busfan Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 Unfortunately, most unions will stick it to you. While one wouldn't have the bulk of the benefits a union member has, the union leadership will always find a way to do something for the top 3% and say the hell with the rest of the membership. Sounds like what happened here. Someone gave in firstly, letting the CTA hire part timers, then second, not following through to protect those getting their full benefits. Yup, looks like the union did a bang up job on protecting you guys !!!! Sometimes I don't know who screws you worse, the company or the union...they usually both do a good job of it. Its definitly the union. At least for the last 10 years at CTA. Problem is our contracts are almost always settled by an arbitrator. 25 years we have only settled 1 contract without an arbitrator. Bottom line is CTA is following the contract and is laying off people. If the union agrees to concessions it will be the same thing at the end of this year. Doomsday again. The union gave up a lot 5 years ago to help bail them out. The state failed on their end of the deal, they need to fix it. Once you open up a contract you lose everything you have. If the layoffs go through, it won't last long. To many people need the system. I haven't heard anything from Quinn at all about this situation. He's the reason for this mess. He gave CTA just enough money to avoid fare increases, but not enough to avoid layoffs. He hasn't done 1 thing to save or create jobs since he scammed his way in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 The layoff clause in 241's contract on page 70 says "No full time permanent employee who on January 1st 2000 had 1 or more years of continuos [sic] service shall be layed [sic] off. When employees are called back to work they shall be called back according to seniority". ... Older contracts we had had a sentance in the layoff protection clause that clearly said "no full time employee can be layed [sic] off until all part time employees are layed [sic] off". ... Is the contract that ungrammatical? If it says those words, why not post it, although it appears that since the arbitrator ruled, as he was authorized to do under the contract and section 8 of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, that is final, so neither your nor my interpretation of it makes any difference. I do, however, find it significant that you say the contract has the qualifier 2000, instead of the prior blanket assertion made by others that all PTOs had to go before any FTO could be touched. I kept telling people in the union they are wasting time and they wont win that. Then they picked Edwin Benn as the arbitrator. He is the same guy that decided our current contract! Why would they choose a guy who stuck it to us in the 1st place! As the article says and you agree, the Unions picked the arbitrator. So, after backing up guys like Jefferson, are you now saying that he sold the rank and file out? Or, besides claiming to be smarter than the rest of us, you are smarter than your union leaders, too? That's possible. Also, I know you don't let facts stand in your way, but the current contract was not made by the arbitrator--Huberman and Jefferson stood on the podium in 2007 and said that they settled the arbitration. In fact, you can read the union's press release about it.* As I said, the time for bluster is over. Nothing you can post here can affect the outcome of the arbitration, nor save jobs. Since you admit that both managers and rank and file are being laid off {the proper spelling}, please give them your condolences. I suppose you will go back to insulting my mental health again, but it will make no difference. __________ *I'll admit that the press release refreshed my recollection that the contract was contingent on the 2008 RTA bill, not after it. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 In your reply to Trainman, I see you recognized most of the points I made. So, don't bother replying. But one thing that should be clear--NEITHER BLAGO NOR QUINN HAS ANY MONEY TO GIVE. Blago signed a bill hiking taxes, but that didn't work. Quinn authorized the RTA to borrow money it didn't have. The RTA has to pay it back. Guess what, that means for years down the road, the CTA won't be able to restore the service cuts, because the RTA will have to pay the money back from taxes it collects. I'm glad you see that Quinn is a phony, but realize, he suckered you into believing that he has money to give out, just like he suckers others that he has money for high speed rail, and anything else the state digs itself into a hole over during campaign season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotjohns Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 In your reply to Trainman, I see you recognized most of the points I made. So, don't bother replying. But one thing that should be clear--NEITHER BLAGO NOR QUINN HAS ANY MONEY TO GIVE. Blago signed a bill hiking taxes, but that didn't work. Quinn authorized the RTA to borrow money it didn't have. The RTA has to pay it back. Guess what, that means for years down the road, the CTA won't be able to restore the service cuts, because the RTA will have to pay the money back from taxes it collects. I'm glad you see that Quinn is a phony, but realize, he suckered you into believing that he has money to give out, just like he suckers others that he has money for high speed rail, and anything else the state digs itself into a hole over during campaign season. It's so hilarious that not only has Quinn said NOTHING about the CTA mess as of late, none of the other candidates, Republican or Democrat, have said a word about the RTA and CTA mess. I back Busjack on this, the state is BROKE and can do nothing for the RTA at this point. It won't matter who takes office and the CTA is gonna have another doomsday next year even with these cuts unless they finally come to their senses and clean house. Hire administrators who know public transit, who knows finances, and who knows organizational skills. Numbers don't add up because they aren't working hard enough to make them add up. It isn't rocket science, but the CTA doesn't get it and won't get it for a very long time. If the Olympics had came to Chicago, how would they be looking at this? Or would it still be like this? Daley could care less also. Look at who he's picking to run things. I'm sad to see all this, I really am. But the CTA brought this on to themselves and now everybody's gotta suffer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 ... Hire administrators who know public transit, who knows finances, and who knows organizational skills. ... You know that I know that both the CTA Board and management are political stooges, and both the board members and Executive Director sit in violation of the Metropolitan Transit Act. However, this comment, along with busfan's a couple of days ago about the CTA trying to contract out maintenance reminds, me of another futile idea I posted on Ask Carole a couple of years ago, to wit... Why not just contract out management of the CTA to a professional firm (such as Veolia, MV, or First), just like they do in Phoenix or Las Vegas? I know the drivers complain, but at least the private manager has an incentive not to bloat the management ranks. Nonetheless, the CTA dances to Daley's political tune, which (as reinforced by the Toddler being 4th out of 4 in the recent primary) is that it is time for concessions, because the taxpayers are tapped out. Until Daley realizes that transit should be run as envisioned in the MTA Act, as a business, and is not his personal political fiefdom, things will not change. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotjohns Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 Until Daley realizes that transit should be run as envisioned in the MTA Act, as a business, and is not his personal political fiefdom, things will not change. Unless of course Daley doesn't run next year or he doesn't win if he does. Probably fat chance. Sounds like the CTA won't get it right for at least 5 more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busfan Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 No Busjack, Im not here to insult anyone. I did admit managers did get layoff notices but that was after they did. When I posted in Oct. of last year none had notices at that time JUST LIKE I SAID. They got notices In December. So I was correct. And yes, the contract was in the hands of an arbitrator but both sides agreed if they got the money from Springfield they would agree and not need an outside arbitrator. Im not here to get into it with you or deal with your insults. Im here to pass along information as we hear and see it from being on the inside. Whats reported in the news or online is a lot different from whats going on inside. Everyone here who works for CTA and been there a while can tell you that. And not being funny or smart but everyone here who works for CTA and has some common sense knows how the people in our union think. We actually have a union offical that keeps telling us there is nothing we can do about anything because "our contract states its an agreement, not an actual contract". Nice way of thinking huh ? That is why CTA walks all over us because our Union lets them because of that attitude. Im just trying to do the math on this situation and cant get the numbers to add up. Say for the heck of it there are 1000 people getting laid off......... Cta has roughly 10,000 union people Say they all make $60,000 a year (which is probably more like $54,000 average, but for the sake of arguement I will round it off on the high end) If we take the pay freeze and 10 furlow days which CTA says they will now accept, that comes to basically 1 full pay period as a give back which is $2400 for the year. They say that would avoid layoffs and keep the system running at full speed. $2400 X 10,000 employees = $24,000,000 a year savings to CTA from our concessions Laying off 1000 people at $60,000 a year saves them $60,000,000 for the year Why are they laying off 1000 people to save $60,000,000 a year, but if we have give backs $24,000,000 a year is enough to keep everything running with no layoffs ? Why didnt they send out just enough layoff notices till they hit the $24,000,000 mark they say they will accept from the unions? I understand you have to factor in what CTA pays for a current workers insurance and pension vs someone who is layed off, but the numbers dont add up. If they paid $60,000 a year for the health insurance and including 14% or so for the pension obligation per employee that adds up to only $48,000,000. (But remind you.. in no way does it cost them $60,000 per employee for health insurance & pension to keep an employee) What Im trying to say is ... CTA is laying off everyone as far back as the contract will let them when they actually dont have to. If you look at the numbers, they are trying to stick it to the union people more than they have to. Im not saying we are smart, but things dont get brought to the publics attention to help make them aware of how the numbers dont add up. Yes we dont have the brightest union out there. Especially when our president just keeps coming on TV saying "we gave up enough already and CTA has to many managers". That dont help us at all. Back in the day our contracts would protect us from layoff if you had more than 2 years of service. When our union asks for things in our contract they leave out the important stuff. If they dont ask for it, it dont change. That is why they never changed the date of layoff protection to a later date. They just left that clause in there since the 2000 contract and it was never changed. Thats why CTA can go back 10 years to lay people off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 No Busjack, Im not here to insult anyone. And you are right. We did get that contract as soon as we got that bill passed in Springfield when the free rides for seniors came about. We were blind-sided cause 241 told us we werent even close to a contract and we were unaware that both sides agreed with an arbitrator that if we got the money in springfield we had a contract. And not being funny or smart but everyone here who works for CTA and has some common sense knows how the people in our union think. We actually have a union offical that keeps telling us there is nothing we can do about anything because "our contract states its an agreement, not an actual contract". Nice way of thinking huh ? That is why CTA walks all over us because our Union lets them because of that attitude. Im just trying to do the math on this situation and cant get the numbers to add up. Say for the heck of it there are 1000 people getting laid off......... Cta has roughly 10,000 union people Say they all make $60,000 a year (which is probably more like $54,000 average, but for the sake of arguement I will round it off on the high end) If we take the pay freeze and 10 furlow days which CTA says they will now accept, that comes to basically 1 full pay period as a give back which is $2400 for the year. They say that would avoid layoffs and keep the system running at full speed. $2400 X 10,000 employees = $24,000,000 a year savings to CTA from our concessions Laying off 1000 people at $60,000 a year saves them $60,000,000 for the year Why are they laying off 1000 people to save $60,000,000 a year, but if we have give backs $24,000,000 a year is enough to keep everything running with no layoffs ? Why didnt they send out just enough layoff notices till they hit the $24,000,000 mark they say they will accept from the unions? I understand you have to factor in what CTA pays for a current workers insurance and pension vs someone who is layed off, but the numbers dont add up. If they paid $60,000 a year for the health insurance and including 14% or so for the pension obligation per employee that adds up to only $48,000,000. (But remind you.. in no way does it cost them $60,000 per employee for health insurance & pension to keep an employee) What Im trying to say is ... CTA is laying off everyone as far back as the contract will let them when they actually dont have to. If you look at the numbers, they are trying to stick it to the union people more than they have to. Im not saying we are smart, but things dont get brought to the publics attention to help make them aware of how the numbers dont add up. Yes we dont have the brightest union out there. Especially when our president just keeps coming on TV saying "we gave up enough already and CTA has to many managers". That dont help us at all. Back in the day our contracts would protect us from layoff if you had more than 2 years of service. When our union asks for things in our contract they leave out the important stuff. If they dont ask for it, it dont change. That is why they never changed the date of layoff protection to a later date. They just left that clause in there since the 2000 contract and it was never changed. Thats why CTA can go back 10 years to lay people off. Looking at the broader picture of it, part of those layoffs include operators who won't be there to drive a bus, thus the reduced frequencies. If there are less buses used in a day then that means less fuel is used so you have some savings there. Less use of those buses along with the oldest buses in the fleet gone theoretically leads to less maintenance and the savings from the cost of the unused maintenance work. Also those workers are apparently enough to account for not needing Archer so the cost associated with keeping it in operation is saved theoretically. I'm not saying that every thing with the CTA numbers is squeaky clean, but that are more costs associated with the layoffs than just you all's paychecks and benefits from looking at how the different parts of bus operations are linked. I didn't put the rail side of the service changes and layoffs into the equation in part because of the fact that CTA buys electrical power for the trains in blocks (think that's the standard term used). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 No Busjack, Im not here to insult anyone. I did admit managers did get layoff notices but that was after they did. ... I'm glad you are being reasonable about it, and apologize for insinuations in the last post. I guess I would have to agree with jajuan that there are some interconnected effects there. Not having access to the CTA's books, nor having access to a union economist (Lind's book says that the ATU had economists and supported arbitration of contracts back to the 1920s) I am not really in a position to argue the numbers one way or another. I did argue that CTA now saying that it has to take about 280 buses out of the system shows that the 2007 Doomsday plan of taking some 700 out was overkill, when that deficit was supposedly about $55 million, and the current one is $330M, out of which CTA expected to get $93M out of concessions, as well as the $60M out of the fare increase that was bonded out, the usual transfers from capital, etc. I also noted that unless the capital bill money that has already been delayed one year materializes, CTA won't have the equipment to run the old schedule. My basic point through all this is that (whatever the argument about union busting) the people getting laid off, the riders, and the taxpayers are going to end up getting it in the end, and no one (the CTA Board, CTA management, nor union leadership) seems to be truly accountable for that. As far as the politicians, today's events (while extraneous to the bus issue) show what a clown show that is. I guess we can agree on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busfan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 My basic point through all this is that (whatever the argument about union busting) the people getting laid off, the riders, and the taxpayers are going to end up getting it in the end, and no one (the CTA Board, CTA management, nor union leadership) seems to be truly accountable for that. As far as the politicians, today's events (while extraneous to the bus issue) show what a clown show that is. I guess we can agree on that. I guess thats exactly what Im trying to say myself here! Like jajuan said and I forgot, keeping some buses of the street and closing Archer, saving fuel etc., is where CTA will close the $96 mil. gap they have. Which is more confusing now if you think about it. They need 96 mil. but are willing to settle for $24 mil. in concessions from the unions ? Im getting more convinced now that its just a plot to get the unions to open up the contract to they can hammer away at it. One thing I do agree with our Union is ...... CTA, Springfield, and Dailey created this mess and they are making it look like the unions dont want to help or care about the people. Kelly from 308 stated that CTA wants the concessions but is not willing to change work rules and stop sub-contracting, and secure our jobs as part of the deal.That should be proof of what they are trying to do. A few months ago city workers took concessions and furlow days to help the city budget. The ones that did not got laid off. Less than a month later when Bensenville told Dailey they would give up and sell him the land, he wrote them a check for $30 mil. right away. Funny how money comes up fast when they need it except for the workers. Im glad of one thing ... that with all the news going on with CTA, and as much as CTA is trying to point the finger at the unions, the public so far knows better. They know its not our fault. 6 years ago there might have only been 1 vendor that did retro-fit work on buses for CTA. Now we have no idea how many vendors they have or how much they spend on them vendors. Which now they do a lot of work that was done on buses in the garage by 241 mechanics. They have been out-sourcing a lot of work which has cut the mechanics down from around 850 to I would say 425 or so over the last 8 years. I know Madigan cant be to happy. About 12 or so years ago CTA wanted to close Archer garage due to it's age, the "pits" in the work area were collapsing, electric was outdated etc. Somehow he got CTA $3 mil. to repair the garage. CTA did. Last doomsday they wanted to close the garage and that got him upset. Im not into politics much but I guess that is Madigans area where his people are from. Now they are doing it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Technically, Madigan's area is served by 103rd. However, Archer does serve 35th (Bridgeport) and you know who comes from there. Also, the collapsing pits story may indicate why CTA is so eager to close it now. $3M doesn't go too far in fixing a garage, but I don't remember how much it cost to build 103 and then there were the stories about the leaking ventilators from day one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busfan Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 They did do all the work at Archer and shore up the pits. 103rd I remember the 1st conractor never completed the job for some reason. The 2nd came in and finished the garage. I cant remember if it was a total cost of $23 mil or $26 mil. It was one of them for sure. That was with the cost over-runs and dont forget that was back in June of 1986 when it was opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cta5658 Posted February 5, 2010 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 They did do all the work at Archer and shore up the pits. 103rd I remember the 1st conractor never completed the job for some reason. The 2nd came in and finished the garage. I cant remember if it was a total cost of $23 mil or $26 mil. It was one of them for sure. That was with the cost over-runs and dont forget that was back in June of 1986 when it was opened. Actually it opened on June 26, 1988 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busfan Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Actually it opened on June 26, 1988 Correct, my mistake.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Flyer Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 According to channel 7 news at 6 38 people in the layoff will keep their jobs because they agreed to concesions, is this a way for CTA to get around the union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 According to channel 7 news at 6 38 people in the layoff will keep their jobs because they agreed to concesions, is this a way for CTA to get around the union. The impression I got from Channel 11 was that this was a specific craft union that settled. Channel 11 made it clear that it had nothing to do with the 2 ATU locals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 The impression I got from Channel 11 was that this was a specific craft union that settled. Channel 11 made it clear that it had nothing to do with the 2 ATU locals. Which means the service reductions stand for the time being and are going away no time soon from how widely apart the ATU unions and the CTA are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Which means the service reductions stand for the time being and are going away no time soon from how widely apart the ATU unions and the CTA are. Little more confirmation from the Sun-Times, statingKelly added, "The tradesmens unions are going to do what they're going to do, but it has nothing to do with us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busfan Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Thank Busjack, Interesting article. It's a matter of time before 241 gives in. Kelly from 308 will hold out but we can tell in Jeffersons voice he is about to give in. Just a matter of time. If he does we can only hope its not much. For what they need to take from us to fill the whole gap would have to be quite a bit. The problem is it will probably end up being a deal that takes from everyone and will only save half or less of the people laid off. I just dont see the point of doing anything if it wont save everyone. How he expects CTA to promise there wont be another doomsday in 2011 is beyond me. There is no way they can promise him that and if they do and he falls for it, we are doomed. They have already stated there will be more cuts in October of this year. CTA has used the full extent of the layoff clause in our contract and at this point. Come October they cannot do anymore layoffs from 241 or 308. Everyone that could get laid off from 241 did. You can promise the union whatever you want but if the money aint there for payroll, it aint there. If CTA agrees and breaks the agreement (which they always do)we have no recourse but to probably file a grievance. I dont think any judge or arbitrator would rule in our favor on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.