Does ATU Local 1001 Equally Represent All Members?

January 1st, 2009 First Transit & RTD Bus Operator Hourly Wage Comparison

I have never seen a side-by-side comparison before and I was stunned by the difference. I knew that there were several dollars difference in the starting wage but until I put the $'s together, didn't realize the disparity as an employee gained seniority.

A First Transit employee made $13.13 at 4 1/4 years and an RTD employee made $19.85 - $6.72 an hour difference! Did your union ever tell you how much less you, the First Transit employee, gets paid? As new CBA's are published, I'll get all the information and put it together so you can compare all the different bargaining units. Speaking of publishing CBA's, the First Transit CBA was ratified January 10th, 2009 and the local website still links to the old CBA. Since I've been accused of creating extra work for the local, I'll be happy to help - FOR FREE! 

I made the statement that I didn't believe the local could equally represent public and private sector employee's and I stand by that statement. I believe that there will always inherently exist a negative bias toward the sub-contractors. Do you realistically ever expect to see a officer, other than Shop Steward, elected from one of the sub-contractors? The three full time officers and the Vice-President will always be from RTD under the current system! Perhaps I'm finally starting to understand the sting of discrimination.

Economics also play an important role in the necessity of maintaining a caste system of employees. Despite the RTD tax increase approved in 2004, I've seen estimates of a 2 billion + dollar shortfall by 2017. I'll not comment on FasTracks or RTD's (mis) or management. Plenty of others have voiced their opinion and my concern is the worker first. Do you really think that the majority of RTD employees would accept less to put a few more bucks in a sub-contractor's pocket?

FACTS

The stated goal of Contract for Service is to save money.

The only major saving is accomplished by reducing labor cost.

If all employees were paid the same, there'd be no saving and no need to contract for service!

I'll admit that's a pretty simple explaination and it's been well over 30 years since I took Econ 101 and Bus 101 but the principals haven't changed. 

The question is "As a matter of Public Policy, is the taxpayer willing to discriminate against a small group in order to save a few bucks?" YUP!

As always, I invite criticism of my analysis and promise an open forum to anyone who disagrees.

I'll close with kudos to ATU Local 1433 in Phoenix (Do we remember someone in management who went to Phoenix?).  You guys and gals seems to have the balls to "tell it like it is" and I admire that.

I really appreciate your Member Rights and Officer Responsibilities page! Anybody listening? Here's an example of folks who understand and follow the law. It would be refreshing to see the local here ask for some pointers.