...make such an extra, editorial statement that is arguably partisan or pro-union, immediately following a long gag order period which forbid any statements at all (due to the risk such might entail), and prior to the parties having formally inked any agreement yet? Seems to me that would seem to be insane to risk, and to risk unecessarily...unless, perhaps, it was "necessary" to make, i.e., necessary to make ahead of the formal agreement, so as to perhaps distract attention from the actual, and possibly humbling, terms that the formal agreement may reveal that the union actually agreed to. It will be interesting to see. Perhaps, on the other hand, the union just plain out crushed VZ, as they said they would. But if so, hard to imagine how even the union would have wanted Secretary to make that statement before any agreement was formally inked.
3 replies (most recent on top)
qoa -- take a deep breath...it was an observational and analytical statement, not a statement that was in the least bit unhappy or intended to manipulate. Think about it qoa...if, and I say if, it turns out that the union accepted largely what was already in the LBFO, won't you then feel the Secretary's statement, not mine, was manipulative or intended to deceive?
You are a very unhappy creature that lives around bad news and wants others to have bad news all the time. This was not game of thrones, so a good out come is 35k apple go back to work, company start making money again, EWA go hug their families and customers start ordering FiOS again. Try be positive in life and theft months you have left will be fun
We shall see what the agreement contains. I wonder what would happen to a manager who gets the shaft by suddenly seeing his healthcare get jacked up, pension killed and wages cut- oh that's right the manager has 2 choices 1) take it in the hind quarters 2) leave. At least the union member has a 3rd choice which requires a spine and courage- that would be option 3) fight using the collective skills of 39,000 members.