CTA Bus Drivers Mulling Strike
With 2,000 layoffs being included in the CTA's dreaded 2010 budget, leaders for the CTA bus drivers' union are contemplating a strike to fight the proposed cutbacks. Local 241 of the Amalgamated Transit Union is threatening to not only strike to protest the cutbacks and promised raises made in a 2007 deal, but is claiming that the CTA's current budget gap is closer to $500 million, far larger than the CTA claims. Darrell Jefferson, President ATU Local 241, told CBS 2, "Metropolitan Transit Act says, in section 28, that management and exempt people should make up only 3 percent of the total number of employees. We estimate CTA being somewhere like 15 to 18 percent. Laying off people and you're still gonna be heavy in management, I think you're asking for a war more than a layoff."
Filed in News and tagged budget 2010, cta, Local 241 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, strike
No matter whether the unions are right or not--I might want to strike were I a bus driver, or in a host of other industries--I cannot imagine that general public support for unions will go anywhere but down when laid-offed, non-unionized workers, or those who are hanging on to jobs by a thread, or have suffered pay or benefit cuts, see what they perceive as the spoiled behavior of unions during this grinding recession.
Maybe unions don't care that much about larger public support.
"Maybe unions don't care that much about larger public support."
I think that's the important point. Public reaction has been vehemently against transit unions that have recently threatened strikes in other cities--San Francisco being one example--but the unions pressed on and got what they wanted. Public sentiment doesn't matter.
Good points.
Public support, or the waning thereof, of unions was my first thought when I read about Ford workers rejecting any compromise.
if they need scabs, i'm ready and qualified to sit in the station booths and not help anybody whenever they need me.
I normally would never cross a strike picket line. But, when that picket line is normally sitting around eating cheetos, talking on cell phones, and as mentioned already manning booths and not helping people, I don't know.
Just to clarify, this is the bus drivers, which, in my experience have been very friendly and helpful in the past (and I don't drive anymore). The transit strike in New York City a few years back (over pensions) had public support, and the TWU won pretty quickly.
The city's first reaction to budget problems has been to stick it to the workers. Their second reaction (which is just as offensive, if not more) is to stick it to the public. If Mayor Daley and his cronies think telling Chicagoans to fuck off when it comes to city services, I hope the CTA workers strike, and I hope Chicagoans stand with them.
The mayor must really think we're dumb.
"I hope the CTA workers strike, and I hope Chicagoans stand with them."
For better or worse, there is no fucking way freezing Chicagoans already facing fare increases and reduced service will stand with the striking drivers. Not even in Chicago. You might want to get that utopian idea out of your head.
I don't drive either, and I come from a solidly blue collar family and work ethic, and a good number of my friends here are in the trades or other blue-collar jobs. No fucking way they stand with the striking drivers.
Thanks for being the lone voice of reason Kevin.
In any case, I say bring on the war. This city needs a war. We all need to take sides and fucking fight (politically, of course, though I am not opposed to tar and featherrs) for the future of this city instead of just laying back and wondering when the Machine will die. It's better to fight than to be ruled, don't you think.
Shut down transit, get a spark going. Sure, those with means will simply move out when they can (recession is affecting that), but let's get some blood flowing. Make people realize that yes, a lot of shit really is on the line.
Do you think that there are any sparks left? I don't think that there are.
I wish there were, but I don't think anyone, these days, wants to risk anything.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose"...today, we have too much...there is too much to lose.
"When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose"...today, we have too much...there is too much to lose."
God, that is so true. People are afraid to sacrifice--and real change requires great personal sacrifice--and therefore, nothing happens.
I am as guilty as anyone on this count.
In spite of my comments (feeble attempts at humor), I am a fierce supporter of public transportation. It may take a does of real pain -- not able to get to work, school, game, for a week or more to drive home the point that this City must have a reliable and affordable transit system. In that regard, I would support the strikers. But, if they are perceived as lazy or greedy (they already have pretty good pay, pension plan) and their demands are seen as raising fares and reducing service, the people will turn on them. I commute everyday (do not drive at all) and make a good living. I don't know how people who make less can get by with transport costs. Public transport is absolutely necessary for a big city. The sooner our Politicians realize that the better.
I am a fierce supporter of mass transit, too. I have no car, if that means anything, and depend on CTA to get me to work, and for nearly all my social engagements and some errands.
I agree with everything you say, but for better or worse, bus drivers, or any CTA workers, have bad reputations among the public, which is why I think broad public support of a strike would not happen.
I also don't think the bus drivers have the balls to strike, and that a strike threat is simply part of the negotiating process.
Considered I've narrowly missed being seriously injured or possibly killed by red-light running buses on three separate occasions (twice at Foster and Central), I say let 'em go on strike. Maybe they can bone up on traffic laws during their newfound downtime.
Clearly your unverified anecdotal experiences mean that CTA drivers deserve whatever stupidity Mayor Daley can dole out.
As evidenced by Dickless here, the public won't support the strike. American's don't respect labor, they respect wealth. And as the last year has shown, that's a respect that is neither earned nor deserved.
"American's don't respect labor, they respect wealth."
Maybe, but in this case, it's more about Chicagoans, for better or worse, taking out their rage or angst regarding the CTA by failing to support a bus driver strike.
Tell me, where do any of you see any evidence that Chicagoans--and in the fall and winter, no less, and in a time of great economic hardship, with old buses that drip and for which riders must wait in the cold--will support any workers from the CTA?
This is not a judgment on my part, only an observation that is supported by years of relying on the CTA, years of paying attention to the city's attitude toward the CTA.
Yes, we all want to march and sing the Internationale, but in this case, it just ain't gonna happen. No CTA worker--bus driver, EL operator, middle manager, whatever--is popular enough to win broad support in the event of a strike that will really fuck with people's daily lives.
"And as the last year has shown, that's a respect that is neither earned nor deserved."
Yeah, because every rich guy in America is a crook, right, every rich person in America just had wealth handed to him, right? I want to burn down Goldman Sachs as much as the next guy, but this is also the country that produced or propelled people like Bill Gates, the Google founders, Warren Buffet, etc.
For the love of Buddha, stop with the fucking generalizations and allow adult wisdom to penetrate your skull. Generalizations are stupid and they make you look stupid. You are not stupid. I know you are not stupid.
The CTA drivers have a right to be fairly and fully compensated for their labor. The corruption and mismanagement of city finances by the Daley administration and the rubber-stamp that is the city council has left the city in dire straits. The solution? Ask the working-man/woman to take one for the team. Again.
Managers making six figures are asking subordinates to take double digit cuts in salary so they can keep their salaries intact.
But to the average CTA rider the drivers are "greedy" and should just settle. Even though, if they were in the driver's places they'd be just as outraged. A lack of basic empathy, basic human decency, that disturbs me.
By the way, Bill Gates? Generationally wealthy. Gates whole fortune is owed to an exploitation of copyright and trademark law as well as decades of economic protectionism bordering on a monopoly. Only when the feds, finally did something did microsoft back off it's pitbull tactics. Hundreds of companies were obliterated by MS lawyers, countless bankruptcies, scummy partnerships and shady deals.
The google founders? You mean the company that has built itself largely through ad revenue from a hoary host of internet scams? Or the company that worked with China to create a "great firewall"? Do no evil indeed.
Warren Buffett? I love this quote from the man
Of course not all rich people are evil. But the guy running the 49B Western has more of my respect on a day to day, man to man basis than someone whose "great work" is essentially profiting on the labor of others.
Uh, Jess, perhaps you notice that I am not arguing against the right of bus drivers to strike--see my fist post, especially the part with the subjunctive verb--but only the potential for large public support of striking bus drivers. There is unlikely to be large scale public support for such a strike, even if the bus drivers have good reasons to take that action.
Read more slowly next time, and with less emotion. This is much more than a simplistic labor vs capital argument.
You are right: America never produces self-made wealth anymore. What the hell was I thinking?
Christ.
"But the guy running the 49B Western has more of my respect on a day to day, man to man basis than someone whose "great work" is essentially profiting on the labor of others."
I tend--though I don't always succeed--to judge people based on their individual traits, not social classes. I don't know squat about that driver, most likely, and while I've met many nice and good drivers, I've also met my share of assholes who blow by handicapped people, for instance, because the drivers are lazy.
The "local implications" are a direct result of the national distrust and lack of respect for labor in this country. It's one of the uglier aspects of the American character.
There a millions of people creating wealth in this country. But the billionaires you mentioned aren't among them. Local businesses do more to create better and stronger communities than shapeless conglomerates. Interesting that you turn to 4 billionaires as your American Success Stories and not small business owners who are, on a daily basis, working harder and contributing more to the quality of life in their area. Money is a way of keeping score, and in terms of character, it's generally a lousy one.
I agree for the most part. I was using the most extreme examples.
I think you are being too broad on the national distrust thing--the vast majority of us are proles, after all, even if one is a yuppie prole--but you are mostly right.
While I might agree that there is a profound anti-labor sentiment in this country, I think citing this as the reason for the average Chicagoan's reluctance to support the drivers in this instance ignores the immense local distrust of anything or anyone connected to government in general. As has been seen on this site countless times, the perception is that anyone working for government is connected, and that includes CTA employees. We further perceive rightly or wrongly that these connected employees do better than the rest of us, that they waste time and money, and that they're not willing to give their fair share. This is not labor vs. the man. In this instance, I think the public feels that labor IS the man.
"This is not labor vs. the man. In this instance, I think the public feels that labor IS the man."
That's a wise way to put it. I think it holds true, and would hold true were the bus drivers to strike. Labor is part of the Machine, and has been for decades.
I don't want to defend any of the name-calling going on here, but there's something to what Jess is saying. There's been decades of anti-union/worker propaganda that's been drilled into American's heads now for quite some time and most of it funded by big business. Since Reagan there's been a well paid for anti-worker narrative that most Americans don't even realize they've been duped into falling for. See how we all blame bus drivers here, rather than those actually responsible for underfunding transit: Politicians and anti-transit big business interests. So this leads us to "bus drivers are lazy". They are? I wouldn't want to do that job, I've seen the kind of scum they have to deal with on a daily (hourly) basis. That's certainly no cakewalk.
Well said.
That's fine and dandy, but the point I am making, and have been making, is simply this: The Chicago public is unlikely to offer broad support for a bus driver strike for various reasons.
I would love to see an argument that pokes holes in my idea.
I don't really care about the labor vs capital argument, much of which I agree with. I care only about the local implications of this, and whether those who ride the CTA will really support bus drivers, or if such a strike would further alienate the CTA from its riders.
One more thing: I generally agree with what you say, but I do assign the majority of blame to our so-called leaders on this issue (workers have to realize that yes, sometimes hard time do require sacrifice, as nearly every non-union worker in this city knows already, including myself). It sucks, but that's life. And just because one generally supports labor and is more a part of labor than capital does not mean is a knee-jerk supporter of unions, especially those in Chicago, which are as much a part of the power structure as any other group, meaning they often share in the poisoned fruits.
That said, one shouldn't assume broad public support for a bus driver strike.
The CTA unions have consistently accepted concessions in their contract negotiations to avoid Doomsdays. They wouldn't be striking for more pay - they're talking about striking to protect the transit system as a whole. The CTA's unions have said as much before.
I'm sorry you're a non-union employee who's had to take it on the chin without any say. Rather than try and reduce the standard of living of others in retaliation, you should support a better standard of living for other workers like yourself. You might find your standard of living increases along with theirs.
"I'm sorry you're a non-union employee who's had to take it on the chin without any say. Rather than try and reduce the standard of living of others in retaliation, you should support a better standard of living for other workers like yourself. You might find your standard of living increases along with theirs."
Not in Chicago, where unions lately are more interesting in protecting their own clout--that is, the power most closely associated with their leaders--than with the jobs of their members.
I'm sorry to, but despite the BS bosses also peddle, living without paycuts and such would have meant I'd be out of the job. That's the reality. I realized that sacrifice had to be shared even if the proles were under a greater burden. What's the alternative? Try to make it on unemployment for a while until I managed to beg my way into a job at McDonalds? You have some vision of Chicago labor marching together toward some sunny utopia that I do not share, and which evidence does not support.
And I think your interpretation of bus drivers striking to save Chicago transit--it's a plausible argument, to be sure, and very attractive--is also rather idealistic and naive. This is is primarily about saving some pretty sweet salary packages and benefits. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but like everything else in life and economics, the main cause is motivated by self-interest, not concern for the public at large. Come on man, you've lived in a Chicago a while. You know this.
One more thing, about this word:
"retaliation"
That is really unfair, and not accurate as to my motives. I don't say what I say to somehow get back at other workers--is that really how union types think?--but rather to point out that the notion that some workers should escape sacrifice is unlikely to win broad public support.
Have you really thought why the public holds labor at such low esteem? Trust me, Reagan and the Republicans who followed him are not that good at propaganda.
The union says the CTA needs to knock that extra 15 - 18 percent off at the management level, per state law, before they start chopping away at bus and train drivers. If you think that those aren't clouted, bloated positions, you're living a lie.
If the CTA was managed by people holdind MBAs, MPAs and MPPs from Northwestern, U of U, and UIC, that had a plan and knew what they were doing, then I'd be concerned about cutting quality management. But I guarantee that the top heavy management in the CTA is more Uncle Louie from the neighborhood than Mr. Lewis the professional public manger.
The bottom line here is that Mayor Daley and his cronies thing you're stupid. They think we're all stupid, which is why they keep raising taxes and fees (like CTA fares) while cutting the quality of service.
Of course they think we are stupid. And they don't know how to run the city.
But this idea of yours that someone a bus driver strike will 1) engage the public, especially in winter; and 2) lead to meaningful reform (which would seem to require large-scale public support) is naive and, I think, colored by your strong pro-union biases. All due respect. I don't think you are being realistic.
Do I have the answer? No, I don't either. But I think a bus driver strike, no matter how reasonable their requests may be, is going to further alienate riders from the CTA and its workers, meaning it will be counterproductive. Certainly your mind, as political as it is, has at least considered that possibility.
I don't expect broad support. Never said as much. Like I said, there's a whole narrative about lazy/greedy workers:
workers have to realize that yes, sometimes hard time do require sacrifice, as nearly every non-union worker in this city knows already, including myself.
^ see what I mean. I can think of some other people who could stand to sacrifice more.
So can I. But for unions to expect constant and very healthy pay increases in these hard times (and for alderman and others, too), is not only unrealistic, but at least a bit offensive.
Now, some unions have decide to layoff (presumably junior) members rather than give in, a strategy that does have some long-term merits, I guess. But that one can argue that is also a cynical, self-serving choice.
I am not trying to imply that there are easy choices. Everyone (except, perhaps, alderman and people who work for Goldman Sachs) is having to eat shit sandwiches as this point.
That's precisely it. The comedy, dark as it is, of the American narrative is this unending stream of praise for the common man couple with endless dicking over of said common man.
I live by the simple idea that if someone is doing a job for you that you would rather not do (trades, cops, firemen, roadwork, teachers) show those folks respect for their labor.
I'm not against capitalism. But the unconscionable greed of the monied class in this country, a tiny percentage of generationally wealthy paper-traders, almost annihilated the very foundations of capitalism last fall. The whole credit market literally froze, and billions poured out of the system. Credit default swaps, massive deregulation (under both Bush and Clinton) of the home loan industry...these people lied cheated and stole and bought the congress to make it all legal.
The super in my building just put in a new bathroom ledge over the weekend. Had a beer with the guy, talked about the crazy guy on the top floor who hasn't left his apartment in months and thanked him for coming out on the weekend. That's someone worth respecting. Fuck MBAs
" live by the simple idea that if someone is doing a job for you that you would rather not do (trades, cops, firemen, roadwork, teachers) show those folks respect for their labor."
Not to be a smart ass, but that is a simple idea, though your heart is in the right place.
First, one can respect such labor without one wanting to give public employees or even private trades people salaries and pensions that help make tax burdens unbearable for the unfortunate schmucks who labor at lower wages, or who need to fix a broken pipe and have to raid Billy's college fund to do so. I come from a family of tradesmen and blue-collar workers, and 1) they all love, love, love their jobs, and would do nothing else; and 2) make a great salary--not rich, but very comfortable. In short, these are hardly jobs that others don't want to do. I'd love to be a carpenter or mechanic like some of my relatives if I were not such a klutz (I doubt I'd have four fingers left at this point.)
Second, there are finite resources in society, even if one could magically erase all the waste and accumulation caused by corruption and greed and misplaced priorities. There are limits to how much most people can be paid; business models and tax structures don't support excessive compensation schemes for too long before collapsing under their own weight. That is neither right nor wrong, only reality.
Please don't make the mistake of assuming I dislike bus drivers simply because I raise these concerns. No one here wants to deny them a decent standard of living; rather, they might be called upon to make sacrifices that still leave them better off than many working schumcks in Chicago, and striking over that seems unlikely to win broad public support. I can't imagine the many, many unemployed trades people I know in Chicago are going to cry too long for bus drivers who still have a decent job with insurance, etc.
You're missing the point. The myth of the greedy pensioner deserves a cartoon headstone along with the welfare queen and Ketchup as a vegetable. It's political gamesmanship.
You want to fully fund health care for all uninsured Americans? Cut defense spending by 20% and you can do it for decades without raising taxes a dime or cutting services. But no politician would support that, because who wants to be "weak on defense"?
The soft-skull politicians and the money-men who fund them (Hey, Lieberman is against Health Care reform? Probably has nothing to do with the millions he gets from the insurance lobby!) demonize labor, social programs and pensions while they get fat on graft.
Yes, pension reform, clear and evenhanded reform, is a good thing. But the problem is to CTA heads, this is a zero-sum game. They don't want any pensions, period, so they chisel away at the idea year after year. The cowardice of accretion.
It's one thing to look at funding and investment, it's another to tell someone you're not going to pay them for weeks at a time and they should just be grateful to even have a job in the first place. It's theft. Telling someone in their 50s, after decades of service, that their pension isn't going to happen is theft.
Meanwhile, some pudgy banker has a seven figure year and asks the government for a bonus to see him through the rough patch.
It's a level of inequality that Americans have been trained to accept. And should that training wear off there will be blood in the streets when people see just how badly they've been cheated.
Yeah, because every rich guy in America is a crook, right, every rich person in America just had wealth handed to him, right? I want to burn down Goldman Sachs as much as the next guy, but this is also the country that produced or propelled people like Bill Gates, the Google founders, Warren Buffet, etc.
I'll respect them a lot more when they pay a tax share that more reasonably reflects the massive benefits they've received from the public good over the years. Warren Buffet even agrees with me on that. I agree that not everyone's a crook but I have to comment since you mentioned Bill Gates, and Bill Gates is practically a meme himself when it comes to being a part of this neoliberal rich people are deserving supermen narrative. Gates is a perfect example of this narrative because he's often name dropped by neoliberals as a great example of somebody pulling up their bootstraps and succeeding. God forbid anybody point out all the huge advantages a person like him had on others: private schooling, above average wealth, ivy league parents etc. Those kinds of things conflict with the American Dream myth.
Please don't attribute silly Superman/Any Rand crap to me. I don't believe in that stuff, not at all, never have, even if I do believe some in American still can gain wealth through their own talents without trying to rip off everyone else.
I live by the simple idea that if someone is doing a job for you that you would rather not do (trades, cops, firemen, roadwork, teachers) show those folks respect for their labor.
A-Fucking-Men!
I completely support them. This city needs the bus drivers a hell of a lot more than they need some of the management in the Lake Street building. The "Management" aren't driving people to work and taking all sorts of abuse from the drunk, the entitled, and people who just want to bitch them out for factors that aren't under their control. And for CTA to keep management and administrative at the expense of the people actually driving the buses and trains is bullshit, and NONE of us should stand for it!
Then tell me your ideal salary and benefit scale for the glorified working man (well, at least the classes of workers who merit your glory).
Don't play that game. You know about living wages and the outrages disparities between executive and worker salaries. In 2005 the average CEO was making 262 TIMES the average worker. Compare that to 1965 when it was just 24 times.
It's not a question of "name your price". It's about a living wage that compensates fully and shows the value of labor without asking employees to carry the burden for malfeasance. It's about recognizing that physical labor (and driving is as much a physical job as any other) has real costs in terms of health and long-term impact that riding a desk does not. It's about realizing that unlimited greed is not a value, it's not laudable and yes, there should be limits to compensation and generational wealth should be attacked like a the vampire it is.
Bus drivers should be paid fully and fairly for their work and not live in fear of ill-health or age bringing poverty. Same for every American. Peace of mind is not something only the monied should enjoy.
It's not a game, but being paid fully and fairly has wildly different meaning among workers, the public and politicians. A study or two, or a law, does not settle the issue. I mean, how far do you want to legislate this issue? Or do you prefer other solutions? So far, you've really offered nothing but well-placed outrage that nearly anyone here would agree with.
If it were so simple, would we be having this conversation right now? Think about it.
You make great points, most of which I agree with, especially about greed, but those points by their nature are vague and don't automatically lead to changes in policy or pay.
As well, how far do your "limits to compensation" extend down the economic ladder?
"Bus drivers should be paid fully and fairly for their work and not live in fear of ill-health or age bringing poverty. "
And who's to say they don't already? See, this is the problem with things that sound good--and are good--but with really come with no specifics attached. That is why I pressed for details. If you want to create such a system, you need details. Otherwise, it's as useful as holding hands in church, isn't it?
I don't want to legislate anything. Who's the judge of what's fair compensation? The workers are, through the mechanism of collective bargaining. They decide that the offer is fair, that they can maximize their satisfaction with what's on the table (to borrow an economic term) they vote to accept the negotiated terms of the agreement. They don't feel satisfied with what they're being offered, they go back to the table, or they use what strategy they have at their disposal to press for more.
It's called freedom of assembly, and it's part of how functioning democracies work.
"Who's the judge of what's fair compensation? The workers are, through the mechanism of collective bargaining. "
Uh, the employers--you know, the ones who pay, either directly or not, with or without the input of shareholders or lawmakers--also have a say in that judgment.
But you guys all toss around "fair pay," which is a very nice slogan, but it is just that--only a slogan.
And bus drivers in Chicago are hardly on the bottom rung of the ladder, which is another reason they would be unlikely to find broad support for a strike.
And some union people still wonder why organized labor lacks broad public support.
I'll tell you when you explain to me how someone in the CTA Administration is going to help us when buses start running every 90 minutes instead of 20 during rush hour because of the lack of drivers. Or why "the powers that be" decided that it would be a good idea to reroute the bus nearest by house to a street that already had a freaking bus route (so instead of walking 2 blocks I now have to walk 6 to the nearest bus line). CTA make shitty decisions all of the time and are completely unaccountable for what they do.
This isn't about getting a bigger salary and bigger benefits; this is about the people who do the bulk of the work being constantly asked to "take one for the team" while others aren't. Not only are these people not getting the raises they were promised, they're actually being told that their salaries are either going to be less than they are now, or they're going to lose their jobs.
There's a lot of bus drivers in Chicago who LOVE what they do. They like their routes, like their "regulars", keep their cool when dealing with idiots and try to make the trip pleasant for everyone. The thought of any of those drivers losing their job while someone in the Lake Street building making 3x their salary is still there masturbating with paper clips sets off my inner rage rat.
There you go again, reducing it to a simple labor vs capital issue, as though this is Haymarket.
Yes, there is much waste and too much managerial fat. It should be cut without mercy (but with wisdom--the CTA in the last few months has lost at least two good upper-management folks, folks who have a deep knowledge of local transit)
Yes, workers might be forced to sacrifice. Nearly everyone in America--despite the impression otherwise, despite certain headline cases--is being forced to sacrifice, so why should bus drivers be any different? At the least, they should forgo raises. If they don't, why the fuck should members of the public support them? They will still make a good living and have great benefits.
Poor you--four extra blocks to your bus. My tiny violin is playing for you.
Thank you for the song, I like getting Chicagoist gifts! ^_^ Perhaps you can also play for the elderly people on my route who were also affected by this asinine decision?
This isn't really "labor vs capital issue" as much as a fairness/common sense one. The fat is being kept instead of the meat, and the meat is constantly being trimmed. There was a time where owners and management would take the lumps before their workers; sadly, in this age of Greed is Good that is a thing of the past. If you have to make cuts, FINE. Just be fair about it and trim the fat and rotten bits of meat first before fucking with the sirloin.
IF CTA doesn't want to give raises, then perhaps they shouldn't promise them in the first place to placate already angry unions. They know their budget is fucked. Why lie to those people? My guess is it's not so much the "Surprise! We lied about the raises AGAIN" as the "...and we're going to fire half of you and cut the wages of those who are left" part.
But hey! At least we'll have a lot of exercise. Because with 2000 drivers gone I'm quite sure a lot of routes are going to go bye bye--maybe yours.
Philadelphia transit workers just went on strike. MSNBC story says average pay is 52K. They are striking for a 4 percent increase in pay and to keep the percentage they pay towards health care coverage at 1 percent. The city is offering 11.5 percent increase over 5 years and increased pension contribution. Trains and buses quit at 3 AM last night. One million riders a day.
No information on MSNBC about how riders feel (aside from the usual stories of people who got stranded or otherwise inconvenienced). They went on strike in 2005 (40 days) and in 1998.
This seems like peanuts compared to the CTA problems. Philadelphia is a strong union city, so I figure they must have support.
here's what philly thinks about their transit workers: http://www.philebrity.com/2009/11/03/oh-septa-up-yours/#comments
Uh, the employers--you know, the ones who pay, either directly or not, with or without the input of shareholders or lawmakers--also have a say in that judgment.
He didn't imply otherwise:
I don't want to legislate anything. Who's the judge of what's fair compensation? The workers are, through the mechanism of collective bargaining. They decide that the offer is fair, that they can maximize their satisfaction with what's on the table (to borrow an economic term) they vote to accept the negotiated terms of the agreement.
Then I obviously read it wrong, a danger on blogs, I guess.