why i hate unions: part 2

Hammer

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
13,217
1
81
from statesman.com:

Capital Metro workers call one-day strike
Management: Short strike, if repeated several times, could result in workers being replaced
Advertisement
By Ben Wear

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Capital Metro's union employees, locked in stalled negotiations with management aboutthe agency's plans to pay newly hired workers about 16 percent less than current drivers, called a one-day strike early this morning.

What the union is calling an "unfair labor practices" strike began at 3 a.m. and will end at the same time Friday. Jay Wyatt, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1091, said the short work stoppage is intended to send a message while minimizing the pain for the public and the workers.

"At least they know we will strike," Wyatt said. "They were probably thinking we were bluffing."

Capital Metro spokesman Rick L'Amie called the timing of the strike "unfortunate," with evacuees from Hurricane Katrina still in town and more arriving at Hurricane Rita approaches. The agency had been intending to send buses to Corpus Christi to help with evacuation but won't be doing that now.

"Because of the timing of this strike, we are unable to help fellow Texans," L'Amie said. "This is an irresponsible strike."


Wyatt said Capital Metro "has let down their fellow Texans by the mismanagement of taxpayer funds. . . . Anytime you have a strike it's going to hurt some people. There is no 'good' day to strike."

L'Amie said that the agency has 14 regular routes running, with about 50 buses on the strike, and is providing it's "special transit services" for people with disabilities by using union employees who showed up for work and taxis. Those routes will cease running today at 7:50 p.m.

L'Amie said 45 union bus drivers crossed the picket line at Capital Metro headquarters along with 21 special transit service drivers and six mechanics.

"And we have another shift coming in later, so we expect that number to go up," L'Amie said at about 8 a.m.

The strike, even if it were to extend into Friday and the weekend, would not affect shuttle service to the Austin City Limits Music Festival. The agency intended to use just 25 union drivers and has made arrangements to replace them with drivers from private bus companies if necessary.

Wyatt said that many of the union workers who crossed the picket line early today are "probationary" employees who might be more vulnerable to disciplinary action or firing, and that the union understands why they might have shown up for work. L'Amie said the workers on hand today include none on probation.

L'Amie said the short strike would not affect the agency's bargaining stance, that management's latest offer will remain on the table until Sept. 30. He said that the agency will not tolerate an "unprotected partial strike," that is, a series of short stoppages such as the one today.

Wyatt said that is precisely what the union has in mind if management does not bend on the contract, which expired this summer.

If this strike has no effect, Wyatt said, "we'll do it again. And again. And again. And again."

If so, L'Amie said, the agency "is ready to hire replacement workers."

Temporary workers?

"No," L'Amie said. "These would be permanent."
 

venk

Banned
Dec 10, 2000
7,449
1
0
The timing was not unfortante, it was intentional. The Labor Union is milking the Hurricane to get a new contract quickly. Low class all the way.
 

ivol07

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2002
1,475
0
0
That Union better watch out. Sounds like the company might be prepared to swallow the cost and effort to train new employees. If they are no longer under a contract to hire union employees then it'll probably be the best decision for the future. Sucks that it comes at a time when people need help though.

Hope those Union members don't decide to do a prolonged strike. They might end up like the sucker supermarket workers over here in California who were on strike for 6 months (if not more, I can't remember) and came out with a SLIGHTLY better contract than the one they struck over.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
fire them.

they chose this time to try to force the company into caving to there demands. They know if they do not get the poeple out then the company will get a bad PR.
Though with the story being on the news about them striking that may not happen. Hopefully they fire everyone who choses not to work. going on a strike when they need to be evacuating people justify's it.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,376
19,622
146
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: KLin
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Yep, just fire them and hire new ones.

thats not illegal?!

nope.

what is the point of having a union if you are allowed to just fire everyone anyways?

Because a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost of hiring and training an entirely new workforce.

Why the fsck should a union have the power to destroy a company? Why are their rights more important than the employer's?
 

eakers

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
12,169
2
0
Because a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost of hiring and training an entirely new workforce.

Why the fsck should a union have the power to destroy a company? Why are their rights more important than the employer's?
makes sense. Here it is illegal to do that, if a contract agreement can't be found then it goes to lawyers who settle the contract for them.

Its becoming more common here that a company will just shut down and reopen so that they can hire only non union employees at half the wage anyways. It's sad because you get guys who are working for 25-30 years at 25/hour and now they are offered the same job for $10. Its impossible to make a living anymore. The companies have to do it though because they can't compete with how cheap it is to make things overseas.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
bet there's a bunch of Katrina survivors in the city that would love a nice new job as a bus driver. Bad time to strike guys. With a pool of more than willing new applicants.
 

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,908
19
81
I've said it many times, if the current administration is going to get my respect, they're going to have to put heavy restriction laws against the unions, or face a continious losing job market to outsourcing and ridiculous business crippling, illogical actions from stupid unions.

yes i've said that out of my ass, but i don't care, for all i know and read, unions do more harm than good. phok them.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,376
19,622
146
Originally posted by: eakers
Because a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost of hiring and training an entirely new workforce.

Why the fsck should a union have the power to destroy a company? Why are their rights more important than the employer's?
makes sense. Here it is illegal to do that, if a contract agreement can't be found then it goes to lawyers who settle the contract for them.

Its becoming more common here that a company will just shut down and reopen so that they can hire only non union employees at half the wage anyways. It's sad because you get guys who are working for 25-30 years at 25/hour and now they are offered the same job for $10. Its impossible to make a living anymore. The companies have to do it though because they can't compete with how cheap it is to make things overseas.

That's what happenes when basically unskilled labor prices themselves out of a job.

It's absurd that a company cannot fire an employee for not showing up at work (in a nut shell, that's what a striker is: An employee absent without leave). That means the employee's rights take precedence over the employer's rights. So much for equality of rights.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,376
19,622
146
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I've said it many times, if the current administration is going to get my respect, they're going to have to put heavy restriction laws against the unions, or face a continious losing job market to outsourcing and ridiculous business crippling, illogical actions from stupid unions.

yes i've said that out of my ass, but i don't care, for all i know and read, unions do more harm than good. phok them.

No restrictions, just remove any legal barriers and protections of unions.

As I said before, a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost to hire and train a new workforce.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: KLin
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Yep, just fire them and hire new ones.

thats not illegal?!

nope.

what is the point of having a union if you are allowed to just fire everyone anyways?

Because a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost of hiring and training an entirely new workforce.

Why the fsck should a union have the power to destroy a company? Why are their rights more important than the employer's?

70 years ago i would be 100% for unions. THe working condition that our grand parenents and great grand parents had to endure were nasty. Thanks to unions workplaces are now safe and workers do have a better quality of life. BUT, now the unions are on the other side of evil, they blackmail, extort and are currupt. I will never join a union in todays world.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: eakers
Because a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost of hiring and training an entirely new workforce.

Why the fsck should a union have the power to destroy a company? Why are their rights more important than the employer's?
makes sense. Here it is illegal to do that, if a contract agreement can't be found then it goes to lawyers who settle the contract for them.

Its becoming more common here that a company will just shut down and reopen so that they can hire only non union employees at half the wage anyways. It's sad because you get guys who are working for 25-30 years at 25/hour and now they are offered the same job for $10. Its impossible to make a living anymore. The companies have to do it though because they can't compete with how cheap it is to make things overseas.
Only an idiot would drive a bus for a living at $10 an hour. Would you feel safe riding in a bus with an idiot behind the wheel? Hell would you feel safe being on the same road with some idiot driving a 20 ton bus?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,376
19,622
146
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: KLin
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Yep, just fire them and hire new ones.

thats not illegal?!

nope.

what is the point of having a union if you are allowed to just fire everyone anyways?

Because a union's ONLY leverage should be the cost of hiring and training an entirely new workforce.

Why the fsck should a union have the power to destroy a company? Why are their rights more important than the employer's?

70 years ago i would be 100% for unions. THe working condition that our grand parenents and great grand parents had to endure were nasty. Thanks to unions workplaces are now safe and workers do have a better quality of life. BUT, now the unions are on the other side of evil, they blackmail, extort and are currupt. I will never join a union in todays world.

70 years ago, there were no state and federal laws granting special rights to unions over the rights of employers. Unions got the job done without those absurd special rights.

I'm all for the freedom to form unions. It's constitutional. What is not constitutional is the inequality of rights between unions and employers.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: venk
The timing was not unfortante, it was intentional. The Labor Union is milking the Hurricane to get a new contract quickly. Low class all the way.

What else do you expect from Unions in the 21st century? They started noble enough, trying to get fair wages for skilled workers; these days they are after *absurd* wages for lazy, unskilled, incompetent workers.

Pathetic.

Jason