Skip to main content

View Diary: Why so much hate for Bart Union Workers? (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The unions are shooting themselves in the foot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobtmn

    Signatures are already being gathered to show support for legislation being passed OUTLAWING public transportation strikes.  Steve Glazer, a close friend of Gov. Brown is pushing hard to get this done.. and it will get done because there's a ton of really pissed off people right now.

    So, yeah, well FREAKIN' done.  Again, this country despised the government shutdown, and they're despising this just as much.  Extortion has no place in this Democratic society, where the MAJORITY is supposed to rule, NOT the minority.

    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

    by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:12:48 PM PDT

    •  The right to strike for economic power is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Banach MacAmbrais, sfbob, Kevskos

      as democratic as it gets.

      So BART union workers should take a shit deal, just cause fox news and millionaires think they should make less.

      Got it.

      •  The rest of us have rights too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mimi9

        BART is a public utility that should be trying to get fares as low as possible to serve its (mainly) low to middle income ridership.

        You could fire all BART workers and issue open applications for their jobs at 75% of their pay. You'd have 20 qualified applicants for each open position and moreover would have a majority of the city cheering the move.

        Do you think this gives the union a good bargaining position, or not? Remember, every raise BART gets goes directly into fare increases. Maybe they should just push back from the table and call it a night.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:41:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  great idea. Lets pay them fast food wages. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, sfbob, Kevskos, grover

          and then we can BART workers for their food stamps, and welfare.

          Fast-food workers cost taxpayers nearly $7 billion in welfare costs

          http://www.denverpost.com/...

          Better yet. Lets pay the workers one dollar a day. Then we can pay the non union BART managers that currently make 200k and above, one million a year.

          Do i have that right- pay the workers nothing, and pay the managers 50% more?

        •  you obviously are not following these negotiations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude

          this strike is NOT over wages or health care or pensions.  those items were agreed to.

          it is over management rules thrown into the negotiations the last day in a deliberate attempt to derail the negotiations.

          just like the teahadists, the bart management WANTED this strike (despite what their glossy teevee ads say right now).  they are union busting.

          period.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:27:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, hardly. (0+ / 0-)
          its (mainly) low to middle income ridership.
          There are lots of affluent citizens that ride BART. Do you know anything about where the East Bay stations are located as well as where some of the busiest stations downtown are located: right in the financial district?  

          That's one of the best things about BART. It's a great equalizer.

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 01:47:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You're condoning a tiny minority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coigue

        wielding MASSIVE power over an entire region, affecting over 7 MILLION people.

        Democracy?  LoL, yeah, if you're a TeaPublican, it sure is.  Minority rules.

        'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

        by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:44:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  do you believe in unions? (0+ / 0-)

          honest question here...

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:30:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are generalizing unions as a whole (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            as if a union operates itself using strict guidelines that never deviate.  Unions are a tool and only operate at the level of their operator(s), much like government is a tool, and can totally suck if you give the keys to someone like GWB.

            According to the union leadership, BART sprung work rule changes at the last moment (well, not according to George Cohen), which is basically trying to move BART logistics into the modern era, using some strange thing called a cu.. ca .. compooter or something.  Union leaders fear modifying the system to bring it into the 21st century along with everyone else COULD lead to automation and lost jobs (that Snowden effect again), and they only want partial arbitration, probably because an arbitrator looking at the contract as a whole, would see too much generosity from management.

            So, in other words, it comes down to emailed pay stubs, or stranding hundreds of thousands of commuters who are desperately trying to get to work so they can make ends meet.

            Its wrong and unfair on SO MANY LEVELS.

            'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

            by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:09:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you have been listening to the bart propaganda. (0+ / 0-)

              i also heard that - it is NOT the reason - it is the "reasons" that bart is trying to push.

              the unions were willing to go into interest arbitration over the management rules - bart was not.

              who is intransigent here?

              i'll be back shortly - will go pull up the actual sticking points - NOT the bart propaganda version.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:19:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  this is from three hours ago - the union is once (0+ / 0-)

              again willing to compromise - and go to binding arbitration over the balance of the rules.

              who is pushing this shutdown?  bart, that's who.

              the real question is "why".

              http://news.kron4.com/...

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:22:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Honestly (0+ / 0-)

                who would be stupid enough to entire partial arbitration??

                'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

                by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:39:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and who would be stupid enough to start over from (0+ / 0-)

                  scratch?!?

                  there are settled issues - to open them again goes back to the drawing board!  

                  my question is WHY are you defending bart management?

                  i really don't get it.

                  the unions have gone out of their way repeatedly in this negotiations to get a settlement - yet bart management is the intransigent one - yet you continually defend bart.

                  why?

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 11:45:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  because the unions don't have enough sense (0+ / 0-)

                    to go to the public and clearly explain their case, that's why.

                    Management may be lying through their teeth but they are doing much better on the PR battle.

                    And even though the public is about ready to tar and feather them, the unions still aren't explaining their case well.

                    The other issue that nobody is talking about is:  what is a fair wage? and what is a fair wage for people who are public employees?  

                    Traditionally, public employees traded lower pay for better benefits.  Is that still appropriate today? and since public employees are paid by the taxpayers, is there a limit as to what pay and benefits they should be allowed to have?  and at a time when raising taxes is hard, the economy is still depressed and the state of California is still having problems because of Prop. 13, does that change the answer to these questions? Why or why not?

                    Discuss

                    •  the unions DID go to the public as soon as (0+ / 0-)

                      negotiations broke down.  there was a GAG order, in case you missed that!

                      no, the public is NOT ready to tar and feather the unions - you should hear how many people here in MY area (yes, i live in the bay area) actually support the unions!

                      omigod - i really don't believe your last paragraph!  

                      you DO know that the productivity of bart is at its highest with fewer employees than ever, don't you?  the on-time rate is the highest?

                      the people who work for bart are doing their JOBS and doing them well - yet you seem to think that we should talk about what a "fair" wage is?  do you mean it should be lowered because they make "too much"?  

                      do you have ANY idea the cost of living in the bay area?  

                      the issue of wage has been settled - the unions gave and bart gave and that issue is resolved.  what is at issue is the spoiler that bart threw in at the last minute - changing work rules that have been long settled.

                      perhaps you are unfamiliar with "work rules" - those that don't allow an employer to take unfair advantage of the employee or put them in a dangerous situation?

                      really - instead of being a champion of the employer and anti-union, you should find out what this dispute is over and who the villains are in this case.

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 03:51:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I will let Beyond Chron,which sides with the union (0+ / 0-)

                        explain what I mean. The union didn't prepare the public ahead of time and could have:  

                        http://www.beyondchron.org/...

                        Other people have stated that the work rule issues were not thrown in at the last minute.  Perhaps BART management got hard nosed at the end---but unions usually know what the issues are going to because they are brought up again and again.

                        That's nice that you hear people supporting the unions.   I haven't heard much of that.  You don't even hear much of it around DailyKos.

                        And, of course I have an idea of the cost of living in the Bay Area.  I live here too.  I was born here and have been living in SF since 1986.  

                        •  exactly HOW do you suppose the "union" could have (0+ / 0-)

                          "prepared" the public?

                          BOTH sides were under gag orders during the negotiations.  they could NOT say anything more than the management was not bargaining in good faith.

                          that the "rules" change came at the last minute shows that bad faith.  also, the bart management threw out a "last offer" that even the federal negotiator said was not in the spirit of negotiations as it was a retrograde offer and the negotiator (IMPARTIAL, btw) asked them to remove it.  they did not.

                          the union stayed the strike for three additional days when it looked like there was progress - UNTIL these management "rule" changes that had nothing to do with hours or overtime were thrown in the mix.

                          don't you find it ironic that as the union has repeated stated that this is about safety - several hours later two non-union employees at bart were struck and killed by a train that was either maintenance or a "training run" to teach non-union members how to run the damned thing?

                          beyondcron is NOT the only source of news - nor is it accurate:

                          The Strike’s Impact

                          The unions believed that the strike threat was the only leverage that could get them a better contract. But we cannot know what binding arbitration would have brought, or whether a campaign that built public support by foregoing a strike threat would have forced BART Board members to offer a better deal.

                          We do know that the strike threat strategy brought the vast majority of riders to side with a previously unpopular public employers against two unions whose members have effectively operated a major urban transit system. That result, more than the final contract terms, should lead BART unions to pursue a more public-centered strategy during the next contract fight.

                          the bolded statement (mine) is directly contrary to what actually happened.  the UNIONS asked that the differences remaining be sent to binding arbitration - that meant that neither side had a guarantee of getting their way - and, in binding arbitration, usually BOTH sides are left unhappy.  but the unions were willing to let an impartial arbitrator resolve the issue.

                          it was bart management that refused.  how do you turn that into the unions choosing to strike?  the process of binding arbitration on the remaining differences would have immediately prevented a strike and, even after the initial strike, the unions renewed their commitment to submitting the remainder of the items to that arbitration.

                          sounds pretty damned reasonable to me.

                          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                          by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 07:19:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the article points out (0+ / 0-)

                            that there was time long before the contract expired and negotiations began that the BART workers could have explained to the public what they were going to ask for and why.  It isn't as though they didn't know what they wanted at least in general terms.

                            Also the article is dated the 17th---before negotiations were broken off.  

                            Nobody believes that safety is the main issue.  Even the unions are not using that now as an explanation for the strike.  

                            Which isn't to say that the deaths today were not a tragedy.

                  •  Again, who would be stupid enough (0+ / 0-)

                    to enter partial arbitration?  Look at what the Unions are balking at:  They want to keep long forms instead of computer entries, they want to keep paper pay stubs instead of email stubs, and they want to keep station managers from reassigning work duties in case people call in sick, because workers should always know what their schedule is and should never deviate from that.

                    Wages/salaries/benefits/healthcare were all hammered out.  The Unions got their pay hikes, which also covers the 4% pension contribution and 9% healthcare rate hike.  A sweet deal.. which is why they don't want arbitration on the contract itself.

                    In the end, they're just hurting hundreds of thousands of commuters.  Minority rules.  Republicanism.

                    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

                    by luvbrothel on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:49:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  extortion? by whom? by management that wants (0+ / 0-)

      to refuse to settle?  by management that threw a last minute set of work rules KNOWING that they would never be approved?  by management that refuses to go to binding arbitration as offered by the unions (who could, btw, lose in that situation).

      don't blame the unions - blame the union busters!  we need to stand behind the few unions that remain - or...

      we could go back to the 1920s where workers had few choices.

      ugh.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:26:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site