It occurs to me that if the information in the leaflet is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) than it would be very simple to have a injunction put against the ratification vote for the contract. All it would take would be for someone to complain to the NLRB and/or file a writ with a Federal Judge. This would stop the implementation of the new contract. The down side is you then would have the Feds checking out all of what happened at the negotiations (possible bribery, threats, etc.), and possibly more (though they do this anyway most of the surveillance they do is illegal). The up-side is that we would send the parties to re-negotiate a more viable and fair contract, and a few could possibly go to jail (hey, how much would you pay to see Dan meet his new boyfriend in a Federal lockup somewhere??).
Another possible avenue is that everyone use the aformentioned LOU and demand that they too be paid as much as the highest steady crane driver. To deny out of hand would be discriminatory in nature and a contract violation. Not to mention all the lawsuits that this could generate. The old practice of illegal payments was never fully brought out into the light of day. By the implimentation of this LOU (in conjunction with the discrimination clause of the PCLCD and laws on the books now dealing with discrimination) by let’s say a few thousand longshoreman up and down the coast file at the LRC level. This would bring this shit to an abrupt stop!! They could not stop it, for to do so would put the PMA and the member companies at an exteme risk for litigation.
Or you could just vote NO!!!!!!!
Tim 35181
