'Structurally deficient bridges'

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Leftwith]

Whatever.

 

[Uninformed]

Here is one example mentioned in the Boston Herald:


But also tucked into the language of the bill is outside section 6, which changes state law to authorize “evergreen clauses” in collective bargaining agreements.

Until last year such clauses were routinely included in those contracts. They ensured that the terms of an expired agreement would remain in full effect while labor and management negotiated a new deal.

And it sounds harmless enough, but those clauses also ensured that unions that couldn’t come to terms with management had no immediate incentive to sit down at the bargaining table. Hey, what’s the rush? Their pay and benefits couldn’t be cut, they still had the right to file grievances against management, and they were in line for big retroactive checks once a deal was finally hammered out.

But in 2010 the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that evergreen clauses were in conflict with state law, which limits collective bargaining agreements to three years. Labor and management could extend those terms (and they have done so since the SJC ruling), but only by mutual agreement, and only for a limited period of time.

And there things stood, until Patrick apparently decided that public employee unions in Massachusetts were once again deserving of special attention. Not only is he seeking to revive the use of the evergreen clauses, but he would also allow their enforcement retroactively — to any contract in place at the time of the SJC ruling that wasn’t already the subject of court proceedin

 

[AustinTejasFan]

"This is kind of post is getting absolutely ******* pathetic. "

FIFY