Coming down to the wire

NEWSFLASH!!  Just as I was about to post the comments below, the email came to me from a delegate with the attached letter from the Chairs of the BPS All-Chairs, the OPS CERC, the CAAT A, and the CAAT S Divisions.  If you have not got it yet, be sure to read the letter from these leaders.  It speaks volumes and confirms the conclusion the Insider reached without being at the table as these respected members were.

Solidarity

Thanks to "Building a Stronger OPSEU" for the comments.  Easy to see that you're one of the anti-Smokey spin doctors.  I am not a spin doctor myself, but I can appreciate a good read.

I carefully examined your comment that I was finding more fault in the Pridham campaign than in the Thomas campaign.  You were quite right.  Could be a couple of reasons for that.  One is that there is more fault to find.  The other is that we are not looking hard enough.  I'll take a good close look at that to ensure fairness in the closing days.

You also say that this blog "heaped praise" on Jamie Tocker.  The only comment on Tocker's campaign was entitled "Jamie Who" - hardly an indicator of praise to follow!  Sure enough, the comment was on Tocker leaving his name out of his literature -- "a heap of praise."  We doubt Tocker thought so!

What I really want to thank "baso" for though is explaining the rationale for claiming that Thomas was in favour of framework agreements.  The Insider read the minutes of the Sept 13 Board meeting and came to the only logical conclusion.

• The government said it wanted framework agreements.
• In consultations with all unions, they would propose such agreements.
• On September 13, local presidents, CERC, MERC, DIVEX and Equity leaders were advised about the government's agenda.
• OPS, CAAT A, CAAT S, and the OPS said go to the consultations.  Corrections said no.
• The OPSEU Board voted to follow the members direction.
• The original Board motion to consult was silent on framework agreements.
• That silence left the door wide open to such framework agreements.
• The amendment to refuse any framework agreements unless the bargaining units voted for them, closed that wide open door.
• Those who voted against that amendment were re-opening the door to framework agreements, by removing the restriction.
• The OPSEU Board majority gave Thomas what he needed -- the way to say "NO" to framework agreements - which not coincidentally is exactly what happened. 

And if that was not enough, there are plenty of other logical signs:

Did the government offer OPSEU an OPS framework agreement?  YES

Did OPSEU ever offer the government any encouragement to further discuss framework agreements?  NO

Are there any OPSEU framework agreements?  NO

Are bargaining units getting zero and zero?  NO - 76.1% of OPSEU settlements exceed zero

The proof is in the pudding - so is the truth.

Solidarity