Why I should vote YES:
-Because, according to my union president, this is the best deal we’ll see.
-I keep my overtime and summer pay as is.
-Because a large part of the contract remains unchanged and we’re not giving up as much as we are getting; so says my union president.
-Because it would bring a steady paycheck through 2018.
-Because my insurance will not go up that much.
-Because merit pay is not really merit pay; so says my union president.
-So my union president does not have to worry about a NO vote.
-To avoid any possible embarrassment in a few months; so says my union president.
-Because it will put an end to this once and for all.
-Because my union president paints a bleak picture otherwise.
-To get my ballot in the mail so it counts.
Why I can’t vote YES:
-I’ve not been given enough time to consider the pros and cons of this deal.
-I have not seen the exact language that will appear in the new contract.
-I have no control over the so-called MOU’s that will get ironed out after the fact.
-the mayor is bullying us to do it.
-Our local union reps were not part of the negotiations.
-I’ve been told the truth, but gut feeling tells me not all the truth.
-So I can ask more questions.
-I’m only postponing the inevitable until 2018.
-Because I was told “the contract sucks”, but it’s the best we’ll get.
-No chance for gender-neutral language in the contract.
-No major reform to a very old and outdated contract.
Why I should vote NO:
-To send a strong message to the mayor that says ‘don’t play me like this!’
-To send a strong message to my union president that says ‘don’t play me like this!’
-To send a strong message to our CPS brothers and sisters that says ‘I got your back!’
-To fight the local, state, and national attacks on unions.
-To send a strong message to my local union brothers and sisters that says ‘I want to see a great contract, not bullet points!”
-To simply request more time to make a thoughtful decision.
-To tell our chancellor and our board, “This is not a game and I elect to not be a pawn in your power plays. This is my livelihood, my career, my passion and treat it as such.”
-To hold my union president accountable and have him do what we elected him to do come negotiation time.
-Because I don’t want the mayor and his puppets to think I’m like a dog that comes running when he snaps his fingers.
-Because the contract has been due for a major overhaul for the past 20 years or so and now is the time to do it.
-To get my ballot in the mail so it counts.
Why I can’t vote NO:
-I want unity, not political chaos.
-I want the political disruptions to stop.
-I don’t want my local union leaders to be dragged around by the chancellor’s hired lawyers.
-The students are more important than my ideals.
-My colleagues that vote yes are more important that my ideals.
-I have others that depend on my paycheck.
-I don’t want to pay higher insurance fees.
-I’ll be grandfathered into some, not all, of the old language in the contract; so says my union president.
-No risk of a strike through 2018.
-Wait to really reform the contract in 2018.
-I may be making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.
The Harold Lounge 
Well done, Realist. I love this post.
My feelings, exactly.
Well done. I believe this captures what every fair-minded person is thinking right now.
I agree with what you’re thinking but I have to say that the contract is creating a disapparate existing versus new hire structure which clearly is used to destroy the union from within. (Look at the current labor environment at Caterpillar as an example.)
If you’d don’t believe me than, here’s what we have straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth.
” – Lanes: This was to be a topic for a future meeting on implementation. We understand there has been confusion on this point: We can commit to the fact that current employees would stay in the current lane system, with the new lane system applying to new employees.”
Its a divide and conquer Trojan horse to make the contract look better that is actually is.
Also don’t forget we simply do not have a contract in front of us to review all we have is a list of “promises” most of which are not even clearly fleshed out by either party.
I agree with this.
I also think the Professionals and especially Part Time Professionals are getting hosed (again), at least from the very little information I’ve heard on their deals.
Finally, one last point that isn’t on the Realist’s list: I would have been very proud and impressed with our Union leadership if they said, “Oh, you want a deal, do you? Let’s bring CCCLOC in, too. You want student success pay in our contract? Then let’s make sure that the other half of the people teaching our students have livable wages and benefits and a pathway to career stability. You make a deal with them, too. That’s our condition.
As one of the part-timers in CCCLOC, I appreciate your publicly stated support. I hope all of the full-timers can stand with us during our on-going negotiations with CCC.
Thanks….YES…..What about our professional sisters and brothers? They get nothing. Would we, again, ask those who receive nothing to stand against this contract on behalf of a few? Our adjuncts? are starving. We are short handed in every department. Our adjunct turn over rate affects everything.
Personally in my fantasy land, I’d rather see a contract that included fair promotion policies to ensure a hiring process for long term highly qualified adjuncts into full time positions. However, CCCLOC was established as with most other adjunct unions, they were established as separate entities. To me, as an adjunct at that time, I saw this is a huge blunder and now I still believe that to be true.
As for this 1600 contract, voting no will cause great anguish to our adjuncts if worse comes to worse eg. 2004, as they 1) have their daily attendance taken by administrators, 2) have student attendance counted every session, 3) receive conflicting messages about what to do from administration and FT faculty, 4) try to explain to students why FT are not in the building. Any possible strike places our adjuncts between a rock and a hard place. Who do they support? Hey, been there. done that in 2004, we lost good people who supported the FT cause and suffered for it….Could I put my adjuncts in the same position?
I should also mention that the 1708 contract negotiations took two years to negotiate and will be revisited in a year, I am told? What happened here?
It took 4 years to recover from 2004. Maybe you weren’t there……..be grateful you missed it.
Thanks for the concern about our colleagues Philo Dave. This is exactly what has been on my mind.
Peace
Whoever is out there downrating the post and comments, you should know that Realist has merely compiled the positions of people as stated at yesterday’s meeting and in various related posts.
Whether s/he feels equally committed to all of them, I don’t know, but it shows that s/he has, at least, been listening to the positions and thoughts of colleagues and recognizing them as reasonable.
Personally, I very much appreciate the thoroughness and generosity (and accuracy) shown by The Realist in compiling this. Use it as you will–dismiss the points that you find to be irrelevant or untrue or inaccurate, but I think it’s disingenuous not to acknowledge the service and usefulness of the compilation.
At least explain yourself…
Hey Everyone, If you are still looking at this post…There is an article in today’s Sun-Times about the contract.