OT: Having never worked a union job why is it that the contract has been expired 3 months before strikes are done?
To me letting the contract lapse is the companies way of saying they don’t want a union. ATT is always the same way too they work for months without a contract and then finally decide to strike. I would say no contract -no work right away no sway.
Union/Company negotiations are often long and drawn out with both sides trying to prove they aren’t afraid to walk away from the table so things drag on and on. But in reality neither side wants a strike. Strikes cost workers lost wages and many union workers live paycheck to paycheck so a strike can really hurt the workers. Likewise strikes cause companies bad publicity and can disrupt the business in lots of ways meaning lost profits.
So the goal of both sides is to appear like you are negotiating in earnest, that you are doing your very best, while not giving in on anything that matters. That often means keep working under the old contract while the negotiations are still going on.
[quote=moneymaker]xboxboy would it not be in both sides best interest to not let the contracts lapse in order to avoid a strike?[/quote]
A strike doesn’t occur just because the contract expires. Typically everything continues as if the contract is still in place. (There can be exceptions though.). In most cases it’s understood that the strike is truly the last resort, so it won’t happen until well after the contract is expired and all attempts to negotiate have proved unsuccessful.
.
