{"id":2184,"date":"2011-05-12T22:30:52","date_gmt":"2011-05-13T03:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/?p=2184"},"modified":"2011-05-12T22:30:52","modified_gmt":"2011-05-13T03:30:52","slug":"burrus-says-the-process-is-completed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/2011\/05\/12\/burrus-says-the-process-is-completed\/","title":{"rendered":"Burrus Says The Process is Completed"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"burrus-journal\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Time for Solidarity<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

When the final count is announced, the 2010\/2011 contract negotiations will be relegated to history to be recalled selectively from time to time by inquiring minds. As attention is diverted from negotiations to enforcement, it is expected that among the subjects that will be recalled by some and examined from this experience is the involvement of a former president, Bill Burrus in the debate and his conclusion that the tentative agreement was not worthy of our union.<\/p>\n

While my interjection in the process was not dispositive, in a series of postings on the Burrus Journal web site, I explained my rational for criticizing the agreement and now that the process is completed it serves no purpose to repeat those allegations with specifics. The contract has been approved and there is no need for further debate. It is time for the union to come together.<\/p>\n

Why?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

As future discussions explore the 2011 ratification process, some will express opinions on the reasoning of Bill Burrus after having retired to inject his opinions in the debate. The question is no longer ratification or defeat, but as the former president who retired after 53 years of service, why did he find it necessary to engage and express negative opinions about the agreement?<\/p>\n

I have heard and read the gratuitous advice that I would be more respected if I had kept my mouth shut and leave the editorializing of the agreement exclusively to those who favored ratification<\/em><\/strong>, no matter my convictions. This ignores the fact that I begin by respecting myself<\/em><\/strong> and if I had been silent while future employees, who will be so dramatically affected, were not provided voice and vote, notwithstanding the opinion of others, I would have lost my self-respect<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

It is interesting that those who were most offended by my editorials on the agreement were more opposed to my conclusions than my framing of the facts so the focus became my agenda. Why would I oppose a contract so widely supported by others?<\/p>\n

Stubborn Facts<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

I was not intimately involved in the final decisions in bargaining so it was expected that many of the facts I presented would not be totally accurate, but the basic principles of the negotiated agreement are in black and white and detractors elected not to challenge the facts.<\/p>\n