Blog backs review your thoughtful and provocative online comments, amplify points, answer questions, correct our mistakes and humbly accept your warranted criticism.
We knew that the CASE contract posting would generate some controversy. What we didn't anticipate was the "shoot the messenger" comments that surfaced after a comment was apparently deleted. We'll reconstruct our thinking as we read the comments on Wednesday evening.
First, this one liner from prolific blog user THESILKY1:
How About It Ortiz, to (sic) controversial?
Thought upon reading: No idea what that comment means.
Mr. Ortiz, please do not delete posts by poster THE SILKY. I find his/her posts to be articulate and informative. If we are unable to voice criticism of GAS's shameful treatment of his state employees, this blog would have perhaps no real purpose, IMHO.
Epiphany: Ahhhh ... now it's clear. Silk thinks that I deleted something he/she posted. Another blog user thinks that too.
To be clear, users flag comments that they find offensive. Editors review the flagged comments and then decide whether to delete them or let them stay. Your humble blogger isn't the comment police. We have no access to submitted comments to delete them, nor do we want the responsibility.
For a refresher on The Bee's rules of the commenting road, scroll down to the "Above Comments" paragraph above the comment text entry box on this page. The section includes this disclaimer: "Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa."
3517.8 Expiration of memoranda of understanding; continued effect.
(a) If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the Governor and the recognized employee organization have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions, any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.), and any provisions covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3515.7.
Read it and weep Ortiz, this is what it is, and you can't spin this one.
We're familiar with the Dills Act and have read it many times without shedding a tear. The interpretation of the law in the context of furloughs, holidays and overtime changes imposed by statute or executive order is being clarified in the courts now. We have no stake in the outcome, other than the desire to tell interesting and accurate stories as these cases move through the system.