I don't know what to believe...

I'm really confused about union negotiation shit at work, right now. I think that I'm not allowed to go into details because it would violate labor laws or something, but suffice it to say that I don't really buy into gloom and doom on one side (union) combined with whining about money (employer) on the other.

So far, I've believed everything that I'm told by my union leaders. But tonight, after an executive board meeting (I'm on the board - new, one month so far), I was talking to a retired coworker about how the proposed changes to the contract (a really BIG DEAL) would possibly affect retirees' health benefits -- if they get them from the employer. Turns out that he didn't have enough time in to be a retiree w/employer provided medical, so it's not his concern. But he does, however, maintain friends with a person in management HR, who has told him all kinds of awful anti-unionist stuff. I tried to counter it with all kinds of anti-establishment stuff. And we both hung up upset and unhappy.

And so I got to thinking. He urged me to question my sources and their motives. Well, honestly, I'm just believing what I'm being told by my union's leaders -- I don't really have any other sources. And I'll bet you money that the manager he was talking to is in the same exact position I am (believing what she's told by her group's leaders). And I'll bet that the truth of the matter is somewhere in between. Why the hell can't people just say what's what and lay out all the cards on the table, eh?

Now, as a side note, I also (and so are others) am keenly aware that it's pretty good to have a job with benefits of any kind in the current economy -- it's definitely an employer's market. Which is also a factor in how these negotiations are going and just does nothing to help the position of the union trying to negotiate a fair (not bonus, but not crap -- fair) contract for the next three years. What happens when we have a crappy 3 year contract, a loss of excellent medical insurance (although the remaining insurance is fine as long as you're always healthy -- so, better than nothing), greater employee turnover due to unhappiness and hostile work conditions, and the inability to attract, hire and retain the gifted workers that the employer used to be known for? They've all been jumping ship and moving to private industry because the pay and benefits are better (including retirement -- the current retirement plan is utterly unremarkable). So there's really no reason for amazing people to come work here. They can get emotionally abused, paid below their market value and be not well covered for health care. Yay.

Then again, are we whiney? Do we have room to complain? I have to ask these questions knowing that two friends of mine are currently unemployed and have been unable to get work in their fields. If it's really so bad, then why aren't I out there papering the town for a new job?

The truth of the matter is that I like my job and just don't really want anything to change (hey, I was 4 weeks late being born -- I come around, it's just slowly -- I have to thoroughly process all of the potentialities surrounding an event). But that's a whole other blog, trust me, and it's also not particularly pretty (mostly lots of me whining about the "good ol' days" interspersed with excited speculation on what I'll do after I get my degree -- a little schizo). Anyway, my headaches are thus:

I had a big paragraph here describing what my have been too much detail. Suffice it to say that the employer says there's not enough money and the union says they pitched a contract that would save mucho, mucho moolah by making sacrifices in places other than the medical insurance and the employer refused it which means that it must be about stuff other than money.

But my retired friend tells me to question the source. I say the same back to him. I have figures from our early negotiations that my union has divulged to its members (and publicly on its website) and states that it got those figures from the employer, so of course they're not fabricated. The employer doesn't (and I believe cannot due to labor laws) say anything except that they don't have money. So, if money's really the issue, then why did they turn down a cost-saving contract?

But wait... How do I know that it's truly a cost-saving contract? I haven't inspected those particular figures, myself. I don't know if an external auditor has inspected those figures and confirms my union's assessment. Maybe this is being spun to me? I can't talk directly to the employer about any of it (again, something about violating labor laws).

This sucks. I hate not being able to get accurate, reliable data. I'm a very information-oriented person. And I hate divisiveness. I don't like "us and them." We're all in this ship together and if we plot a good course and hold steady in the storm then there will be riches for all. We need to all make decisions and perform actions with a universal set of ideologies and goals -- and if one area makes sacrifices, then every area needs to. No big raises for the highest paid folks after layoffs of lower paid workers. I mean, if there's no money then there's no money. At the same time, no demands and threats if the lifestream (main funding source) is really critically running toward the red. I just want to identify the issues, look at facts, compromise where necessary, meet in the middle and solve the freakin' problem. At the same time, I am fine with a hierarchal setting where less authority and responsibility = less pay and more authority and responsibility = more pay. I just don't think that decimating economies is very responsible, so therefore doesn't merit more pay.

But I am a problem solving, analytical, informational, transparent person who detests subterfuge and who has never been able to really understand or play the games. I never made it in cliques as a kid because I just didn't get it -- I don't always cue on subtext and it can take a lot of reflection in order for me to perceive beyond what's presented (if you haven't figured it out, yet, I'm really a WSIWYG kind of person and take everyone else at face value because, really, what else is there if you don't know someone deeply and personally?). Mostly, I process verbally (can you tell by the volume of words I require?) -- talking it out with others who have diverse and similar perspectives so that I can more thoroughly understand situations or problems. But this situation just completely defies my sensibilities. I'm lost. And I still want to go into politics locally at some point because I'm under the delusion that I really can be an honest politician (of course, I may not get voted in just for that reason...). But that's another whole other blog.

I suspect that no one's quite speaking honestly, which may just turn this whole issue into a big debacle-fest of who can hold out longest and be more convincingly self-righteous while everyone basically suffers, although at this point, I would honor whatever decisions are made by the union leadership in negotiation -- including not crossing picket lines if it comes to that.

Dammit. I don't know what to believe...