Today, \u00a0Timothy Rub told some of my sources that he is in talks with AlliedBarton to sign a deal through 2014.<\/p>\n
The signing of a contract would be a contradictory move in light of his claim of “neutrality,” and his demanding that we jump through every frivolous hoop that AlliedBarton is having the union jump through (AlliedBarton’s $15,000 per year donation should purchase some loyalty, i guess). \u00a0The questions is, “How can he possible sign a business deal with a company that WILL have a collective bargaining agreement before he knows what that agreement will cost?”<\/p>\n
If Mr. Rub is actually neutral (despite multiple reports of him heckling security guards, senior citizens and college students, what a bully!), how can he possibly award AlliedBarton a long term contract before the NRLB finds against the union or, when the NRLB upholds their own findings, the company and the union have settled their contract agreement? \u00a0Where are his lawyers telling him that this would be a dumb move?<\/p>\n
A collective bargaining agreement will ultimate determine the full price of his security. \u00a0Since there is no agreement in place and he cannot predict the costs associated with these outcomes (especially since the museum is now in legal limbo with our city’s minimum wage law that is being championed by Councilman Wilson Goode, as reported on WHYY ) Mr. Rub should not sign anything more than the month-to-month arrangement currently in effect.<\/p>\n
On February 11, Mr. Rub said that he was willing to pay what ever money was needed for security (fast forward to -26:00 minutes)<\/a> . \u00a0However, if Mr. Rub is so willing and so neutral, then, he must know that when the union prevails, it will change his budget line item for security.<\/p>\n If Mr. Rub thinks that, as he said during this interview, that he is fine with the security that is provided by AlliedBarton, despite the fact that a majority of the guards report that they feel unprepared to do their job and that half of them haven’t been through a basic fire drill in over a year, then I guess we will leave that potential disaster to him.<\/p>\n However, if he is neutral and waiting for the NRLB, then how can he reward this company by locking them into a four year contract before either the NRLB overturns THEIR OWN RULING<\/a> or before we have settled a collective bargaining agreement?<\/p>\n He can leave his most basic job of insuring patron and collection safety to the union, but he should be concerned that the museum is not realistically planning for present problems with their budget. Mr. Rub \u00a0has not planned for the predictable outcome that the PSOU will have a contract.<\/p>\n That contract will effect their bottom line. \u00a0Right now, it is impossible to say how much that will cost or how long it will take. \u00a0Ironically, finding himself in the same boat as us; unable to make plans for the future due to AlliedBarton’s stalling tactics.<\/p>\n In further news, I meet with two local\u00a0entrepreneurs today who are excited about the idea of acquiring a $4.6 million dollar contract and working with the union to set a higher standard of training and worker management harmony in our city.<\/p>\n AlliedBarton employs 80% of our city’s core security market (core market = high profile, big dollar contracts).<\/p>\n AlliedBarton’s arrogance may cost them market dominance.<\/p>\n Every empire will some day crumble.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today, \u00a0Timothy Rub told some of my sources that he is in talks with AlliedBarton to sign a deal through 2014. The signing of a contract would be a contradictory move in light of his claim…<\/p>\n