SEPTA Regional Rail on Strike - 6/14 - PEB to Mediate

Look at what happened to the firemen and their families who can not strike. They went without a raise for about 4 years, won 1 or 2 binding arbitrations I think, and Nutter wouldn't pay them and held them hostage while the cost of living kept increasing and increasing. I'm so glad they got full back pay. SEPTA would do the same, the TWU and the Engineer's Union have agreed to go to binding arbitration, SEPTA won't agree to it. The many strikes say something about SEPTA's stance towards labor. And it's not like TWU is asking to be the highest paid in the country or asking for anything crazy.

SubwayTim wrote:

R3 Passenger wrote:In a more reasonable light, I feel that the legislation should instead recognize that all public transportation workers are essential for keeping the State's economic engine running, and as a result should place limits on strikes instead of outlawing them all together.

Just my $0.02.

When you say "limits on strikes", do you mean limiting how long strikes can last? I know strikes by SEPTA, or just about any company can last from just one day to months.

I could mean any number of creative solutions within the context of the law. I'm not an expert in the law, but am not completely without imagination.

For instance, if I were to write this amendment, I would stipulate that the Union first provide only enough manpower to the Agency for the absolute lowest level of operations (i.e. Sunday/Holiday Schedule) for 30 days. After 30 days of minimal service, the Union can choose to continue this until resolution is reached, or opt to go on a full strike. However, this can all be stopped if SEPTA accepts binding arbitration. This is but one example idea I have in my head.

Sadly, I am not a legislator.

Everybody vote R3 Passenger for Emperor!

I know I've brought this up at least once in the past when SEPTA went on strike...
Since so many people rely on mass transit to get to work, school, doctor's appointments and shopping, whenever there is a strike, instead of just halting all transit service within the city, why can't they bring in substitute operators (or even volunteers who have experience in operating transit vehicles) to keep at least some of the routes running, including the more heavier used bus routes, as well as the Market-Frankford/Broad Street Lines and trolleys, even if it's on very limited schedules??? Although it didn't happen, I remember during one of the more recent strikes (2005 or 2009), there was talk about keeping the Market-Frankford and Broad Street Lines running during the strike with managers and other personnel operating the trains.
I also remember way back in the late 1980's or early 1990's when Greyhound went on strike, they brought in substitutes or temps to keep the buses running during the strike. I feel the same thing could...and should be done whenever SEPTA goes on strike.

SubwayTim wrote:I know I've brought this up at least once in the past when SEPTA went on strike...
Since so many people rely on mass transit to get to work, school, doctor's appointments and shopping, whenever there is a strike, instead of just halting all transit service within the city, why can't they bring in substitute operators (or even volunteers who have experience in operating transit vehicles) to keep at least some of the routes running, including the more heavier used bus routes, as well as the Market-Frankford/Broad Street Lines and trolleys, even if it's on very limited schedules??? Although it didn't happen, I remember during one of the more recent strikes (2005 or 2009), there was talk about keeping the Market-Frankford and Broad Street Lines running during the strike with managers and other personnel operating the trains.
I also remember way back in the late 1980's or early 1990's when Greyhound went on strike, they brought in substitutes or temps to keep the buses running during the strike. I feel the same thing could...and should be done whenever SEPTA goes on strike.

i feel like you have no idea how difficult it is to keep this clattering death trap of a mass transit system running when management looks at every worker like cannon fodder.

SubwayTim wrote: why can't they bring in substitute operators (or even volunteers who have experience in operating transit vehicles) to keep at least some of the routes running, including the more heavier used bus routes, as well as the Market-Frankford/Broad Street Lines and trolleys, even if it's on very limited schedules???

Where are you going to get volunteers with operating experience? You'll never have enough managers to fill the gaps. It's unlikely former operators would do it - either through loyalty to their co-workers (and union), or the potential to lose any union benefits, pension, etc by crossing a picket line.

A strike isn't very effective if there is someone else to do your job while you're on strike. It's all about leverage. There isn't a pool of non-union, qualified operators to fill the service shortages. If there was, there wouldn't be a strike in the first place. Strikes are not taken lightly by union members. There is the danger of immediate hardship. However, when they are called, it's pretty much a guarantee that they happen when there is a certainty the company doesn't have much wiggle room. If it was that easy to fill the jobs, the company doesn't have much incentive to bargain.

R3 Passenger wrote:For instance, if I were to write this amendment, I would stipulate that the Union first provide only enough manpower to the Agency for the absolute lowest level of operations (i.e. Sunday/Holiday Schedule) for 30 days. After 30 days of minimal service, the Union can choose to continue this until resolution is reached, or opt to go on a full strike.

Is your thinking behind this idea that 30 days of partial-but-not-total inconvenience will cause a passenger uproar that would force management's hand and avert a strike?

Quinn wrote:

R3 Passenger wrote:For instance, if I were to write this amendment, I would stipulate that the Union first provide only enough manpower to the Agency for the absolute lowest level of operations (i.e. Sunday/Holiday Schedule) for 30 days. After 30 days of minimal service, the Union can choose to continue this until resolution is reached, or opt to go on a full strike.

Is your thinking behind this idea that 30 days of partial-but-not-total inconvenience will cause a passenger uproar that would force management's hand and avert a strike?

Somewhat. It will inconvenience people and cause an uproar, in addition to giving management the incentive to talk to the union instead of kicking the can down the road until there is a full strike on hand that shuts down everything. If management still refuses to talk or listen after 30 days, then the union would have the option to go on full strike. If the union feels like the talks are going somewhere after 30 days, they can continue offering the limited service until an agreement is reached, or until talks break down.

But, keep in mind, these are only my thoughts on reasonable legislation to limit strikes instead of prohibiting them completely.

R3 Passenger wrote:

Quinn wrote:

R3 Passenger wrote:For instance, if I were to write this amendment, I would stipulate that the Union first provide only enough manpower to the Agency for the absolute lowest level of operations (i.e. Sunday/Holiday Schedule) for 30 days. After 30 days of minimal service, the Union can choose to continue this until resolution is reached, or opt to go on a full strike.

Is your thinking behind this idea that 30 days of partial-but-not-total inconvenience will cause a passenger uproar that would force management's hand and avert a strike?

Somewhat. It will inconvenience people and cause an uproar, in addition to giving management the incentive to talk to the union instead of kicking the can down the road until there is a full strike on hand that shuts down everything. If management still refuses to talk or listen after 30 days, then the union would have the option to go on full strike. If the union feels like the talks are going somewhere after 30 days, they can continue offering the limited service until an agreement is reached, or until talks break down.

But, keep in mind, these are only my thoughts on reasonable legislation to limit strikes instead of prohibiting them completely.

R3 Passenger wrote:
Everybody vote R3 Passenger for Emperor!

It's time to get the vote out! I freelance as a campaign manager if you're interested.




I must say, my record is 0-117. I can't imagine why!

SubwayTim wrote:

R3 Passenger wrote:As a union member myself, I don't think it is right for the legislation to specifically single out employees of SEPTA. I can understand part of the reasoning behind why this legislation was introduced. However, I think this is going about it in all the wrong way. Completely taking away the union's ability to strike takes away their most powerful tool. And, knowing the political nature of SEPTA, the organization would take full advantage of that and walk all over them.

In a more reasonable light, I feel that the legislation should instead recognize that all public transportation workers are essential for keeping the State's economic engine running, and as a result should place limits on strikes instead of outlawing them all together.

Just my $0.02.

When you say "limits on strikes", do you mean limiting how long strikes can last? I know strikes by SEPTA, or just about any company can last from just one day to months. Here is a list of SEPTA strikes between 1977 and 2009...as you can see, the 1983 (Regional Rail) strike lasted a whopping 108 days (nearly 3 1/2 months!) and was SEPTA's longest strike, while the 1986 strike lasted only 4 days and obviously was the shortest. The 44-day 1977 strike I'm guessing was the city transit division and was the longest strike of that division, with the 1998 strike coming in 2nd. The longest period between strikes was 1986-1995...9 years!
Strike Year & Length in Days:
1977 - 44
1981- 19
1983 - 108
1986 - 4
1995 - 14
1998 - 40
2005 - 7
2009 - 6

ST and Everyone: From looking at this list it looks like - not counting the 40-day CTD walkout in 1998 - that SEPTA strikes are shorter
then they once were...The last long CTD strike (more then 30 days) was the 44 day walkout in 1977 previous to 1998...

I have seen the 108 day Regional High Speed Lines (SEPTA's new name for the just-taken over Conrail-operated rail routes) mentioned
and that strike was a special case: With the SEPTA direct takeover of the Regional Rail system then-SEPTA GM David Gunn wanted to
"Transitise" the rail system and impose lower wages that were equivalent to what CTD and Red Arrow workers were being paid - and
that strike probably went upwards of one month longer because of the pact that all of the rail unions had - that they would not go
back to work unless ALL of the unions had signed contracts - the Signalmen (30 or so members) was the lone holdout at the end and
when they got their contract finalized that ended what became SEPTA's longest-duration strike...

What could happen in PA is that the GOP-controlled legislature could impose a NYS-type "Taylor Law" on public workers that has a
penalty of loss of two days pay for each day out on strike...

I feel that SEPTA's unions need to look closely even more before they decide to strike realizing how many PA politicians outside of the
Philadelphia (and other PA urban areas) feel negatively about mass transit...

MACTRAXX

The rural legislators are already pissed off at the amount of money SEPTA bus drivers make and they've been very vocal about it.

They don't understand the violent issues city operators have to deal with, and frankly they don't care.

A large pay increase will further infuriate the legislators and give them what they feel is a good a reason to pass legislation to outlaw transit strikes statewide.

For it's part, SEPTA needs to prove to the legislature that they are a good steward of state tax money and are not leaving money on the table.

This outcome should be very interesting.

jtaeffner wrote:
i feel like you have no idea how difficult it is to keep this clattering death trap of a mass transit system running when management looks at every worker like cannon fodder.

OMG! Possibly the truest words spoken on this forum.

R3 Passenger wrote:[...] http://www.philly.com/philly/business/t ... looms.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Nussbaum, Philadelphia Inquirer wrote: [...]

On Tuesday, representatives of SEPTA and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which represents Regional Rail engineers, will meet in Washington as part of a continuing mediation process required by the federal Railway Labor Act.

If the two sides are released from federal mediation, that would start a 30-day "cooling off" period and a 240-day dispute-resolution period required before a strike or lockout was permitted.

That period would expire in November or December, depending on when a presidential board was created to investigate the long-running contract dispute.

Does anybody know what happened in Washington yesterday?

South Jersey Budd wrote:Look at what happened to the firemen and their families who can not strike. They went without a raise for about 4 years, won 1 or 2 binding arbitrations I think, and Nutter wouldn't pay them and held them hostage while the cost of living kept increasing and increasing. I'm so glad they got full back pay. SEPTA would do the same, the TWU and the Engineer's Union have agreed to go to binding arbitration, SEPTA won't agree to it. The many strikes say something about SEPTA's stance towards labor. And it's not like TWU is asking to be the highest paid in the country or asking for anything crazy.

binding arbitration generally favors the union since it doesn't take into account the ability to pay. the unions like to bash nutter for not raising taxes to pay them more but the reality is Nutter has been extremely sharp when it comes to the city's finances (its bond rating has hit a multidecade high). the reality is, union rhetoric aside, the city simply didn't have the money seeing as it was already raising taxes just to keep itself, worker pensions, and the sinking district afloat. TWU's demands are largely unreasonable and SEPTA should let them walk. look at the firefighters, they claimed that the last round of cuts would result in disaster but fire deaths hit record lows after the cuts

Clearfield wrote:The rural legislators are already pissed off at the amount of money SEPTA bus drivers make and they've been very vocal about it.

They don't understand the violent issues city operators have to deal with, and frankly they don't care.

A large pay increase will further infuriate the legislators and give them what they feel is a good a reason to pass legislation to outlaw transit strikes statewide.

For it's part, SEPTA needs to prove to the legislature that they are a good steward of state tax money and are not leaving money on the table.

This outcome should be very interesting.

I think operators are paid fairly and I'm a transit supporter but it's hard not to think that the union is looking to pillage the state's recent generosity even though SEPTA isn't actually getting more operating money.

I saw this story on NBC last night: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/video/#! ... /252572531" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suburban Station wrote:
I think operators are paid fairly and I'm a transit supporter but it's hard not to think that the union is looking to pillage the state's recent generosity even though SEPTA isn't actually getting more operating money.

Most of what I am hearing is us not trying to get more, but instead us trying to keep what we have. Some of the proposals SEPTA has made have been pretty harsh.

TWU 234 did propose a 2 year extension of the current contract and SEPTA said no.