Need a reason NOT to hate TWU Local 234

[defektes]

US military cannot police thier own people so that wouldnt be good for national security its unconstitutional. secondly I would fire every one of them on strike there are plenty of people looking for jobs right now. Someone will gladly replace those sickining union pigs.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
These guys went on strike at 3:00 AM today after contract renewal negotiations with the city didn't go as they wanted. They are claiming that SEPTA (public transit in and around Philadelphia, PA) has a lot more money than they did last year and isn't giving them their fair share of the pie.

They want more money, less pay-in to their benefits, etc... Typical stuff, and according to the newspapers today it was being worked out (contrary to the TWU's propaganda). But here's what got me. Among the deal-breakers that led to the strike were that SEPTA management:

1. was contracting out repair work
2. wanted to stop letting employees pick what equipment they worked on based on seniority

Apparently they felt this was important enough to leave people stranded at bus stops at 3 AM, stop poor people from getting to or from work, and clog up the streets for emergency vehicles.

I barely take public transportation, but I am hopping mad right now. Last I checked, it was up to the management to decide who worked on what. It really looks to me like the biggest motivation at play here is simple greed.

I've been asking around for a counterpoint all morning and have not found one. Can anyone please show me another side to this story?


Sure, that should be easy.

The 3:00 A.M. time - That is probably a shift change. And I can almost guarantee you that warning was given beforehand, it wasn't any big surprise to the city.

Don't go demonizing the union here. If their contract did not allow them to do what they did, they would not have done it. That contract was negotiated with the city, no one was twisting the city's arm to sign it, they would not have done so if it were not the best option available to them at the time.

After seeing many things that I have inside knowledge of played out in the press, I know that the people who talk to the press all have their own agendas, all centered on self promotion or advancement, and almost never representing the underlying situation in any reasonable context. It is to the city's advantage to demonize the union, the city manager's, mayor's or council's agenda to paint itself as reasonable, devoted, committed and long suffering. It is the union leaders agenda as representing himself as being in the best interest of the union. He may have ambitions of leading a bigger union, running for public office, whatever. At that level, nothing is what it seems.

Work rules? Possibly the mechanics are being asked to work on equipment they aren't trained on, or don't have the tools for (I shouldn't have to point this out on a forum like BITOG!!). Possibly it is a schedule or location issue (certain equipment needs to be repaired at certain times and places (very, very likely!). Possibly it is an age issue - 60 year old mechanic can no longer do heavy lifting, bending, etc.

There is far more to things like this than has been discussed.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
The 3:00 A.M. time - That is probably a shift change.

Right. It also stranded some people in bad parts of town at a very bad time.

Convenient for them, though, because no one is around to create a backlash and they prevent most of their membership from getting up in the morning. I fully understand this part.


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
And I can almost guarantee you that warning was given beforehand, it wasn't any big surprise to the city.

To the city, maybe. To the citizens, it was a total surprise. The last word on the subject that everyone heard was "strike averted" (in the local papers).


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
If their contract did not allow them to do what they did, they would not have done it.

Actually they weren't under a contract, oddly enough. They had been working without one for several months.

But either way, I fully agree they have the right to strike in general. Legality is not the same as morality. I take issue with their reasons, not their rights or the exercise thereof.


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
That contract was negotiated with the city, no one was twisting the city's arm to sign it, they would not have done so if it were not the best option available to them at the time.

You don't think the TWU has leverage?


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
After seeing many things that I have inside knowledge of played out in the press, I know that the people who talk to the press all have their own agendas, all centered on self promotion or advancement, and almost never representing the underlying situation in any reasonable context.

Agreed.

That is why I looked at the allegations being made by both sides. The city is saying they offered to increase salaries and benefits. The union is saying that the city didn't want to increase pension plans, wanted to continue to subcontract some repair jobs, remove of job "picking" rights, and sign a shorter contract than the union wanted. I don't see a discrepancy here.


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Work rules? Possibly the mechanics are being asked to work on equipment they aren't trained on, or don't have the tools for (I shouldn't have to point this out on a forum like BITOG!!). Possibly it is a schedule or location issue (certain equipment needs to be repaired at certain times and places (very, very likely!). Possibly it is an age issue - 60 year old mechanic can no longer do heavy lifting, bending, etc.

I have seen no mention of any of that. All they have said on this topic was that they want workers to be able to pick jobs based on their seniority, and for fewer repair jobs to be subcontracted.

 

[SecondMonkey]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
There is far more to things like this than has been discussed.

Probably, but I still consider any union to be nothing more than an excuse for bad workers. If a worker does a good job, they usually get pay and benefits to match...if they do a bad job, they get fired. That's how the real world works anyway. In a union you can sit on your donkey all day and still get paid the same as the guy who works his donkey off every day.

As somebody else said, for every worker that's picketing, there's another unemployed person who would gladly take their job union free.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

I have seen no mention of any of that. All they have said on this topic was that they want workers to be able to pick jobs based on their seniority, and for fewer repair jobs to be subcontracted.


You never do. That's why I said everyone presents these matters in the frame that is most beneficial to them, and also that you never see them discussed in the relevant detail. Consider that perhaps your perceptions have been manipulated.

And just how long do you expect the union to work without a contract? And you still say that people were surprised? By the way, much as I hate coming off looking hardhearted, where are all the Ayn Rand defenders, saying things like it is the workers and the unions job to look after their own best interests, and the city's responsibility to keep the buses running? Why is the buck now perceived as stopping on the union's "desk"? A clear thinking of who has what responsibility is due here!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Probably, but I still consider any union to be nothing more than an excuse for bad workers. If a worker does a good job, they usually get pay and benefits to match...if they do a bad job, they get fired. That's how the real world works anyway. In a union you can sit on your donkey all day and still get paid the same as the guy who works his donkey off every day.


I'm trying to figure out what union environment you've observed to form this opinion. I've only had one union job ..they would have paid me more ..I would have worked for less.

If management wanted to fire someone, they were fired. It wasn't done without just cause. What you did have was obnoxious personalities developing since (typically) social skills were not part of the job requirements.

Most of the fences around union jobs don't just keep people out. The place is a prison. A living wage has tremendous leverage over a person's behavior.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
That's why I said everyone presents these matters in the frame that is most beneficial to them, and also that you never see them discussed in the relevant detail.

If TWU members were being systematically abused, that would seem to be a pretty salient detail. Why wouldn't the TWU talk about it? They don't even mention it, even in their propaganda.


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
And just how long do you expect the union to work without a contract? And you still say that people were surprised?

Let's not get derailed. I agree that the timing was problematic, and I have no problem with the TWU on this point. I only mentioned the surprise because you did. The headlines in local papers had said there was no more threat of a strike.


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
where are all the Ayn Rand defenders, saying things like it is the workers and the unions job to look after their own best interests, and the city's responsibility to keep the buses running?

This isn't a corporation. It's a public service. Very different ballgame for both parties.

Besides, even granting your premise doesn't imply that the union is entitled to be agreed with.


Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Why is the buck now perceived as stopping on the union's "desk"?

Because they are perceived to be making unreasonable demands at the expense of taxpayers.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm trying to figure out what union environment you've observed to form this opinion.

If I may jump in, I have to say I haven't heard a single opinion to the contrary, except on the Internet from people who apparently either saw their jobs in total isolation from the rest of the world or clung to notions of what unions used to be good for.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: defektes
man I really HATE unions.


The easiest way to get rid of them is make people feel that they don't need them.

I spent most of my working life outside a Union, but management at one stage started really pushing pointless issues that really didn't have a productive element, and I joined to fight against it.

I've resigned membership when the union has done something stupid (like striking, citing a certain issue publicly, when the strike was simply a power play to punish my company.

Good management, and unions lose their power.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

If TWU members were being systematically abused, that would seem to be a pretty salient detail. Why wouldn't the TWU talk about it? They don't even mention it, even in their propaganda.


They were not being abused under the existing contract. It was the potential to be abused that they are tryng to defend against. Do you really think they would strike over an irrelevant issue? Just because you don't see the potential harm, doesn't mean that they find it equally benign.


Originally Posted By: d00df00d

This isn't a corporation. It's a public service. Very different ballgame for both parties.


How so? It isn't volunteer or charity work either, and playing "guilt trip" and "blame game" doesn't change the fact that the buck for managing the labor force rests on management's desk. You can just as easily frame this as management playing chicken with the union, using the public as hostages. It looks to me like someone miscalculated.


Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Besides, even granting your premise doesn't imply that the union is entitled to be agreed with.


Agreed. Nor management either. That is why I'm surprised that you automatically took their side.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Because they are perceived to be making unreasonable demands at the expense of taxpayers.


Without more detail on what management has offered, and what the union objects to, all we know is that there is a mutual difference of opinion. The union, having worked without a contract for a period, apparently lost patience. Could it have been an ill-advised power play? Who knows? I'm just saying don't automatically take one side over the other, because from the outside perspective the detail to support it just isn't there.

I've been in situations where I have access to the reasoning of both sides of a conflict, and every time I hear a new fact my opinion changes to the other side. From that I have learned the futility of trying to judge these things, and most importantly, that there isn't a need. Each party is, in fact, doing as it thinks best. It will play out as it plays out, regardless of my opinion, so why waste mental CPU cycles on it?

For that matter, I wonder why I engaged in this thread in the first place....

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Chicago is a cesspool for public transportation management.
Always massive problems and financial nightmares.
When I see what the managers are getting paid, and their insane retirement benefits, I have a soft spot for the workers.

San Francisco's worse - at least BART is pretty cruddy. At least San Francisco proper forced a no-strike clause on Muni, San Francisco's bus and light rail system who runs the cable cars as well.

 

[d00df00d]

I'm not taking management's side here. In fact, I never said anything positive about them. All I said was that the union got greedy.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
As a former middle manager at the local transit authority, I have a few things to add here.

First of all, no transit authority anywhere is self supporting. All off them are approximately 80% government subsidized. And if you think only lower income types ride the bus, you are very wrong. Locally we have many routes to far off, well-off communities, which is a direct government subsidy that lowers in-town housing prices, and raises distant prices.

Public transit is one of the few government agencies I support IMO. Around here, the transit agencies either feed onto BART or CalTrain into San Francisco or provide commuter bus and/or ferry service into the City during peak hours. I've seen all walks of life on the bus, ferry or train.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'm not taking management's side here. In fact, I never said anything positive about them. All I said was that the union got greedy.


You might be right.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm trying to figure out what union environment you've observed to form this opinion.

If I may jump in, I have to say I haven't heard a single opinion to the contrary, except on the Internet from people who apparently either saw their jobs in total isolation from the rest of the world or clung to notions of what unions used to be good for.


That's all we've seen is opinion. Mostly hollow. If you really looked at most manufacturing (which is mostly gone) there wasn't a "lazy" part to union employment. The outfit that was UAW (Doler Jarvis) with the apprentice maintenance men also had a piece rate for the production workers that was down to the .05/sec to make rate. No one was standing around sipping coffee.

The simple observation that I had was that your job was specifically spelled out. You were whatever you were. I'm working next to you, doing the same work, I get paid the same wage. When it comes to bidding on job openings ...vacations ..layoffs ..then seniority determines who gets what.

The jobs weren't necessarily pleasant. The maintenance crew still got to clean out scrubbers ...dust collectors ..the guy who charged the pigments and caustic into the tubs still got dirty ..still stood there in (at times) Tyvec suits with respirators on in 100F floor temps over a steaming tub charging the product. Still had an 18 month life expectancy upon retirement.

Now some you may think the world would be a better place without them judging them by their social demeanor ..but when it came to work, it really didn't matter who you had there assuming that they made it past the probation period.

 

[defektes]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: defektes
man I really HATE unions.


The easiest way to get rid of them is make people feel that they don't need them.

I spent most of my working life outside a Union, but management at one stage started really pushing pointless issues that really didn't have a productive element, and I joined to fight against it.

I've resigned membership when the union has done something stupid (like striking, citing a certain issue publicly, when the strike was simply a power play to punish my company.

Good management, and unions lose their power.


I wont take Union jobs. Back in the day I can understand having unions. Work environments now a days are no where near as bad as they used to be. Unions had a purpose but not today. Today they are just for greedy people, lazy workers expecting more, greed. Greed fuels unions. If the city had them strike they would have lost lots of revenue and probably had a political backlash when people that rely on these trains cant get to work. City had their hands tied, and unions are (IMO only) the big fat bully at school that wants everyones lunch money. City needs to wake up and fight back, hire people before hand, then fire all the union greed pigs.

 

[ksJoe]

I'm surprised at the consistency of the negative opinions towards unions. I agree with the sentiment, but a little surprised.

So when car shopping - would this motivate you guys look for NON-UAW products?

(FWIW, my priorities, roughly in order, would be: reliability, non-UAW, US built)

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: ksJoe
I'm surprised at the consistency of the negative opinions towards unions. I agree with the sentiment, but a little surprised.

So when car shopping - would this motivate you guys look for NON-UAW products?

(FWIW, my priorities, roughly in order, would be: reliability, non-UAW, US built)


Not really, I look for known design problem and stay away from them, that's about it. Both US and import, UAW and non-UAW make junks that you need to stay away from.

 

[greenaccord02]

Panda's right, junk is what to avoid rather than UAW/non-UAW but I still prefer to go for non-union made products and services when all else is near-equal. If by some horrible misjudgment I considered a GM product to be equal to a Toyota product in every respect, I'd choose Toyota because they are non-union.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: ksJoe
I'm surprised at the consistency of the negative opinions towards unions. I agree with the sentiment, but a little surprised.

So when car shopping - would this motivate you guys look for NON-UAW products?

(FWIW, my priorities, roughly in order, would be: reliability, non-UAW, US built)


And most of the people with negative attitude are not even management. If you are an employee, I don't see how you can be against unions. They are the only tool, beyond legislation and lawyers, for protecting employee rights against the management.