Regarding the "Most Favored Nation" clause

Buzz · January 04, 2011, 03:29:26 AM

Some of our members, particularly the anti-incumbents factions, seem to be suffering undue consternation over the "Most Favored Nation" clause in our contract. Essentially, all this clause does is prevent 1181 from organizing a bus company contracted with the DoE by agreeing to lesser pay or benefits than other 1181, DoE-contracted companies currently have.

How this prevents the union from doing so is thus: If the union were to enter into such an agreement they would have to let other contractors renegotiate their contracts with the union to the terms that are more favorable to themselves. The union would never do this, for obvious reasons, but the contractors wanted that clause in there for reassurance.

Why, you ask? You have to realize that outside of NYC, 1181 contracts with individual school districts and each one may have different rates of pay and benefits, and few, if any, fare as well as we do. Contractors here just wanted to make sure that the same would not be done with other companies who contract with the DoE. That's all.

It's as simple as that. There is nothing sinister or diabolical about it. It has nothing to do with bids, and it does not rewrite the Mollen agreement. It does protect the contractors, but not without first protecting us.

If you have heard explanations other than this, it is for one of two reasons: (1) The person talking to you does not understand what the clause means, or (2) that person was intentionally trying to deceive you to suit their own agenda.

John Eadicicco · January 05, 2011, 05:33:01 PM

Buzz, where did you get this information from?

Buzz · January 05, 2011, 06:57:03 PM

Welcome to the new forum, John.

Quote from: John Eadicicco on January 05, 2011, 05:33:01 PM
Buzz, where did you get this information from?

From reading the MOA that we were all sent months ago, plus Eddie has explained this in the drivers room several times.

John Eadicicco · January 06, 2011, 03:11:58 PM

Buzz, your interpertation of the clause is "cloudy" at best! WHY in God's name would a local sign up NOT to organize companies doing Bd. of Ed work? Who are we PROTECTING with this clause? Guys like the owner of Island Charter? That is how a union becomes STRONGER! The old 'Axion' Strength in numbers!............................. 1181 has numerous companies it represents that do NOT work for the same rate of pay and benefits that 'WE' drivers doing bd. of ed. work in NYC enjoy. That doesn't mean they cannot join 1181!.......................Para-Transit and Long Island companies, that are 1181 members do NOT receive same rate of pay that we enjoy, but they are still a part of our local and we negoiate there contracts SEPERATELY!...................Besides a pay increase, which we have received in every negoiated contract that I have worked under in over 20 years in 1181, PLEASE tell me what is BENEFICIAL in this new contract?

Buzz · January 06, 2011, 06:02:30 PM

John, they haven't agreed not to organize, they agreed not to organize by compromising the pay and benefits enjoyed by other members working in NYC for companies that do DoE work. If this clause were not in there and 1181 started organizing companies at, say $15 an hour, what do you think OUR chances would be of getting a raise in our next contract? Next to none, for sure. NYC's 1181 workforce is separate and apart from those outside the city. To divide the members within the same workforce would only depreciate our value and ability to negotiate for better. You cannot pit union member against union member doing the same NYC DoE work against one another. The results would be disastrous and a net loss to all.

What's beneficial about the new contract? Look at your pay stub next week and get back to me.

Cheers.

mirrorcheck · January 07, 2011, 01:41:02 AM

Buzz....I was just about to ask you about this comment:
"Why, you ask? You have to realize that outside of NYC, 1181 contracts with individual school districts and each one may have different rates of pay and benefits, and few, if any, fare as well as we do. Contractors here just wanted to make sure that the same would not be done with other companies who contract with the DoE. That's all."

You answered with:

"they haven't agreed not to organize, they agreed not to organize by compromising the pay and benefits......To divide the members within the same workforce would only depreciate our value and ability to negotiate for better. "
I appreciate you translating the language in the contract about this. I was told by someone a different definition and meaning. This however is a more favorable the what I orginally thought.

On the flip side, Buzz to your knowledge was there any language in the Contracts with the DOE and the Contractors Guaranteeing "X" amount of union working Companies(1181) or Capping any work out to Non-union companies. The more concerning issue is the "alarming growth...like weeds" of Non union contractors.

Buzz · January 07, 2011, 02:55:06 AM

Quote from: mirrorcheck on January 07, 2011, 01:41:02 AMOn the flip side, Buzz to your knowledge was there any language in the Contracts with the DOE and the Contractors Guaranteeing "X" amount of union working Companies(1181) or Capping any work out to Non-union companies. The more concerning issue is the "alarming growth...like weeds" of Non union contractors.

Nope. The DoE can give new work to any company they want, union or not. 1181 has nothing to say about it.

mirrorcheck · January 08, 2011, 07:05:12 PM

Thanks Buzz....I guess the struggle will continue.