I do labor relations for a living, and obviously, terms and conditions of employment are covered by CBA's. The coronavirus has presented a whole bunch of circumstances not contemplated by the CBA where rigorous adherence to the CBA is in the interests of neither party. So, we talk to the union about temporary adjustments to some provisions of the CBA that will, in the end, be of net benefit to both the company and the union. Even though -- if we were to consider it a precedent -- neither would want to do those things.
One example was that we had a major increase in overtime requirements, and so rather than mandating overtime -- as we had the right to do -- we wanted to offer overtime bonuses on an as-required basis. We wouldn't have to negotiate the amount with the union ahead of time, and would be free to end the bonuses at any time. Now normally, a union doesn't want to give employers the unilateral right to change wages, and we obviously don't want to surrender our right to require overtime without a bonus. But in these particular circumstances, it was the better result for both sides.
So it's pretty simple -- we enter a side agreement, state that it does not constitute a precedent, and that it is only in effect for a specific period of time, and then describe the agreement itself. It's no big deal.
Rigid insistence on the terms of a CBA for its own sake is simply dumb, because there are easy ways to contract around the issue of precedent.