If you voted yes to a Denver transit strike ...

The BBQ Pit
81

Huh? Calling strawman doesn’t make for a strawman. Care to elaborate and prove me wrong on whatever it is you’re talking about? Calling strawman is usually a golden opportunity to make a point. Care to make one?
[/quote]

Scroll up and discern what I’m asking. Why is the union allowing people to work for 6 months without a day off upon penalty of loss of employment? Why should the workers now trust that the union will protect them now? All the while the union is collecting the dues.

Not in the first post. But it soon comes out that her brethren are forced, upon loss of employment, to work 180 straight days. Of course, she finally tells us she’s a member of the union for less than 61 days, so she has final say in this matter. Denver, beware. This is what you’re dealing with.

Nope. If I were in charge of collecting dues from people that had to work 180 straight days or lose their jobs, and I was in charge of the union forcing that on my workers, I’d shoot myself. I’d realize what an utter failure I was in protecting the worker’s rights.

I don’t have an inherent adversity of unions, as I said before. (Ignore it if you will.) I will, however, challenge them in stuff like this.

And this isn’t even about unions in general,. I asked the OP a specific (unanswered) question.
How did the union get to the point of protecting workers in such a way that they work 180 straight days without a day off? And how is that protecting workers? And why do they they trust the union now to get a contract that will protect them? Is there any provision for the forced overtime and destruction of families?

I didn’t bring these issues up. I had no idea people were under so much stress that families were being affected to the point of divorce.

There are all issues the OP brought up. I’ll be willing to let them go if I can get the original question answered I asked.

What was the union doing that allowed their workers to go 6 months without a single day off?

Of course, the OP has only been a member for 2 months, so I doubt until she gets the tract of talking points can she attempt an answer.

But based on previous posts, it’ll be some diversion. No answers, again. I’d be interested to talk to a driver working 4 months ago about the contract. If I could keep him awake. What with the lack of rest.

180 days straight of working? Hmmm. No rest for a bus driver. Sounds safe for passenger and commuter alike. Truckers are required to have at least one day per 8 with no work-related demands. And a required 10 hour rest period per 24 hours. As mentioned earlier, city bus drivers don’t have to follow these rules. I’'m sure they police themselves for safety. :rolleyes: That gives more than 3 week’s total of rest a driver has over the bus driver in that 6 month period.

This is like banging my head against a wall, but I’ll ask again.

Why did the union let the abuse of your brethren go on this long? And why do you now think they’ll prevent you from the same fate? 6 months without a day off? Why are you putting so much trust in them when they allowed it?

82

Had you read the linked article from the Rocky Mountain News, conveniently provided by Large Marge in post #47, you would have read

The way the contract that these union employees work under dictates how overtime is assigned. If there are only enough drivers in the union to cover the regular shifts, that means that all drivers would then have to work extra hours, even if they start from the bottom of the list and work their way up. Having seniority wouldn’t get you any time off, because there aren’t enough drivers to cover everything which is what Large Marge has said several times: they are understaffed.

Unions cannot force people to keep jobs they do not want, duffer. If people quit, the union can’t do jack about it, except try and get more people hired and trained. Large Marge has explained at least once that something like half the people who begin training leave before it is completed, either due to incompetence, inability, or not liking the job.

In fact, LM has said some of these things so many times, I am having a hard time believing that you are reading anything here.

I don’t recall Large Marge ever saying that she had such great faith in her union leadership, but I commend her for sticking by her commitment. Membership in a union involves taking an oath. Many people take it very seriously when they make a solemn vow. It is important to them. People undergo hardships occassionally because of the oaths they make. They stick together, and see each other thru the hard times, hoping that their hard work and bonding will result in a better future.

That is what unions are about: making a better future for each other, not just taking whatever scraps employers are willing to offer.

83

I recall no one saying that unions were infallible in their protections of workers in this thread. I have run across this attitude in real life, but not here. Snowboarder Bo has answered the rest of your post to my satisfaction.

84

I find this suspect:

Overtime is an opportunity for more money - I’m surprised the contract is written to give those with less seniority the opportunity for more pay.

I’d think it’d be those with more seniority at least having first right-of-refusal for overtime pay.

85

It isn’t written that way.

Most drivers with seniority don’t want to work on their days off. They figure they’ve worked there long enough and developed enough seniority that they shouldn’t have to work overtime unless they so desire. Those who do may volunteer, and then they do have first priority. They have their pick of the best routes/trippers, whether they choose to work overtime or are mandated to. But there is far more work than drivers. Because we are short so many drivers, they mandate the newest employees to work overtime first, and then, as they run out of those, they call in (mandate) drivers with more and more seniority.

86

I think you are probably right to find this suspect… after all, what you are hearing is what RTD says is the problem; they can hardly be expected to blame themselves when the union is such a handy scapegoat. Hell, duffer doesn’t even know what the fuck is going on, but he’s already blamed the union at least a dozen times in this thread.

87

Looks like the strike could end and Service restored on Monday…

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4600131,00.html

The new offer doen’t sound much better then the old offer, but a week without work may have been enough to sway the vote in favor of the contract.

While I typically rely on the light rail to get me to work, I am happy that none of the additional commuters have discovered my downtown parking haven. I have had a place to park (for free!) each day this week. Although, I will be happy to save the gas money and take the train downtown next week.

88

It is a fact that prior to the union movement in this country, employers paid significantly less for labor than they did after their workers were unionized. Non-union employers were (and still are) forced to raise their wages to at least somewhat compete, or they risk losing workers to the unionized employers. The question isn’t “does this job pay more than the bare minimum that the law forces employers to pay?” so much as it is “does this job pay on a par with what my labor is worth?”.

I would point out at this time that the federal minimum wage was only passed after heavy lobbying from the unions in this country. In fact, many of the protections and norms we enjoy only came about after union involvement. The 40 hour work week, OSHA, minimum wage… all happened because of union lobbying.

As has been pointed out above, you’re wrong: all workers in this country have benefitted from the union movement. Unions have made life better for everyone, not just by being able to demand a fair wage for the job, but by ensuring that workers are treated better than chattle.

Trying to make your argument that non-union workers are oppressed by unions is a load of shit. It’s like a bucket with a hole in it: it doesn’t hold water. It’s just plain demagoguery.

This load of crap hardly bears arguing against. There is a huge difference between the aims of a business (make as much profit as possible) and the aims of a union (ensure a fair wage and decent working conditions for its members). Also, unions do not “gain a monopoly on labor”. You are totally wrong. Unions are empowered to bargain on behalf of employees for wages, working conditions, etc. That’s all. No monopoly, just bargaining. If this is your best argument against unions, my advice to you is to shut the fuck up.

You very obviously have a lot against unions.

I know of only a handful of states that have closed shop laws, but none of those laws says what you seem to think they say. No place of business is forced to use union labor; you are free to open a new widget manufacturing facility and hire only non-union labor. Once your employees vote to utilize collective bargaining, tho, you are bound to negotiate in good faith with them.

Further, to dispell your misinformation, the National Labor Relations Act mandates that not all employees must be union members, but those who choose to forgo membership are still required to pay for the cost of collective bargaining and administering the contract negotiated on their behalf. That’s only fair since, as you have pointed out, TANSTAAFL.

I can personally tell you that I know of a union man here in Las Vegas who was charged with a misdemeanor for slapping a truck that was crossing a picket line. Yes, he slapped it with his picket sign. It happened 2 years ago during a strike at the LV Convention Center, and he did have to go to court. He plead nolo contendre and adjudication was withheld after he performed 100 hours of community service, a sentence which is fairly common for a first offense of this type.

89

Is it conceivable , duffer that the previous contract was signed when different conditions prevailed, possibly with better management/labor relations and the number of drivers closer to or at the required number. A clause in the contract allowing for mandatory overtime in exceptional services is not unreasonable given a good relationship with management and a good faith effort by management to maintain a full staff. If the situation changes then the situation changes.

Additionally, as noted above, while the contract was in force could the union legally strike?

Finally, it seems to me that anyone who says Large Marge and her coworkers are overpaid or greedy is just plain wrong. It isn’t me that is contradicting them but the allmighty market. Supply and demand. If RTD is incapable of hiring additional sufficient personnel at the existing labor rates and benefits package (or even to maintain existing personnel levels) than the drivers are underpaid. The debate about the drivers’ relative merits and deservingness are as pointless as discussions of athletes and CEO salaries.

(Granted, I have no doubt the RTD is squeezed between the ratepayers and the union)

90

My friend, I’m not sure where you’re from, but here in Chicago, there is no labor BUT union labor. This is a monopoly like no other. The market is CORNERED by the unions, period. That said, I admire your wide-eyed idealism (naiveté) but unions in the NEW free market have outlived their usefulness. Period. And before I go any further this comes from a nearly life-long union member (my father and grandfather were union workers, as well as several of my uncles, one a trucker that worked with the 1st Hoffa) and former local BA (rep) for the Teamsters.

Workers today aren’t loyal to a single employer because the employers, to stay ahead of the competition have to stay lean and agile, and sometimes, staying lean and agile, means cutting decent pay for workers. When you can pay a hut dweller in Bangladesh a total of $3.00 an hour, vs the $12 plus benefits you have to pay the American, you do it to survive. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is what it is. The global economy won’t tolerate unions the way that the American one did. a billion people in China, a billion people in India…that’s a LOT

Your statements seem to imply that the end result of the worker and the end result of the owner/company are divergent. They’re not. The worker, just like the owner, wants to make as much as he or she can, to do the things they need to to (i.e. provide for their family, grow thier business, secure retirement etc). It’s the team dynamic that makes a good company better, and the lack of it that makes a bad company worse. The interruption of the team dynamic is caused in equal parts by unions, and corrupt management.

That said…

The OP is dead on. If you voted for the strike, you owe it to your brothers and sisters to walk the line. If you voted no, then you’re free to seek other employ. Frankly though, this isn’t something you go into without knowing it. I doubt it comes as a suprise to RTD workers…

What I wonder is, how do you force those kind of hours on non-salaried persons?

The one day rest in seven act is being violated like mad.

91

Clearly, it’s too much trouble for you to check. I’m from Las Vegas, just like it says in the upper right corner of all my posts.

I think that one might make a good case for the ultimate goal of unions to be to make themselves unnecessary by getting laws passed and raising the public awareness of unsafe working conditions, unfair pay and labor practices, etc. But I also think that if unions were to go away, it wouldn’t take a day before some schmuck boss was mistreating his employees or working to change the laws so that he could do so without running afoul of the law. So, I feel, unions are not obsolete and will always be necessary. As long as I still have a constitutional right to associate with those of my own choosing, I will exercise that right.

I never said anything about the end goals of the workers vs. the end goals of the employers. NEVER. What I was talking about was the goals of the employer vs. the goals of the union. There is a difference. The vast majority of union constitutions are about improving working conditions and protecting the interests of workers.

Wanting to be paid more for the work that you do is not a sin or a crime. In the case of the RTD workers, they have been offered a pitifully small raise, while they see that management employees got huge bonuses.

cite

RTD union workers, meanwhile, were offered a raise of $1.80 over three years. That’s only a 10% raise over 3 years for those at the top of the pay scale, while they have not had a raise since 2003. So from 2003-2009, if you were at the top of the scale, your pay would only go from about $18.00/hr to $19.80/hour. Meanwhile, gas prices have risen to almost $3/gallon and housing prices are through the roof. If the raises don’t keep pace with inflation, why shouldn’t a union seek better raises when at the bargaining table?

And you say unions have outlived their usefulness? In light of the fact that this is happening in Denver, and in light of what happened in NYC in December, I really don’t think your argument has much going for it. Workers need to look out for themselves, because they cannot trust employers to do what is right. And the best way for workers to look out for themselves is to band together under a union banner and seek a fair deal for the labor they provide.

I agree that a team dynamic is necessary for a company to prosper. I think we saw that in this country from the mid 1940s up until the mid 1970s. There was a tremendous boom in home ownership, and we enjoyed an incredibly prosperous economy, all while improving working conditions. Workers were proud of what they did, and union employers produced goods largely unmatched in quality craftsmanship, even by today’s standards. Spreading the wealth worked to make America an even brighter beacon to poor, oppressed people around the world.

92

Actually, I went to respond before I looked there, my mistake, but that only tells me where you are, not where you’re from.

Here’s the idealism talking. The unions are making money like the management is making money. Even if there were a utopian work-state for every single American, Unions would maintain their hold on the scruff of the neck of the labor force. Unions should not be a business. They are. You’re right, if unions went away, there would be some boss that would run afoul of the rules. That happens anyway, but if he works to change the laws, he’s a part of the process. Unions are not as obsolete as they are antiquated, and not destined for longevity.

6 in one, half dozen in the other… The workers work for the boss, who pays the workers who pay the unions who bicker with the boss who works for his stakeholders, who demand profitability from the boss, who pays the workers who… The end goal is the same…win-win-win.

[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
Wanting to be paid more for the work that you do is not a sin or a crime. In the case of the RTD workers, they have been offered a pitifully small raise, while they see that management employees got huge bonuses.cite

[QUOTE]

Well within the RTD’s rights, and clearly outside of the scope of the contract…as middle and upper management usually are.

3.33% a year? That’s low, admittedly, but hardly out of line. Many police and firefighters stay within 4% and 7% yearly raises…

I don’t doubt the intent in your statement, though I wonder how much actual
“looking out” the unions do for their members. Strikes kill companies, dead companies don’t employ people.

Agreed, at least in spirit, but what happened AFTER the mid 70’s? The industrial revolution breathed it’s dying breath, and the age of technology took hold. The infrastucture was built, the lines had been drawn in the sand, and the era of the job hopper had begun. The work-for-30-years-for-the-man-get-a-gold-watch-and-retire jobs began evaporating, and by the late 80’s, it was every man for himself, including the unions. Sadly, the demise of the things you speak of rests squarely on the shouders of the population of these United States. The unquenchable desire for cheap plastic crap has driven manufacturers overseas where parts are plentiful, labor is cheap, and profits are almost guaranteed. The demise of the unions, oddly enough, are the direct result of their members, their members families, friends and neighbors.

93

Aw shit. I was thinking of the strikers. Not the union. My bad. :rolleyes:

94

For those of you who care, the strike is over!

Yay!!

We all go back to work Monday, but I’m not sure what that means for service Monday. I’m sure RTD will be updating their website.

95

Yay! I go back to work on Monday, too!

Of course, I went to work last Monday as well. I miised out on getting a week off? Damn!

96

Better start sobering up, Marge. :smiley:

97

Yup, the party’s over. I just smoked the last of my crack stash though, so the timing is pretty good. :wink: