On 3/4/04 9:43 AM, "Bill Cullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Remember when they said that Minnesotans wouldn't even notice those cuts? >> That there wouldn't be any pain? Wrong! > > Be careful here. Remember this board predicting Minnesota would look like a > shoot out at OK Corral when the relaxed conceal carry passed? Well, I > haven't seen it yet. (Don't bring up the recent spat of gang shootings -- > those are not licensed conceal carry folk). > > The traffic appears ok this morning....
I would urge caution as well. One day does not make a trend. And just because you haven't seen a problem does not mean none exists. Wizard pointed out some of the problems that this strike is causing. I read in the MN Daily today about students who normally commute from home that are looking to bunk in with friends living near campus because they don't otherwise have a way to get to school. One even said he might have to crash at the computer science building. How long should anyone have to do something like that? If tonight's storm forecast holds true, it will be interesting to see how "OK" traffic is tomorrow. >> "asking taxpayers to dig deeper to subsidize a level of benefits that few >> taxpayers enjoy." This is insulting. > > It is not insulting if it is true. What's insulting is the implication that bus drivers and mechanics don't earn those wages and benefits. Some may not see much difference between "give" and "earn" but I can guarantee you that those transit workers do. And we all should. > I have mentioned out here many times about the dramatic change in the rental > market. Vacancies are up, utilities are up, taxes are up, advertising costs > are way up, city services are down, rents are down, etc. The good times for > landlords is over. Businesses go through cycles. Just because one was paid > well, doesn't mean the curve should continue. It should when you've done nothing to deserve the shoddy treatment these workers have been getting. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, our transit system is NOT a business. Metro Transit is not a for-profit enterprise. Comparing the situation that these transit workers face to landlords or businesses is inappropriate. Landlords and business owners take risks and either reap rewards or not. Transit workers provide a service that is needed whether the economy happens to be on an upswing or downswing. During the last upswing of the late-90's, transit workers got no extra piece of cake because Ventura and the House Republicans went on about how the "surpluses should be returned to the people." That's fine as long as it's the people who share the burden during the lean times rather than dumping it mostly on the transit workers and other government employees like our current administration has done. At the very least, the curve for transit workers should stay flat rather then take the plunge that Bell is pushing for. >> As Wizard Marks and Dyna Sluyter pointed out, driving or fixing a >> bus is no frolic through the park. > > What job is? All good paying jobs I know of either beat up your body or > your mind (and sometimes both). I have a good-paying job working in an office. Yes, my mind gets tested and because I spend too much time at a desk, the waistline on my pants has been tested, but it's hardly the same thing as the kind of labor these workers face. I could think of a whole lot of jobs that pay more and take less toll than what these transit workers face. Starting with their supervisors. Think about when you've gone on a long car drive, say to Chicago or further. Then think about how beat you are at the end of it. Then think about doing that day after day, year after year, for 10 years of stress and wear and tear and then just as you get close to the finish line, find out that 10 just got stretched out to 17. Oh, and by the way, that health insurance you've got? It'll cost you an extra $200 a month to maintain it. Or you can choose a different option with lower premiums but you'll get hit up the wazoo with deductibles and co-pays, so you're pretty much screwed either way. >> 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? > > Ok, now I agree with you. Channel 9 reported last night that the Met > Council Mgmt received average raises of 5.1% last year. A real group of > leaders would never take more then the troops. I have heard these lies too > many times. When the business goes good: reward the great management. When > business goes bad: we need to pay management more as they fight through it. > Give me a break. Right. Contrast that with how what was discussed above about good and lean times and that's the hypocrisy these transit workers are dealing with. That's why they and their supporters have a hard time swallowing Bell's and Pawlenty's lines about how there's nothing more Met Council can offer. Pawlenty's father was a truck driver (and a Teamster), so if anyone should know what kind of toll that sort of work takes, it's him. Anybody who voted for Pawlenty for governor based on his "I remember where I came from" spiel should be sick to their stomachs right about now. >> Peter Bell keeps going on and on about how he meant what he said about >> his final offer being his final offer, even thoughhe doesn't have the >> guts to stand it up in front of an arbitrator. > > I will admit to being a dunce about labor negotiations. Can you elaborate > (please) on the arbitration process? Is it binding? As Wizard pointed out, there are different kinds. What ATU did first was seek binding arbitration, even though their track record with that hasn't been too great in previous contract negotiations. Met Council claimed that the post-retirement benefits issue couldn't be decided by an arbitrator. ATU questioned that and offered to seek a court opinion. Met Council refused. So ATU offered to seek non-binding arbitration. Met Council still refused. So again, the question becomes, if Met Council is so sure their offer is "fair and fiscally responsible" then what are they afraid of? And if they were so eager to avoid a strike, why draw the hard line in the sand rather than work with the union to look for other options to save money or reduce health care liabilities like the grocers did with their workers? >> I agree with Wizard - this thing smells like an attempt to bust the >> transit workers union. > > I don't see much benefit to break a union and would be surprised if this was > a goal. I do believe that money is limited and the administration > won't/can't pay more. It's pretty clear to me that it's "won't" and not "can't." As for the benefit, I would guess much of it lies with the unfunded liability Met Council has for post-retirement health benefits. I believe it's currently around $300 million. If Met Council can break the union, they'll have a much easier time shirking their responsibilities for their retired workers, just like a lot of corporations have done or are trying to do. Are we sure we want Metro Transit to act more like a business? 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
