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"

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.