TWU Local 234 went on strike at 3 AM this morning. Still not satisfied.
Frankly, I've lost all respect for this union. They keep abusing this power way too much - it's like clockwork. They obviously don't care about the citizens in this area...even the governer, the mayor of Philadelphia, and a US Rep were trying to work with them and they pull this stunt. This left a VERY sour taste in the mouths of out politicians....
We may need arbitration, because OBVIOUSLY negotiations don't work. Better yet, have an anti-strike law for public "critical service" employees. I'm sick of the abuse of this "right".
Do you really want an anti-strike law? The only state I can think of one is New York with the Taylor Law (and that only covers civil service employees but includes the MTA's agencies and the Big 4 upstate TA's) and there's a hue and cry to get that repealed because it's seen as unnecessary legislation that they do so well up there. Does anyone else have an anti-strike law on the books
If it was easier for a bunch of employees to abandon one union for another (or, better yet, to go non-union), that might be SEPTA's better bet. I can't think of many cases where ATU-represented agencies have striked vs. TWU-represeted agencies to be honest.
I dunno about anti-strike *laws* but I believe WMATA has an anti-strike *clause* in their contract. I was told by one operator that there was supposed to be a sick-out on Friday, but service didn't seem to be impacted.
Doesn't MTA Maryland have a similar clause? I remember reading some story about that during the TWU strike in New York in 2005 that involved NYCTA, most of MTA Bus, and part of the private lines about to be taken over by MTA Bus.
SEPTA might need to adopt a clause since they seem to strike or threaten to strike a few times a year. Weren't they on strike this week last year?
When NYCTA went on strike the the union screwed the member over bigtime. In the end they had to settle for less than what the TA offered. Also - They were penalized for striking.
I understand the need for unions, especialy when they came along back in the 1920 or 30s. It was very much necessary as workers had no protection. Nowadays, there's a lot more legislation on the books to protect workers, and I think the way unions operate is often horrible. IMO, the system is simply broken and we need some sort of union reform.
At my job I heard there's a certain group of union employees who are pissed with the union, feel they're a waste of time, feel that the union simply takes their wages with them getting very little in return and would love to get rid of the unions. Unfortunately, this group doesn't have the numbers.
I've heard about some of the demands and I just have to shake my head.
Quote from: Tristan on November 03, 2009, 11:28:27 AM
I dunno about anti-strike *laws* but I believe WMATA has an anti-strike *clause* in their contract. I was told by one operator that there was supposed to be a sick-out on Friday, but service didn't seem to be impacted.
I think all ATU members have that anti-strike clause. I know MTA has it in theirs.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on November 03, 2009, 11:13:02 AM
Do you really want an anti-strike law? The only state I can think of one is New York with the Taylor Law (and that only covers civil service employees but includes the MTA's agencies and the Big 4 upstate TA's) and there's a hue and cry to get that repealed because it's seen as unnecessary legislation that they do so well up there. Does anyone else have an anti-strike law on the books
If it was easier for a bunch of employees to abandon one union for another (or, better yet, to go non-union), that might be SEPTA's better bet. I can't think of many cases where ATU-represented agencies have striked vs. TWU-represeted agencies to be honest.
There needs to be something done. I would lean more towards arbitration since, for some reason, SEPTA and TWU can never have a negotiation without the threat of a strike popping up.
I'm sorry, but this is just a slap in the face to everyone who ever uses transit in the Philadelphia region. Especially when the governer is offering to give SEPTA $6 million dollars that the state really doesn't have to just give in order to satisfy the union. The best part about everything is that we don't really know how Act 44 is going to be funding, with the resistance to the tolling of I-80 and such. SEPTA, like other agencies in the state, can be looking at a huge budget deficit next fiscal year.
People who thought that negotiations were going well woke up this morning to discover that they didn't have a ride to work - the call to strike came at 3AM this morning!
I'm just tired of this union being so comfortable to hold the public hostage, especially in these economic times. In times where people have to contribute a hell of a lot more to health insurance, and essentially say bye bey to wage increases and bonuses, this is what the union refused:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091103_Rendell_blasts_striking_SEPTA_union_leaders.html
Quote from: Scrabbleship on November 03, 2009, 11:33:52 AM
Doesn't MTA Maryland have a similar clause? I remember reading some story about that during the TWU strike in New York in 2005 that involved NYCTA, most of MTA Bus, and part of the private lines about to be taken over by MTA Bus.
SEPTA might need to adopt a clause since they seem to strike or threaten to strike a few times a year. Weren't they on strike this week last year?
They threaten to strike every 3 or 4 years...essentially when the contracts are up. The last strike in 2005 started on October 31st, 2005...so it's about the same time of year.
From my perspective I believe there is no right to strike against the public interest. Besides, time and time again studies have shown that employees on strike never recoup the salaries and benefits they lost during the strike in any new contract.