Back in May, when bargaining began for a successor contract, management was talking about status quo with a few minor clarifications of language to lighten the grievance load. Now, late in the game, the tune has changed. Anyway you look at this parking proposal, it feels like a pay cut to some of our represented employees.

This is like that old cartoon of the monkeys: you have the big monkey beating up the medium monkey, who in turn picks on the smaller one. Why would you do this to an already demoralized workforce? Even if the bargaining team agrees, and you have a pretty good idea of where we stand with these petitions, what makes you think you can get the members to ratify? While it's true this doesn't affect all our members--I personally take BART to work and would like us all to use cars less--there is this old saying among union folk: "An injury to one is an injury to all."

I have to admit the union's agenda in bargaining is a little more ambitious than yours. We have the LMC Report on Compensation fresh in our minds. And, really, is it unreasonable to think that ideas vetted jointly between the parties could actually be applied to address the broken classification and compensation system we are currently struggling with?

I would hate to have this opportunity to address these serious issues missed. It really would be a shame. No matter what is happening with the budget, you still have a system to run, and you need us to do that. I tell our members that there is no union agenda removed from the CSU; as the CSU goes, so we all go. I mean this sincerely--we are all in this together. Let's circle the wagons and face the challenges united. An injury to the CSU is an injury to us all.

# # #