Picky! Picky! Picky!

I know some people will think it's picky and petty but I'm advocating, as the union should, for the members and I think it's important to be accurate. RTD was not required to privatize, it was required to contract for service a certain percentage of it's service. I suggest that the union and any spokesperson has a duty to understand and convey the information properly.

The distinction is important because of the effect on the employees in terms of their compensation package. The only reason for the mandate was to save money taxpayor money used for RTD operations. Buses, fuel, maintenance, etc., cost the same regardless of who operates the route and everything else being equal, the only way to save money is to reduce labor cost!

I've read that 52% of the cost of a route mile is the driver cost and I have no reason to disbelieve that statistic. I'll research it in more depth but I'd estimate that a private employee member of ATU Local 1001 receives about 75% of the total compensation that an similar RTD employee would receive.

Equal Work for Equal Pay has a nice ring to it and I'm all for equality but realistically, if that were true, there'd be no saving and no reason for RTD to contract for service. 

My question becomes "Can ATU 1001 equally advocate for both it's public employee members and it's private employee members?" I'd suggest that the answer, based on simple economics is a resounding NO!