ATU Local 1001 - RTD Contract Update

Sorry, there is no update on the contact arbitration between Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1001 and Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) - local President Holman Carter insisted on secrecy.

Given that fares account for less than 20% of the RTD operating budget and that the other 80%+ comes from the public trough federal/state funding and an RTD District sales tax, one might think the public, who pays for the system, has a right to be kept informed of how their money is spent but Holman doesn't see it that way.

A little background: the contract between RTD public employees and RTD expired February 28th, 2009. ATU Local 1001 notified the state they intended to strike (they actually didn't, as Holman admitted) and the state barred a strike and ordered binding arbitration, the actual goal.

It's no surprise that Holman and the boys insist on secrecy, cock-a-roachs scramble when you shine a light on them!

I'm still asking about the 2008 $120k ATU Local 1001 donation to Protect Colorado's Future (formed only to defeat 3 "anti-union" ballot proposals) that I, as a member of ATU Local 1001, was never given the opportunity to fight against. Democracy be damned, do what you want with the members money and tell them what a great job you're doing after the fact.

I still have to chuckle at the irony of the situation; ATU Local 1001, representing only the RTD public employees, had no Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) reporting requirements until they recruited the First Transit (my employer at the time) private employees in July, 2007.

Had the boys not gotten greedy and just left me alone, it would have been a win-win for both of us - I'd still have two years of dues in my pocket and the union would still be free to stay in the dark and leave little cock-a-roach pellets laying around for the members.

Be careful what you wish for - your wish may come true.

ATU Local 1001 - RTD Arbitration

RTD week long strike in April, 2006.

It's three years later but it's the same old cast in more troubled economic times.

What were the gains other than public resentment?

Link to the 2/24/2009 Colorado Department of Labor and Employment order denying the RTD employee members of ATU Local 1001 the right to strike and ordering arbitration.

The employees did strike for a week in 2006 at the end of their last contract. It's unclear to me if there were any actual gains. As I recall, the employees were out for a week and ended up with pretty much what RTD initially offered. Did any of the union bosses or lawyer Jones give up a penny? I think it's also important to remember that union officers (including shop stewards) are paid for x hours per month at the top rate for their respective occupational group so their own raise is going to be larger money-wise than most/all of the grunts actually doing the job. Who's interest is being served?

I wonder how much sympathy there is for the employees in today's economic climate and with RTD needing at least another .04% sales tax increase from the citizens or face a $2.2 billion deficit by 2017, mostly the results of Cal Marsella's pet project - Fastracks.

Do I think that the RTD employee members of ATU Local 1001 are overpaid? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If I were an RTD bus driver or mechanic, I'd want a raise and the benefits I was promised. As a Colorado voter, will I vote for another sales tax increase in 2009 or 2010? ABSOLUTELY NOT! We fell for the B.S. in 2004 when the sales tax increase was the answer to all of RTD's problems so fool me once "shame on you" - fool me twice "shame on me".

With boss and head cheerleader Marsella leaving for greener pastures in the private sector, it'll be interesting to see what direction RTD takes. Only time will tell what RTD's future is but I believe it's a pipe dream to think that the voters will approve another increase. I'll also wait and see what comes of the arbitration between RTD and ATU Local 1001.

In the meantime, there is a way for the members of ATU Local 1001 to ensure themselves a raise (almost $600 per year for RTD employees, less for private contractor employees but a raise none-the-less) before there is an arbitration decision and new contract - PETITION FOR DECERTIFICATION and throw "dem bums" out in an election. The folks at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundations will be happy to help.

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192 - Oakland, CA

Dangerous and Inhumane Conditions on Oakland Buses

I sincerely hope that conditions have improved since last year - shame on AC Transit for buying buses without A/C to save a few bucks and shame on Local 192 for allowing it! 102F? You can't safely drive a bus when the inside temp is that high.

Did ATU Local 192 hold the December 20th, 2008 election as scheduled? If so, who are the newly elected officers? Be proud - post the results on  the ATU Local 192 website. Perhaps it's in the members only area. Just a reminder, 2008 LM-2's were due April 1st, 2009. The information I have is for 2007.

I'm on my soapbox again. Why is it that many LU's think they have to spend every penny (and often more) of members dues? I'll say it again - the officers and employees of the union are the hired help! Demand accountability.

Typical of locals, ATU Local 192 had officer and employee disbursements of $801,050, 36% of the 2007 receipts of $2,252,023. With the economy the way it already was and the very high unemployment in California, did the officers (whoever they are) make any sacrifices in 2008? How about 2009?

I'm not privy to the usual union practices but $626,000 in 2007 legal fees seems excessive. Another 27% of the receipts into the black hole. Just out of curiosity,  when a local receives a Wage and Hour litigation settlement of $74, 156, what happens to the money?

How many members of ATU Local 192 drive cars built before 1994? Do you think the officers could have squeezed out one more year and saved a little money? Only $7200 for the 3 Saturns you (the members) owned? One would hope that the members (who already owned the cars) got to drive them home but alas, that doesn't seem to be the case since they were listed as trade-ins. I'd have given $201 for a 2003 Saturn L200, book value $4,585 and the union would have made an extra dollar. It seems odd that the union would let all 3 cars go to the Saturn dealer at 47% of the listed book value. Perhaps someone out in Oakland needs to learn a little about "horse trading".

But happily, all 3 clunkers were replaced with brand spankin' new 2007 Saturn Aura's for only $80,129. Who gets to drive the XE and not have to settle for one of the crummy XR's? I do have a couple of questions about the whole process of buying and selling cars at the local, mostly with  the way the transaction was listed on the LM-2.

I haven't bought a brand new car since my 40th birthday present to me in 1986 (I'm cheap) but I suppose that local bosses, like all politicians have a certain image they have to maintain. Not being an "expert" on buying and selling cars, the transaction confuses me.

The LM-2 shows the cars were traded-in for $7200 and the new cars were bought for $80,129 - a difference of $72,929. I look at the Fixed Asset and Loans Payable schedules of the LM-2 and get totally lost.

It's obvious that the local (members) own at least one other car/vehicle and I don't know what it is (all vehicles lumped together as an asset) so that's part on my confusion. The Loans Payable is where I'm really stymied:

SCHEDULE 9 - LOANS PAYABLE

FILE NUMBER: 540-907

Source of Loans Payable at Any  Time During the Reporting Period  (A)	Loans Owed at  Start of Period  (B)	Loans Obtained  During Period  (C)	Repayment  During Period  Cash  (D)(1)	Repayment  During Period  Other Than Cash  (D)(1)	Loans Owed at  End of Period  (E)
Total Loans Payable	$34,103	$80,129	$29,464	$3,487	$81,281
Totals will be automatically entered in...	Item 31 Column (C)	Item 44	Item 62	Item 69 with Explanation	Item 31 Column (D)
Saturn of Oakland - Autos	$32,957	$80,129	$28,318	$3,487	$81,281
GE Captial Copier Lease	$1,146	$0	$1,146	$0	$0

It looks like the $7200 trade-in (47% of book) actually became $3,487 when the deal was closed. Very, very confusing! Click here and take a crack at figuring it out for yourself.

Image courtesy of Cowboy Clip Art