Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Luas strike general thread (mandatory: read warning in post #1)

Options
1…4849505153

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So I have now asked you the same questions more than once and you are not answering them. I'll repost them a final time, asking you to give them a go one more time, and if not, they're plenty visible for all to see.


    For many of us, this is quite simply an example of abuse of a system set up to help workers to achieve fairness. It reflects woefully on SIPTU and the drivers themselves that they have initiated action off the back of such ludicrous pay claims.

    It is almost incredible in an Industrial Relations dispute that the public at large have sympathy for the organisation, and not the strikers.

    Escalation to the extent that we have seen, when the 'opening gambit' (and still the request on the day of the first strike!) was to ask for the Moon and Stars to be delivered to their doorsteps, is far far far beyond reasonable action imo. It is trivialisation of a tool of last resort in industrial disputes. And that is an utter abuse.

    That you appear to fail to appreciate this is beyond me.



    I consider SIPTUs claim to be an opening gambit, I consider transdev offer of CPI payrise to be their opening gambit, I consider transdev never moved from that CPI offer and having extinguished all the internal and external mechanisms for progressing a claim the next stage is you either drop it or you ballot for industrial action.

    You seem to be hung up on one side asking for too much, but ignoring the employers side basically offering nothing.

    I presume your point is if you knowingly ask for too much and you don't get it should you strike, you are missing the point they weren't going on strike to obtain the unobtainable they were going on strike to get their employer to improve their offer of CPI pay increases. They always said they were open to negotiation but you can't negotiate with yourself.


  • Options
    #1563
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    How can that be done? Nobody has seen the original claim just what Transdev posted, or is it now an accurate representation?

    Can you also post the link to where SIPTU said, before any strike action that it was an "opening gambit", I can't find it

    Again hopefully for the last time the transdev document is not SIPTUs claim in its entirety as was claimed, it's a transdev document, SIPTUs claim would be on SIPTU headed paper.

    And Google transdev SIPTU opening gambit.


  • Options
    #1564
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    I consider SIPTUs claim to be an opening gambit, I consider transdev offer of CPI payrise to be their opening gambit, I consider transdev never moved from that CPI offer and having extinguished all the internal and external mechanisms for progressing a claim the next stage is you either drop it or you ballot for industrial action.
    Lets go through it again!
    SIPTU Claim -> TransDev counter offer -> LUAS Strike

    yes?
    cdebru wrote: »
    You seem to be hung up on one side asking for too much, but ignoring the employers side basically offering nothing.
    Everyone is entitled to ask for whatever they want, absolutely no problems with asking and negotiating behind closed doors. But Industrial Action being taken on the back of ludicrous claims is simply unacceptable in my mind. It's patently obvious to any reasonable person that if the drivers were able to almost halve their original claim (which they did take industrial action on the back of) then there really is no way that that claim was worth striking over not being answered on.

    This is trivialisation of Industrial Action. Plain and simple
    cdebru wrote: »
    I presume your point is if you knowingly ask for too much and you don't get it should you strike, you are missing the point they weren't going on strike to obtain the unobtainable they were going on strike to get their employer to improve their offer of CPI pay increases. They always said they were open to negotiation but you can't negotiate with yourself.

    That's almost exactly not my point.

    If SIPTU and the Drivers were looking to negotiate, then perhaps it might have been prudent to do so?

    If SIPTU and the Drivers augmented their demands to no avail 15/20 times and there was still no give from Transdev, then perhaps Industrial Action might have been called for.

    Ultimately, Transdev's call for realism was ignored and the Drivers took Industrial Action instead of compromising.

    Care to offer any reasons why the Driver's deserve a pay increase over and beyond the change in the cost of living by the way? (This is a secondary aspect of my problem with the union's actions, not the primary!)


  • Options
    #1565
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    Again hopefully for the last time the transdev document is not SIPTUs claim in its entirety as was claimed, it's a transdev document, SIPTUs claim would be on SIPTU headed paper.

    And Google transdev SIPTU opening gambit.

    Hopefully for the first time you might actually answer the question about why you keep throwing mud at the Transdev document? (not the first time it's been posted mind)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And I'm saying that Transdev would be extremely foolish to doctor the SIPTU claims as it could lead them into serious trouble.

    The fact that they include the note about Mazars independently verifying the figures also offers us the chance to consider that a third party may well have compared the two documents already (given that they must have indeed compared the two sets of figures, which is all that we're really interested in).

    These two points of information allow us to conclude that though the document may not be verbatim the document originally sent by SIPTU, that it materially contains accurate representation of the requests made by SIPTU.

    Are you suggesting that even in the face of these points, that the document does not contain accurate representation of the requests?
    • If so, can you provide anything to back this up?
    • If not, can we conclude that it is an accurate representation and so a fine document to use to source information on the claim? And perhaps move on from this 'muddying' of the clear information available to us?


  • Options
    #1566
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,886 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Round and round in circles I think.

    Everyone I spoke to the last few days did not view the union's actions in a positive light - to put it politely.

    Look at it this way; most people use the LUAS to get to work. A strike action on a regular Tuesday morning would actually be worse as it would hit more people. Yet they hit the LUAS on easter Sunday and pissed a lot of people off - for no gain. A simple "recognising the day/weekend that's in it , we're moving the strike" would have done so much for their cause - and yes - I know - notice period required - but it doesn't matter as the strike would have still gone ahead but public might be onside this time.

    Arguing public support doesn't matter is head-in-sand, if the public isn't onside this will roll on and on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    cdebru wrote: »
    Again hopefully for the last time the transdev document is not SIPTUs claim in its entirety as was claimed, it's a transdev document, SIPTUs claim would be on SIPTU headed paper.

    And Google transdev SIPTU opening gambit.

    A pedantic point.

    We know it is not a direct republication of the SIPTU claim.

    However, if there was a material difference between the Transdev document and the information provided by SIPTU it is highly likely that this would have been called out by SIPTU and Mazars wouldn't have allowed it to be published (it is a standard practice for firms to require written permission be granted before publication of their work)

    Therefore we can reasonably conclude that the info is a fair representation of the entire SUPTU claim.


  • Options
    #1568
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    trellheim wrote: »
    Arguing public support doesn't matter is head-in-sand, if the public isn't onside this will roll on and on.

    It untimately doesnt have any effect atm. Thats the thing. What PRACTICAL effect has the public support actually done? Nothing so far. With all the soundbytes and other hyperbole going on its really amounting to squat expecially when the dispute has amouted to inaccurate information and general faux pas outrage.


  • Options
    #1569
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    cdebru wrote: »
    Again hopefully for the last time the transdev document is not SIPTUs claim in its entirety
    And again, how can we look at the "original claim", if you dispute Transdev's version is not the claim in it's entirety
    cdebru wrote: »
    And Google transdev SIPTU opening gambit.
    So now I have to find links to your assertion. If you recall I said I couldn't find it.
    You said "before any industrial action SIPTU themselves stated it was an opening gambit,".
    I cannot find SIPTU's statement anywhere. Transdev said it after the first of the strikes if you cannot back up your assertion that SIPTU said "opening gambit" prior to strike action, then so be it.

    Google search


  • Options
    #1570
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Hopefully for the first time you might actually answer the question about why you keep throwing mud at the Transdev document? (not the first time it's been posted mind)

    Why did you claim it was SIPTUs claim in its entirety when it is clearly not? Pointing that out is not throwing mud it is stating a fact.


  • Options
    #1571
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    And again, how can we look at the "original claim", if you dispute Transdev's version is not the claim in it's entirety

    So now I have to find links to your assertion. If you recall I said I couldn't find it.
    You said "before any industrial action SIPTU themselves stated it was an opening gambit,".
    I cannot find SIPTU's statement anywhere. Transdev said it after the first of the strikes if you cannot back up your assertion that SIPTU said "opening gambit" prior to strike action, then so be it.

    Google search


    You can see enough of it to know that it has been substantially reduced, and if that is not enough plenty of media reports on it being halved.

    Emmet has already posted that transdev said SIPTU called it an opening gambit during meetings


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    Why did you claim it was SIPTUs claim in its entirety when it is clearly not? Pointing that out is not throwing mud it is stating a fact.

    Because I was under the impression that it was. I was then corrected on the matter, and pointed out the following;
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And I'm saying that Transdev would be extremely foolish to doctor the SIPTU claims as it could lead them into serious trouble.

    The fact that they include the note about Mazars independently verifying the figures also offers us the chance to consider that a third party may well have compared the two documents already (given that they must have indeed compared the two sets of figures, which is all that we're really interested in).

    These two points of information allow us to conclude that though the document may not be verbatim the document originally sent by SIPTU, that it materially contains accurate representation of the requests made by SIPTU.
    Now, care to address the questions asked of you? Or is this a one-way-street?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that even in the face of these points, that the document does not contain accurate representation of the requests?
    • If so, can you provide anything to back this up?
    • If not, can we conclude that it is an accurate representation and so a fine document to use to source information on the claim? And perhaps move on from this 'muddying' of the clear information available to us?

    You have repeatedly 'thrown mud' at the document's figures and the material contained within, without even once raising a single material concern about anything tangible it contained. I have asked you many times now to do so.


  • Options
    #1573
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    bobmalooka wrote: »
    A pedantic point.

    We know it is not a direct republication of the SIPTU claim.

    However, if there was a material difference between the Transdev document and the information provided by SIPTU it is highly likely that this would have been called out by SIPTU and Mazars wouldn't have allowed it to be published (it is a standard practice for firms to require written permission be granted before publication of their work)

    Therefore we can reasonably conclude that the info is a fair representation of the entire SUPTU claim.


    It is not pedantic if I produced a document and said look this is what transdev said in its entirety but it was actually a SIPTU document with snippets from a transdev document would you accept it as a transdev document ? Yes or no ?


  • Options
    #1574
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because I was under the impression that it was. I was then corrected on the matter, and pointed out the following;

    Now, care to address the questions asked of you? Or is this a one-way-street?


    You have repeatedly 'thrown mud' at the document's figures and the material contained within, without even once raising a single material concern about anything tangible it contained. I have asked you many times now to do so.


    I asked why didn't transdev publish the actual document from SIPTU in its entirety rather than edited highlights? I have no idea if there would be any material difference bit it seems odd to me to not produce the original. Stuff can easily be taken out of context as I'm sure you are only to aware.


  • Options
    #1575
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    cdebru wrote: »
    Emmet has already posted that transdev said SIPTU called it an opening gambit during meetings
    After pages and pages of you disputing Transdev's version of the claim, you now accept their version of the opening gambit (as you cannot give a link to SIPTU saying it). However they said that after the first strike.

    You said SIPTU said it before the strike, and you cannot cannot back it up.


  • Options
    #1576
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    It is not pedantic if I produced a document and said look this is what transdev said in its entirety but it was actually a SIPTU document with snippets from a transdev document would you accept it as a transdev document ? Yes or no ?

    The document posted was created by Transdev. This is simply not up for debate.

    The claims contained within that document are what we were discussing.

    The document helpfully also points out to us that the cost of the claims (which is what I had previously tabled) has had the oversight of a third party, Mazars
    The cost of the Unions claims have been verified independently by Mazars

    It is up to you to present us any reason why not to use this document to base our understanding of SIPTU's claims from.


  • Options
    #1577
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    I asked why didn't transdev publish the actual document from SIPTU in its entirety rather than edited highlights?
    I have no idea. None.
    cdebru wrote: »
    I have no idea if there would be any material difference bit it seems odd to me to not produce the original. Stuff can easily be taken out of context as I'm sure you are only to aware.

    Tell me anything in that document that's been taken out of context.

    This is a prime example of you 'muddying' with vague issues as opposed to taking any of the document and telling us what's wrong about it!
    Deleted User wrote: »
    SIPTU's claim was published by Transdev. It is available here in its entirety.

    What spin? It's an interesting document when you break it down by additional amount required by paylevel - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99009602&postcount=520

    Grade Employee Count 5 year Additional cost 1 year additional cost per employee
    Traffic Supervisors 16 1,000,000 12,500
    Revenue Protection Supervisors 8 554,000 13,850
    Revenue Protection Officers 37 1,650,000 8,919
    Tram Drivers 172 19,500,000 22,674
    Pension 233 2,000,000 1,717

    Only figures from that document used, so what spin? If you have a breakdown of the number of drivers currently at each stage (which year of employment) we can do a weighted average increase...
    A single tangible issue with the figures in the document please?


  • Options
    #1578
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    trellheim wrote: »
    Round and round in circles I think.

    Everyone I spoke to the last few days did not view the union's actions in a positive light - to put it politely.

    Look at it this way; most people use the LUAS to get to work. A strike action on a regular Tuesday morning would actually be worse as it would hit more people. Yet they hit the LUAS on easter Sunday and pissed a lot of people off - for no gain. A simple "recognising the day/weekend that's in it , we're moving the strike" would have done so much for their cause - and yes - I know - notice period required - but it doesn't matter as the strike would have still gone ahead but public might be onside this time.

    Arguing public support doesn't matter is head-in-sand, if the public isn't onside this will roll on and on.



    You are fairly desperate for public opinion to matter, look at SIPTUs response it is in PR terms dismal but why is it so bad ? Because they don't need to win a PR battle, why waste time on press releases and refuting transdev claims what would it achieve ?

    Transdev were spinning furiously after the WRC proposals and making them sound good, SIPTU never bothered pointing anything out about them have never published their claim, never published any correspondence with transdev because at the end of the day, you and everyone you meet can be crazy with rage and hate SIPTU and luas drivers or alternatively love them it won't resolve anything, it won't be resolved in the court of public opinion, time to get over that one.


  • Options
    #1579
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I have no idea. None.


    Tell me anything in that document that's been taken out of context.

    This is a prime example of you 'muddying' with vague issues as opposed to taking any of the document and telling us what's wrong about it!


    How in the name of jaysus could I do that if I have never seen the original document ? That's like tell me why this book report is inaccurate if I've never read the book ?

    If I had access to both of them I could tell you it is or isn't a fair representation but I don't and in the meantime it is a document produced by one side based on a document produced by the other side.


  • Options
    #1580
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The document posted was created by Transdev. This is simply not up for debate.

    The claims contained within that document are what we were discussing.

    The document helpfully also points out to us that the cost of the claims (which is what I had previously tabled) has had the oversight of a third party, Mazars


    It is up to you to present us any reason why not to use this document to base our understanding of SIPTU's claims from.

    Mazars didn't produce that document either


  • Options
    #1581
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    Mazars didn't produce that document either
    I never said that they had. :confused:
    I pointed out that the document included that;
    The cost of the Unions claims have been verified independently by Mazars

    Which can allow us to add another layer of 'trust' to the figures contained within, unless Transdev are playing silly buggers and opening themselves up to a whole world of pain. Would you like to suggest that that's likely?

    Again
    Deleted User wrote: »
    These two points of information allow us to conclude that though the document may not be verbatim the document originally sent by SIPTU, that it materially contains accurate representation of the requests made by SIPTU.

    Are you suggesting that even in the face of these points, that the document does not contain accurate representation of the requests?
    • If so, can you provide anything to back this up?
    • If not, can we conclude that it is an accurate representation and so a fine document to use to source information on the claim? And perhaps move on from this 'muddying' of the clear information available to us?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    How in the name of jaysus could I do that if I have never seen the original document ? That's like tell me why this book report is inaccurate if I've never read the book ? .
    Right. So we have no reason to dispute the figures contained within the document.
    Finally!
    cdebru wrote: »
    If I had access to both of them I could tell you it is or isn't a fair representation but I don't and in the meantime it is a document produced by one side based on a document produced by the other side.

    Which has not been disputed by the other, and has apparently had the oversight of a third party.


  • Options
    #1583
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Right. So we have no reason to dispute the figures contained within the document.
    Finally!


    Which has not been disputed by the other, and has apparently had the oversight of a third party.

    I have no reason to accept them either, they could be totally correct and in context they could be PR spin who knows, SIPTU have said their claim has been misrepresented, they don't bother with press releases and all that jazz because they aren't trying to win a PR battle unlike transdev.


  • Options
    #1584
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,176 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    cdebru wrote: »
    I honestly don't think you understand how these things work. You put in a claim they refuse it and insist only CPI indexed increases, they keep insisting that so you either accept it or you escalate, no one in SIPTU or transdev ever thought for one minute they would get everything on that list or even most things, it's basic haggling, you put on everything you could wish and see how much you can achieve.

    I think he understands perfectly how things work.

    And this one was screwed up right from day one.

    Industrial relations and Industrial Action is not a game as you seem to suggest.

    It's about realistic deserving claims not a penny dip where you dip your hand in without any justification for your actions.

    It's a serious faculty which in this case has been ridden ragged by people who maybe see this as a game to bat the public and taxpayer around like a ping-pong ball.

    Let me say that the forces behind all this are well known, but also let me say that the public and the taxpayer will not be ridden into the ground by these totally unjustified demands.


  • Options
    #1585
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    After pages and pages of you disputing Transdev's version of the claim, you now accept their version of the opening gambit (as you cannot give a link to SIPTU saying it). However they said that after the first strike.

    You said SIPTU said it before the strike, and you cannot cannot back it up.

    I never disputed transdev version I merely pointed out it is transdev version, I would prefer to see the actual claim than the transdev version that is all.


  • Options
    #1586
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    I have no reason to accept them either, they could be totally correct and in context they could be PR spin who knows, SIPTU have said their claim has been misrepresented, they don't bother with press releases and all that jazz because they aren't trying to win a PR battle unlike transdev.

    How can you PR spin a figure? Figures which have been independently assessed? :confused:

    As an example, try and PR Spin this table I created from those independently assessed costs to suit Transdev. Then try and Spin them to suit SIPTU.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What spin? It's an interesting document when you break it down by additional amount required by paylevel - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99009602&postcount=520

    Grade Employee Count 5 year Additional cost 1 year additional cost per employee
    Traffic Supervisors 16 1,000,000 12,500
    Revenue Protection Supervisors 8 554,000 13,850
    Revenue Protection Officers 37 1,650,000 8,919
    Tram Drivers 172 19,500,000 22,674
    Pension 233 2,000,000 1,717

    Only figures from that document used, so what spin? If you have a breakdown of the number of drivers currently at each stage (which year of employment) we can do a weighted average increase...

    The cost of their claims, independently assessed by Mazars have been presented there.


  • Options
    #1587
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    I think he understands perfectly how things work.

    And this one was screwed up right from day one.

    Industrial relations and Industrial Action is not a game as you seem to suggest.

    It's about realistic deserving claims not a penny dip where you dip your hand in without any justification for your actions.

    It's a serious faculty which in this case has been ridden ragged by people who maybe see this as a game to bat the public and taxpayer around like a ping-pong ball.

    Let me say that the forces behind all this are well known, but also let me say that the public and the taxpayer will not be ridden into the ground by these totally unjustified demands.


    That's great but what are you trying to say ? If transdev do a deal and their employees accept it, how will you stop it ? You don't even know what the demands are you know what the proposals were 15 months ago.


  • Options
    #1588
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How can you PR spin a figure? Figures which have been independently assessed? :confused:

    As an example, try and PR Spin this table I created from those independently assessed costs to suit Transdev. Then try and Spin them to suit SIPTU.



    The cost of their claims, independently assessed by Mazars have been presented there.

    That's based on original proposals from the union side 15 months ago things have moved on since then.

    There you go.


  • Options
    #1589
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The document posted was created by Transdev. This is simply not up for debate.

    The claims contained within that document are what we were discussing.

    The document helpfully also points out to us that the cost of the claims (which is what I had previously tabled) has had the oversight of a third party, Mazars


    It is up to you to present us any reason why not to use this document to base our understanding of SIPTU's claims from.


    Fire away but best case you are basing it on a document produced 15 months ago if it is correct, it is beyond pointless as the document that is supposedly based on is no longer in play, you are at the wrong end of the pitch arguing about a corner the ball is up the other end ;-)


  • Options
    #1590
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    That's based on original proposals from the union side 15 months ago things have moved on since then.
    There you go.
    cdebru wrote: »
    Fire away but best case you are basing it on a document produced 15 months ago if it is correct, it is beyond pointless as the document that is supposedly based on is no longer in play, you are at the wrong end of the pitch arguing about a corner the ball is up the other end ;-)

    Details of the movement?

    You didn't seem to suggest that the claim was old when I asked if they were still the claims on day one of the strike previously in the thread?. And here.

    Which is it? They were either the claims that still stood on the first day of industrial action, or they weren't and they are 15 month old claims?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    cdebru wrote: »
    It is not pedantic if I produced a document and said look this is what transdev said in its entirety but it was actually a SIPTU document with snippets from a transdev document would you accept it as a transdev document ? Yes or no ?

    I actually don't think I can be any more clear than what I said above.

    I'll take your comments as sincere and try to progress the discussion.

    In the manner you expressed I would not accept it as a Transdev document (if we have to reduce things to absolute terms)


    However back to the actual scenario,
    Given the circumstances it is reasonable to accept as a fair representation of the SIPTU claim.

    Do you agree. Yes or No?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement