Yesterday I suggested that the Boston Newspaper Guild--despite its formal endorsement of the contract that Guild members'll vote on this Monday--may actually be pushing for a "No" vote.
A quote from Guild head Dan Totten in today's Globe doesn't really challenge that assessment. Writes reporter Robert Gavin: "Totten said the union leadership continues to support the contract offer. Asked how he’ll vote, Totten said, 'I endorse it.'" [emph. added]
All of this raises a question: if the "endorsement" of the Guild is required by the tentative agreement that the Guild and management reached a few weeks back, what exactly does that endorsement require, on a substantive level? And if, in fact, proof emerged that Guild leadership was sending signals that undermined its purported endorsement, what legal consequences might there be?
Any labor lawyers in the house?