Another Union Lie

In my 62 years on this planet, I have been through one union organizing campaign and belonged to one union, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1001.

Thankfully, I'll never have to endure the ordeal again!

I will NEVER again be forced to pay to pay tribute to a labor union and would turn down any job, regardless of how otherwise attractive, that required union dues as a condition of employment.

My disclaimer is that I can only describe, as fact, my experiences and conclusions with regard to public transit in the Denver Metro area but I'd guess that all U.S. public transit systems have at least looked at the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) and considered a public-subcontractor model in an effort to save taxpayer money.

First, I'd like to dispel the myth that ATU Local 1001 lawyer Bill Jones and others have been spreading for years:

"The whole thing has been a sham since the start," says Bill Jones, a lobbyist for the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1001, which represents bus drivers employed directly by RTD. "Privatization might sound good for the taxpayer except for the crappy service we've gotten. We've always said that the privatized buses should be painted bright yellow, because we want people to know the difference between them and us." Johan Shikes - WestWord January 31st, 2002

"We're obviously not big fans of the privatization laws, since there is virtually no oversight by RTD," says Bill Jones, a spokesman for the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1001, which represents bus drivers employed directly by RTD. "We would prefer that all of the private buses were painted fluorescent orange, so that our riders could tell at a glance that they were different." Julie Dunn - WestWord July 11, 2002

RTD is NOT privatized; the laws require that RTD contract a percentage of the RTD bus routes in an effort to save public money. There is talk of privatizing RTD's FasTracks, i.e. a public & private partnership to inject private capitol into the system but the bus routes are not now nor have they ever been privatized.

Lawyer, spokesman, lobbyist - Bill Jones does it all so no wonder the union pays him the big bucks. He may be a good lawyer but perhaps he missed class the day they talked about the difference between privatization and subcontracting. One might also ask lawyer Jones if he ever regrets any of his derogatory comments where the subcontractors were concerned; First Transit (At the time ATC) employees were union brothers and sisters (ATU Local 1755 - now only a memory because of sticky fingers) and all subcontractor drivers now pay dues to ATU Local 1001 for "representation". Not to worry Bill, we know you were only being a good union soldier and mouthing the party line - we won't hold it against you.

God Bless The Internet! It's now much more difficult to weasel out of what you say.

Back to the story. In 1989, the Colorado Legislature passed a law requiring RTD to subcontract 20% of it's routes, raised that to 35% in 2000 and finally pushed it to 50%, where it stands today, in 2004 (about the time the voters also approved a RTD sales tax increase to pay for it's disaster, FasTracks). It's a noble idea - save the taxpayer money. Hey, I vote for that!

It works and RTD saves money by contracting routes. The private contractors save RTD money but at what cost? RTD owns all the buses and pay for all the fuel so how can a contractor run a route cheaper? Lower labor cost! The private subcontractor employees earn much less, with fewer benefits, than the RTD public employees.

Here's the 2007-2008 union lie: "Join the much better paid RTD employees in Local 1001 and we'll fight to get you better wages and benefits. You do the same job, you deserve it". Like sheep we believed the lies and all joined ATU Local 1001.

The subcontractor employers, First Transit (owned by First Group, Scotland), Laidlaw (owned by First Transit - First Group) and Veolia (owned by Veolia, France), cannot offer the same wages and benefits as RTD and make a profit. Repeat, cannot! Cheaper labor = lower cost = profit.

I'm not upset about the foreign ownership, the wage/benefit disparity or even the union treating the subcontractor members like red headed stepchildren - it's the lies!

I'd like to send a message to lawyer Jones, Dan Sunquist, Yvette Salazar, Holman Carter, Howard Alton, Julio Riveria, Rudy Trujillo and the rest of the crew feeding out of the Local 1001 member money trough - you really want to help the members?

Quit giving the member's money to groups like Protect Colorado's Future ($120K in 2008) and use the money to lobby the Colorado legislation and taxpayers into repealing the RTD contracting provisions so all drivers are public employees, wear the same uniform and receive the same wages and benefits! It's actually a win-win, the second class citizen subcontractor employees get to take their rightful place in line and more of Colorado's money stays in Colorado - no more sending taxpayer money to Scotland and France! How can that be against the union's interest? As an added benefit, Bill Jones would be rid his pet peeve - subcontractors.

Above all - quit lying! We'll get along fine.

P.S. Let's expose another union myth/lie - Before they were union, both Laidlaw and Veolia started their employees at a higher hourly rate than unionized First Transit employees. So much for "The Union Advantage"

SIGH - I LOST!!!

For anyone who remembers, I filed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) "failure to represent" complaint against my one-time union, Amalgamated Transit Union local 1001. Late yesterday afternoon, I was notified that my complaint did not rise to the level needed for the NLRB to pursue an action under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 

Even though I lost, it was a pleasure to deal with the dedicated government employees in the Denver office of the NLRB and I have informed them that I will withdraw my complaint and not appeal the decision.

I am not surprised by the decision, the NLRA was never meant to protect a member from ignorance and incompetence; that's the individual member's job and the reason for elections, scheduled to elect officers or decertification. The next scheduled election of officers is in December, 2010 but a decertification election could be scheduled if 30% of the members, of ANY bargaining unit (other than RTD, different rules), decided they no longer wanted to belong to the union. The actual decertification is more difficult - it takes a majority vote of all the members in the bargaining unit, not just voting members.

Gracious in victory or defeat, I have already sent lawyer Jones (William B. Jones - 1001 staff attorney) my congratulatory email and I apologize to the members for any money I may have cost them.

So, round 1 to ATU Local 1001. Down but not out, I'm still following the rules and trying to get the local to tell me how they spent my money. For whatever reason, they refuse to tell me and my appeals to ATU International have fallen on deaf ears. Is someone trying to hide something?

My countdown gadget broke and I had to remove it but the four months specified in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) began a couple of months ago - two to go.

Animation courtesy of Gifs.net

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.

ATU Local 1001

In the 40 or so years I worked, I had never belonged to a union prior to going to work for First Transit and becoming a member of ATU Local 1001 (or whatever it was when I started working, 1017, I think). To those who argue that under Colorado Law, First Transit is an open shop, I say "Horse Pucky". If you force me to pay dues, then it's a closed shop!

I'll admit that I never participated in union functions other than voting to join ATU 1001 and in the election of officers and that I can't remember ever voting for an union supported amendment in a state election.

If you know me, you may remember that I applied for a Street Supervisor position shortly before I became ill. I don't know if I'd have gotten an offer or not but I'll tell you that in my view, there was an extra $360 a year raise because I wouldn't have had to pay dues any longer.

That said, I still have issues in the way the union has represented me since this ordeal began. Part of the blame lies with me because I didn't go out of my way to contact the union but neither did the union make any attempt to contact me. I don't think I'm a VIP deserving of special recognition but the first and only acknowledgement, in any way connected with the union, that I
was off work, was a Christmas Card from Yogi (Thanks Yogi, I really appreciate it!). While I'm at it, I'd also like to personally thank all the Longmont employees who helped me out.

A couple of things bother me. I visited the ATU Local 1001 website on a pretty regular basis. If you're interested, the title of this post links to the website. Imagine my surprise when I clicked on:

FTI - Metro, Contract Negotiations

and saw the following message:

"ATU Local 101(sic) ratified a contract with First Transit on January 10, 2009"

I understand that I was off work but I never had a clue that there was a contract vote scheduled. Was it too much to ask that someone at the union pick up the phone and call me?

As I told you earlier, I met with the union last week. I have no intention of filing a formal grievance (binding arbitration) but there needs to be change and the union is the logical place to start. The old contract is ambiguous at best and I've been told that the new contract just changes a few pay details but otherwise uses the same language.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The contract states that an employee can be terminated for "just cause" and that the company can implement reasonable rules and regulations. It appears from the HR letters I've received that I was terminated under Article 34, Paragraph B. Please read Article 34 and tell me how anyone can make an assumption that being out sick for six months constitutes "just cause". I'll take it a step farther and say that my interpretation of Article 34 is that the company has to start paying me once I've been out for six months, regardless of my duty status :-) Seems to me, my interpertation is as valid as anyone elses.

I'm sure that the company has a policy to terminate an employee after six months (I'm certainly trying to find out exactly what the written policy says) but why hide behind the CBA? My friend Kay says it "omissions and assumptions". Omissions from the union when they wrote the contract and assumptions by the company when they interpret it. Well folks, that just ain't kosher! Contracts and the words in the contract have meaning and you can't make assumptions without possible consequences.

That was one of the concerns I took to the union. The other is that, in my opinion, the company did not follow the applicable laws in dealing with my situation and the union did nothing to protect my rights.

I understand that we're all invincible and that what happened to me was a fluke, right? Let me give you some frighting statistics. I had a condition known as an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA). There are normally no symptoms until it ruptures and it's 90% fatal when it does. 5% of US males over 60 will develop an AAA and it's the 13th leading cause of death in the US overall and the 10th leading cause for men. The point is that we're all human and what happened to me can happen to anyone. Also, consider all the other risks we face on a daily basis.

As dues paying members of the union (not me any longer but I was at the time) we have the right to demand that the union protect our rights and provide oversight to ensure that the company follows the law! The US, good or bad, lags way behind the rest of the industrialized world in protecting workers and we have to demand that what few rights we have are not trampled on, either intentionally or just through a lack of understanding. If there's any support, I'll draft a petition to the union. I can't do it by myself so contact me if you're interested. There is an email button in my profile. you can also use: larrywseale@yahoo.com