These are real concerns and legitimate questions.

Let's understand something from the outset. Unless this is a first agreement, there is a bit of history here. Many of the contract clauses have been negotiated and revised over dozens of years and many bargaining sessions. The union will often try to revise the agreement to change what doesn't seem to work in the day-to-day administration of the contract and work rules. If there has been a problem with the negotiated overtime clause, for example, then the union usually takes up this language at the negotiating table when the contract becomes amendable. Hopefully it can then clarify and strengthen the procedure. That is how it is usually done.

Since bargaining is a two-way process, the local union is careful in what it highlights for negotiations. Only the critical issues make it to the table and then make it further to the final cut. The reason for such care is that the employer also has an agenda that is brought to the table. When the boss sees problems with the contract, he or she will also highlight critical issues, which need to be to addressed from management’s point of view. These might be, for example, attendance control or lateness.

Because both parties bring a wish list to the table, neither side wants to commit itself to many revisions because negotiations by its very definition mean compromise. This means that the process involves some give and take. By putting certain contract language on the table, the union always runs the risk that what it ultimately negotiates for will be less acceptable than what it had before.

That is why some language sits in the contract, even though it may not be the strongest words the union would like to see. In such cases, the union must then uses its administrative skills to enforce the language. By demonstrating the power of the union on the shopfloor, locals have often made much out of what may be considered weak language in the bargaining agreement.

For example, the only health and safety language in one agreement may be a general clause committing the employer to providing a safe and healthy workplace. By itself, this language is minimal and weak. But such language does not prevent the union from appointing safety stewards and constituting its own health and safety committees. The ability of this committee to help guarantee a safe workplace is only limited by the will of the safety stewards and the creativity of the committee and the local union.

That is why it is important to build a strong local union with a solid steward system and committed membership participation. Such a local union can make a four-page contract as strong as a 400-page agreement.

Over the years, both unions and employers have learned to live with contradictory and vague language in their agreements. For unions, there are no guarantees that a long and precise agreement would be in the best interests of the membership. In fact, a two-page management rights clause included in such a contract would probably do more damage to union rights than anything else in the agreement would.

Vague language that hurts union power and members' rights indicates areas for change at bargaining time. Over the long term, local unions should examine vague language and see it as an opportunity to build union power by carving out rights instead of complaining about its limitations.

[back]