it can be a bad move.

I also have to say that most strikes I have seen hurt both parties and often, a great amount. There has rarely been a "winner" in the resulting settlement.

here is a link to an article that speaks of lockouts and replacement workers. Quite interesting.

[url=http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1518]unbossed.com » A WARN-ing to employers who lock out workers[/url]