Beware the ides of March! How to survive a transit strike

If I was the PA GOP, I would pass some strilke limits for all unions, then they have only so much leverage. And we should make anyone who stays out past that date subject to termination.


Up in New York, the MTA is trying, somewhat successfuly, to break the union. While unions do good for their employees, they need to be softend.

Anyway, this is why Philly is looked upon as assanie. I mean, you had you arse saved by the legislator and now you're gonna ask for more money? I say we abandoned SEPTA and start from scratch (with provisons for non-union labor). I mean, we could do what Wal-Mart does, it could work.....

The last thing this world needs is a Wal-Mart model for transportation. Wal-Mart has driven a large number of smaller retailers out of business in recent years. In addition, Wal-Mart dictates prices to their suppliers, and forces many suppliers to set up operations in countries where labor costs are considerably cheaper. RubberMaid was a recent casualty of the Wal-Mart model.

greg19051 wrote:The last thing this world needs is a Wal-Mart model for transportation. Wal-Mart has driven a large number of smaller retailers out of business in recent years. In addition, Wal-Mart dictates prices to their suppliers, and forces many suppliers to set up operations in countries where labor costs are considerably cheaper. RubberMaid was a recent casualty of the Wal-Mart model.

Wal-Mart is a company that effects other companies/buisnesses. SEPTA is the only game in town as it is. I mean, I understand that people should get paid well, but fighting over not stopping buses every corner? This has gotten too rediculous. It's no wonder no one likes unions. Workers should get the money when the money is there and that's it. Also, there should be some accountablity towards preformance. Too many lates, and you're out.

JeffK wrote: But unless somebody can figure out a different way to pay the bills, it's hard to say one group should be exempt while so many others are getting the screws tightened.

I really wish I knew where people got this from. Why is it that because you are being screwed then other people should also be screwed? If anything we should all have healthcare not the other way around.
This quote perfectly describes what economists call "the race to the bottom" (of capitalism). The idea being that unchecked capitalism competes with itself for cheaper labor, worse conditions, etc., etc. It is the product of unchecked greed. It explains why there are no more industries in Camden, because why pay a good union worker 5.00 when you can just pay a non-union worker (think of Columbia, where its basically a crime to be a union organizer) nothing.
We should not accept the scraps we are being thrown. TWU members and every human being deserves healthcare, it shouldn't be the other way around. What did a rich person ever do to get healthcare more than a worker?
If we don't like what unions have got us then maybe we should go back to the 16 hour day, with no health care, with no sick leave and just leave it at that. However, that doesn't sound too fun to me.
Sorry for being on a soap-box.

EugeneV.Debs wrote: We should not accept the scraps we are being thrown. TWU members and every human being deserves healthcare, it shouldn't be the other way around. What did a rich person ever do to get healthcare more than a worker?
If we don't like what unions have got us then maybe we should go back to the 16 hour day, with no health care, with no sick leave and just leave it at that. However, that doesn't sound too fun to me.
Sorry for being on a soap-box.

Septa is not a coal mine and this isn't the 1920's. The TWU needs to wake up to the fact that they have been spoiled or lucky (take your pick) to not have to pay ANY medical costs up to this point. I do not feel that I am being "screwed" because I have to pay a portion of my healthcare premiums just like virtually everyone else. I see what some independent businessmen must shell out for coverage just for themselves and their families and consider myself lucky to have coverage. And let's not even get on the topic of pay for performance. While I am sure the majority of Septa workers are hardworking, conscientious employees, I've also seen more than a fair share of slouches who should be grateful to even have a job, the latter probably being the first to authorize a strike. There's a lot of talk about accountability at Septa, it's not just at the top.

I do not feel that I am being "screwed" because I have to pay a portion of my healthcare premiums just like virtually everyone else. I see what some independent businessmen must shell out for coverage just for themselves and their families and consider myself lucky to have coverage. [/quote]
Doesn't something seem a little strange when you are writing these things? Healthcare is a RIGHT. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FEEL "LUCKY TO HAVE COVERAGE", as you put it. When somebody says that then something is wrong. Look, if you think its fair that rich people have healthcare while American businesses make a point of not giving healthcare to people then fine and good, but don't try and deny others healthcare just because they want to keep their healthcare while others sit around and accept cuts. When you don't have healthcare you will only have yourself to blame and I feel bad for your family.
If you want unions to be a particular way then do me a favor and join one and make a difference. If you want a more democratic union then build one. I grow tired of having to hear of lazy workers. Lazy workers? Hmm? More like lazy incompetent, bosses and managers. You want to make things more efficient then fire the boss and let the workers develop their own democratic way of running things.
Hopefully if and when TWU workers go on strike they will have a no-pay strike. Meaning that they do their jobs anyway but refuse fares and generally run the works themselves. Something tells me that they will dod their jobs much better in that situation. That's the power of freedom and democracy. I look forward to that.

EugeneV.Debs wrote: Doesn't something seem a little strange when you are writing these things? Healthcare is a RIGHT. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FEEL "LUCKY TO HAVE COVERAGE", as you put it. When somebody says that then something is wrong. Look, if you think its fair that rich people have healthcare while American businesses make a point of not giving healthcare to people then fine and good, but don't try and deny others healthcare just because they want to keep their healthcare while others sit around and accept cuts. When you don't have healthcare you will only have yourself to blame and I feel bad for your family.
If you want unions to be a particular way then do me a favor and join one and make a difference. If you want a more democratic union then build one. I grow tired of having to hear of lazy workers. Lazy workers? Hmm? More like lazy incompetent, bosses and managers. You want to make things more efficient then fire the boss and let the workers develop their own democratic way of running things.

Tell me where in our Constitution that is states thet healthcare is a Right and I might agree with you.

Hopefully if and when TWU workers go on strike they will have a no-pay strike. Meaning that they do their jobs anyway but refuse fares and generally run the works themselves. Something tells me that they will dod their jobs much better in that situation. That's the power of freedom and democracy. I look forward to that.

Well at least then SOME of them will be earning what they're worth.

Why does it have to say it in the Constitution for it to be a right? I suppose if you want it to be in the Constitution then you ought to fight for it.
If you want some historical background remember that John Locke wrote that we have a "right" to "life, liberty and health". So when T.J. wrote the Declaration using essentially Locke's statement, you could say that health is implied in "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness". But that is besides the point. Rights become rights when people fight for them, like when slaves fight for their "right" to lead normal lives, or when Freedom Riders get on segregated Greyhound buses. Unions fought for the "right" to have healthcare and hopefully they will retain that right.

EugeneV.Debs wrote:Why does it have to say it in the Constitution for it to be a right? I suppose if you want it to be in the Constitution then you ought to fight for it.
If you want some historical background remember that John Locke wrote that we have a "right" to "life, liberty and health". So when T.J. wrote the Declaration using essentially Locke's statement, you could say that health is implied in "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness". But that is besides the point. Rights become rights when people fight for them, like when slaves fight for their "right" to lead normal lives, or when Freedom Riders get on segregated Greyhound buses. Unions fought for the "right" to have healthcare and hopefully they will retain that right.

The original drafts actually said "life liberty and property." Apparantly Jefferson was a capitalist. But that's beside the point.

Debs, the argument here isn't truly over whether or not healthcare coverage should be provided or not. I think most people here have no problem with SEPTA employees having healthcare coverage. At issue is whether or not it should be free to them. Very few companies provide free coverage, though most provide it for a decreased cost. Why can't SEPTA become more cost-effective by doing what the rest of the companies in the world are doing?

Incidentally, if healthcare is a right, then lobby to get it provided by the government, which is responsible for protecting our rights. In the meantime, let SEPTA live.

Regarding SEPTA being run without fare collection... you sound like you support the TWU. Yet you suggest running an entire transit system without farebox recovery to punish management. After a few days, do you know what will happen? Everyone at 1234 Market, from Fay Moore to the janitors, will be out of work. The organization will collapse. Who do you think will be able to land a new job in a hurry? Fay, or that janitor?

You are suggesting financial suicide for both SEPTA and its employees.

The original drafts actually said "life liberty and property." Apparantly Jefferson was a capitalist. But that's beside the point.

-As capital didn't quite exist as it does today and as capitalism did not exist as such then no he was not a capitalist. Actually Jefferson was a slaveholder and though slavery in some ways is similiar to capitalism especially post 1800, he was not in fact a capitalist.
As I said, Jefferson picked and choose from Locke and Locke clearly stated we had a right to health. Considering health is a part of living life then I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Jefferson might have implied that, but as you say that's beyond the point.

Debs, the argument here isn't truly over whether or not healthcare coverage should be provided or not.

-No that is the argument, especially if the union accepts wage decreases or the family has special needs.

Incidentally, if healthcare is a right, then lobby to get it provided by the government, which is responsible for protecting our rights. In the meantime, let SEPTA live.

Indeed government healthcare would probably make sense, though considering we don't have that and the government subsidizes business as it is already then indeed big-business owes workers healthcare, indeed they probably owe all workers healthcare.

Regarding SEPTA being run without fare collection... you sound like you support the TWU. Yet you suggest running an entire transit system without farebox recovery to punish management. After a few days, do you know what will happen? Everyone at 1234 Market, from Fay Moore to the janitors, will be out of work. The organization will collapse. Who do you think will be able to land a new job in a hurry? Fay, or that janitor?

Firstly, why would it take several days for the system to collapse? I'd be interested to know. The Cleveland Transit no-fare strike of 1943 which was a no-fare strike did not shut the system down, infact the system functioned normally. So I'm not to certain you are correct on that point.
Secondly, the TWU is not going to strike, they know it would be suicide, the problem is management knows it to. So what are they supposed to do? Keep accepting cuts like pretty much every American manufacturering worker until one day you don't have a job? If you can give some suggestions I'd be very impressed.
I really do not like the tone of these posts. Essentially the logic is, if other people lose benefits then everyone should accept a loss of benefits. To the contrary that should be the opposite attitude of people. In a decent society "An Injury to One is an Injury to All" would be the motto, not screw you because I'm getting screwed.

To borrow from Arte Johnson, "verrrryyy eenteresting" discussion. Note that I didn't say that our current situation is right ... I AM getting screwed over health care like millions of others, and I'm not using it to justify a continuation of that situation. I'm just saying that the TWU can't set itself apart from everyone else and still expect support in the absence of a global fix. IMO their action plan should include pressing for true reform instead of just separate treatment.

Way down deep in the line "until somebody figures out a better way..." was the idea that maybe, just maybe, we have to wake up and realize that fragmented, unevenly-funded, locally-paid health care isn't gonna work. There has to be some way to provide universal insurance without nationalizing health care in toto. There'd be savings, even if only because you wouldn't have overlapping and incompatible plans and you wouldn't have 40 or whatever % of the population using emergency rooms as their primary care sources. (Not my conclusion, it's from a Harvard study.) To cite just two cases in my own family:

> My mother-in-law had serious heart problems while travelling in the southwest. Her PA-based plan would only pay to stabilize her at an ER. We had a choice - pay the N-thousand $ out of our pocket that they wanted for out-of-network care, or somehow bring her back home. She ended up on a commercial flight, with everyone praying that she wouldn't die on the way.

> Another family member was a healthcare worker. He was *required* to put in up to 6 weeks a year of pro-bono work caring for people who had no insurance (and no, finding another job was not an option - same policy nearly everywhere else). Guess how he made up for losing a month and a half of his income ... ?

Make no mistake, universal insurance would still be expensive, but at least it has a shot at being more equitable. We have to get away from thinking "is there a conservative solution or a liberal solution?" and instead ask if there's a practical one.

Isn't this a transit forum?

EugeneV.Debs wrote:If you want some historical background remember that John Locke wrote that we have a "right" to "life, liberty and health".

What Locke said is: "The commonwealth seems to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests...Civil interests I call life, liberty, and health, and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like." (italics mine)

So, Locke said governments are created to allow men to advance their own interests (including health). But it's kind of pointless to ask what John Locke would think of SEPTA paying for union health benefits, living as he did in an era when no one had ever heard of health benefits, unions, or bus companies. Almost as pointless as arguing against socialized medicine with a guy whose screenname is Eugene V. Debs. (Or arguing for bigger government with a guy named Silent Cal.)

The point I'd make is that, when a company can afford it, they should pay their workers well. But when they have no money (or are losing money, as in SEPTA's case,) everyone, from the GM to the janitor, should feel the pinch. And to say that the TWU is fighting for workingmen's rights is ludicrous. The people hurt by a strike are not SEPTA - it doesn't make money anyway. Not running the system is probably more profitable than actually running it, the way they do business. The only people they hurt are the riders who can't afford to buy cars and pay for parking downtown. They only people they help are themselves and the user-car dealers who sell cars to those riders who can afford to quit taking SEPTA. And when the strike ends, those folks aren't coming back.

[
[

quote]Make no mistake, universal insurance would still be expensive, but at least it has a shot at being more equitable. We have to get away from thinking "is there a conservative solution or a liberal solution?" and instead ask if there's a practical one.

Any healthcare solution that covers everyone would be preferable to what we have now, only I worry about the long term.

Isn't this a transit forum?

[/quote][/quote]
Sorry. I did my best to bring in the Cleveland Transit strike though Hopefully people could envision Cleveland Peter Witts heading towards Center Square with striking crews.

EugeneV.Debs wrote:

Debs, the argument here isn't truly over whether or not healthcare coverage should be provided or not.

-No that is the argument, especially if the union accepts wage decreases or the family has special needs.

Look. SEPTA has major financial problems right now. Therefore, one of two things must happen to stabilize that: SEPTA must increase revenue (that includes government funding) and/or costs must decrease. The former doesn't look like it's going to happen, so the latter must. One easy way to do that, is to make cuts to the salaries and/or benefits of the employees. It sucks, but it's life. Sometimes, you have to make certain sacrifices to keep your job. This is real life, and in real life, you don't always get everything you want. I don't want healthcare removed from the benefits package. I see no reason for that. HOWEVER, I see no reason why SEPTA employees are immune from the cuts that every other employer is making. This is not a "screw them because I'm being screwed" attitude, this is a "times are tight, and we all must sacrifice" attitude.

Indeed government healthcare would probably make sense, though considering we don't have that and the government subsidizes business as it is already then indeed big-business owes workers healthcare, indeed they probably owe all workers healthcare.

Gov't healthcare would make sense, if it's a right (not agreeing that it is, incidentally). However, that doesn't justify making a private corporation provide something you feel the gov't should be providing. IE, I don't expect my boss to staff an army...

Firstly, why would it take several days for the system to collapse? I'd be interested to know. The Cleveland Transit no-fare strike of 1943 which was a no-fare strike did not shut the system down, infact the system functioned normally. So I'm not to certain you are correct on that point.
Secondly, the TWU is not going to strike, they know it would be suicide, the problem is management knows it to. So what are they supposed to do? Keep accepting cuts like pretty much every American manufacturering worker until one day you don't have a job? If you can give some suggestions I'd be very impressed.
I really do not like the tone of these posts. Essentially the logic is, if other people lose benefits then everyone should accept a loss of benefits. To the contrary that should be the opposite attitude of people. In a decent society "An Injury to One is an Injury to All" would be the motto, not screw you because I'm getting screwed.

I direct you to two facts:
1. SEPTA is running awfully close to bankruptcy
2. 1943 was 52 years ago

Without any farebox recovery, SEPTA's operating costs are goign to drain what little bailout they've just gotten in an awful hurry. Especially when you consider that fuel costs are significantly higher than they were in my grandparents' day. Are you suggesting the TWU 234 employees front the money to do this themselves? Isn't that going to set them back a lot more than asking them to chip in $50/month on their healthcare?

Actually, I admit I'm a little confused about your "no-fare strike" in one important way -- why on Earth would management not be justified in firing every single person who doesn't collect fares? In a strike, management isn't the group that goes home, so they'll still be there, ready to can people who steal their equipment and drive it around town.

[

This is not a "screw them because I'm being screwed" attitude, this is a "times are tight, and we all must sacrifice" attitude.

Times are tight? Indeed isn't the economy getting better and better all of the time? Did Alan Greenspan just today state that our economy was growing? Or are our leaders lying to us? You wouldn't dare state that our glorious leaders are lying would you or even mis-leading us would you?

Gov't healthcare would make sense, if it's a right (not agreeing that it is, incidentally). However, that doesn't justify making a private corporation provide something you feel the gov't should be providing. IE, I don't expect my boss to staff an army...

Considering that corporations do field private armies in Iraq and elsewhere I'm not really certain what your point is. However, corporations only exist as a public service. Hence they are given charters and are often subsidized directly or indirectly. With that in mind corporations do in fact owe US something. Of course what they owe us is up to debate. As to what an employer owes to a worker, well, that's also up for debate. However if the workers stipulate that deserve healthcare and fight for it and get it, they have a right to preserve it, especially when their bosses, who do a pitiable job at best, make at least 15 times their salary.
I know a few people in my neighborhood who think there are way to many Septa managers. They wonder why you wouldn't cut their pay or fire them. That's an interesting question to me.

I direct you to two facts:
Isn't that going to set them back a lot more than asking them to chip in $50/month on their healthcare?

Actually, I admit I'm a little confused about your "no-fare strike" in one important way -- why on Earth would management not be justified in firing every single person who doesn't collect fares? In a strike, management isn't the group that goes home, so they'll still be there, ready to can people who steal their equipment and drive it around town.[/

quote]
1. Are you sure that it would be $50/month healthcare costs?
2. $50 is sometimes a lot of money for some families.
3. What happens next budget and Septa is still bankrupt and yet again they ask for more fare decreases and cuts in healthcare. Stomach it again and again, right? Living in Camden and South Philadelphia has made me realize that you can't trust promises from businesses unless you want to see your job taken to a place where the U.S. government controls a dictator who happily kills off union organizers for being "communists".
4. Theorectically in a strike you are already stealing something that your boss owns: your labor. Having family who took part in various strikes in Kensington that were called "sit-down" strikes. Do you know what a sit-down strike is? It is when workers take over a factory when they are on strike so scabs can't be brought in. A no-fare strike is a sit-down strike only with vehicles. If you want to call in the National Guard or send out thugs to get the strikers then so be it. But it is usually a bad idea because strikers, when they are still providing a public service are usually very popular. Now as to the current situation and the idea of a no-fare strike, well, it is hard to tell what would happen. The Septa board is very happy to be "nearly bankrupt" because they can constantly play this card to scare the union while cutting services while also manipulating politics. In fact as a labor relations move I really have to wonder why they would ever want to be solvent.