Mar 10, 2010- 4:49 PM
It will have been, for some, an agonizing vote. The union leadership has clearly stated is does not recommend the offer, but is giving its members the opportunity to have their say.
For those strikers who are chomping at the bit to get back to work, they are likely willing to sign just about anything that will give them a reprieve from the strike that has endured eight months time.
And there are others who — even in the face of financial ruin — are steadfastly holding to “no concessions.” The choice to reject the offer will be easy.
And then there are others, and perhaps the majority, who are conflicted. How does one reconcile oneself to a contract many say is “insulting?” How does one not vote for a contract that will, at least, in some way, provide employment?
Will it be one day longer or will it be one day less?
It all depends on one’s perspective.
For those who want to “keep fighting the fight,” voting to turn down Vale’s offer means continuing to fight for the greater good of what the union’s brothers and sisters have fought to maintain over the generations.
But voting for the greater good may not match with the reality that things are only going to get worse for some pretty desperate people.
After union members have a chance to fully digest the contract — and give themselves the opportunity to put it into the personal context of their lives and their families’ lives — they will face the choice of voting for what they consider to be the greater good or the lesser bad.
This whole process begs the question: is it better or worse to fight for change on the outside, on a picket line, or to fight for change on the inside, while working on the job?
Either way, the working world has changed forever. And it’s high time to find a new way to negotiate with these new employers.
Wendy Bird is managing editor of Northern Life.
