On 3/3/04 8:10 PM, "Steve Sumner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To state that the Governor wants to see a strike, with people off the job, > and other people's lives being disrupted by the interruption in bus service > is reckless and irresponsible journalism. To keep pressing this story makes > you folks look very foolish. I don't like to see the strike, but the union > members need to realize that the money isn't there to support the kind of > plan that they are looking for. > Steve Sumner > Waite Park Spoken like a true Republican believer. Why is it up to the union members to pay for decisions that they had no say in? In the Met Council "position" that was referenced earlier, management points out that they were "hit with a reduction in state funding" - that's certainly true, but who decided that? I believe it was the governor and the Republicans in the House who pushed that reduction on Met Council to accommodate their "no new taxes" pledge. Remember when they said that Minnesotans wouldn't even notice those cuts? That there wouldn't be any pain? Wrong! Further in the Met Council "position" - they make a nice attempt to generate envy among the majority of our working folks who don't have union protections by talking about how union leaders are "asking taxpayers to dig deeper to subsidize a level of benefits that few taxpayers enjoy." This is insulting. As Wizard Marks and Dyna Sluyter pointed out, driving or fixing a bus is no frolic through the park. It's not something that anybody can just walk in off the street and do - it's a damned hard job. And it takes a large physical toll. Those benefits that ATU members have were EARNED, not given. Even better, Met Council tries to spin the post-retirement health benefits after 17 service years as some great deal. They conveniently fail to mention that the current contract calls for benefits to be earned after 10 years. Which makes it not so great if you're a 54-year old bus driver or mechanic with nine years in who was hoping to retire next year and now face having to gut out another eight years of diesel fumes and constant punishment on the back, hips and knees that comes with maneuvering one of those beasts for 8-10 hours a day. Met Council also fails to mention that anyone hired after the new contract doesn't even get a chance to earn these post-retirement benefits because their plan phases it out. Don't be fooled by the sleight of hand games from Peter Bell and his cohorts, especially given Paul Rohlfing's point about how the reduction in state funding didn't stop Met Council management from getting healthy raises. Wonder what their benefits packages look like? Did anyone else notice the article in the Strib Business section yesterday about how the grocery workers just ratified a new three-year contract with Rainbow, Lunds and Cub? http://www.startribune.com/stories/468/4639594.html It's pretty interesting. Like the transit workers, wages and health care were the main issues on both sides. Also like the transit workers, grocery workers have a higher tendency towards worker-related physical ailments, though theirs probably come more from repetitive motion. Unlike the situation with the transit workers, the grocery store managers were willing to be creative with the talks and so an agreement was reached where workers get modest raises AND continue to receive health care coverage without having to pay any premiums. I'm sure there are other options available to Met Council to help contain skyrocketing health care costs. One might be to speed up efforts to retrofit buses with new filters that significantly reduce diesel fumes, which in turn would cut down a lot on drivers and mechanics developing chronic respiratory ailments and the various costs of dealing with those. That would also be a good step towards improving the region's air quality, too. But compare the approach that the grocery stores took with the Met Council situation. Despite ATU trying repeatedly to come up with different options for Met Council to consider, Peter Bell keeps going on and on about how he meant what he said about his final offer being his final offer, even though he doesn't have the guts to stand it up in front of an arbitrator. This goes to show that either he's a complete dunce when it comes to labor relations or Wizard's suspicion about this strike being engineered by Pawlenty et al is right on the money. Given that Bell also serves as a University of Minnesota regent and just experienced a strike with the U of MN clerical workers last year, I'm not sure which is more likely, but I'm inclined to believe the latter. I agree with Wizard - this thing smells like an attempt to bust the transit workers union. The question is whether the public will fall for Bell and Pawlenty's spin job? And will we remember this stunt two years from now when the governor's office comes up for election again? Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
