I'll chime in reading this as it relates to my fire department job, and management, that seems to probably be applicable here. My village is currently notorious for not following provisions of the contract that are not spelled out exactly. (Sometimes they even fail to follow provisions that are spelled out explicitly too...)

I am somewhat lower on the seniority chain, with 6 years on the job. Last year we had a clause in our contract that essentially said no one could be laid off unless there was a "bonafide economic hardship" to the village. We thought that good enough, especially considering they have about $7 million in reserves on an annual general operating budget of about $30 million. I, however, got a layoff notice. Our union and the village reopened a part of our contract early, gave up some things, and in return got my position guaranteed. I was one of the guys that would have actually been in favor of letting me get laid off and fighting - I'm not really sure how $200,000 total (two firefighters pay and benefits) can be an economic hardship in a $30 million dollar budget with $7 million in reserves. The vote was probably 85% in favor though. I think sometimes people just aren't really willing to drag out a fight for something they should be getting when management will give it to them without question while buying something else.

While I see both sides, I think it is the new way - we have to ask for more and accept much less than we are asking for, otherwise it will be a long battle in a mediator/court/or public situation where in most cases these people are anti-union. While we probably would have won our fight in arbitration, had we lost I would have lost big time personally. This at least guaranteed jobs and pay - in both of our cases.