New MATC Union Agreement?

Published on: 2/15/2011

The MATC union has announced a vote, to be held next week, on a new contract.  The union president, Michael Rosen, has indicated that this is merely coincidental with the actions just taken by Governor Walker.  The negotiations have been going on since last October and were not “fast-tracked” because of the new Governor’s proposals according to Rosen.

Maybe that is true but it seems a bit of a beneficial coincidence from my perspective.

According to the brief article in the Journal Sentinel today, the current agreement expires on June 30th but, if the new agreement is ratified next week, it would become effective immediately.  That sounds like a beneficial coincidence, too.

Given the current situation, is it strange that the MATC board would schedule a special meeting for next Wednesday to ratify this agreement?  Would the board not be further ahead to wait to see what happens in the legislature if that could be of benefit to the taxpayers who provide 60% of the support for MATC?

Apparently we are seeing the “business as usual” approach that has been apparent from MATC for way too long.  Taxpayers be damned appears to be the operative phrase unless, of course, this new agreement is giving back significant levels of wages and benefits.  That seems highly unlikely.  But, maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised when we see the final agreement.

The union president refused to provide any details but led us to believe that the union is working to help MATC with the deficit that is projected for the coming year due to property values eroding the tax revenues to be received by MATC.  There is a need for MATC especially in the current environment of high unemployment when people need training or re-training.  But it, so far at least, seems as though the taxpayer is always at the bottom of the heap after all is said and done.

Sorry to be so suspicious of this situation, but that has become necessary as MATC continues to ignore us taxpayers; especially us taxpayers in this part of the district who put a disproportionate amount into the operation for scant return on our “investment”.