Daley is meeting with CTA & the Unions today

[busfan]

Thought I would start a new topic since today is friday before the cuts.

Just got word that Mayor Daley has called for a special meeting for 4pm today. For sure I knows its with president Rodriguez from CTA ,president Jefferson of local 241,and president Kelly of local 308. He wants to sit down and talk about the unions giving up concessions to avoid the cuts and layoffs.

[Busjack]

The word from Ravi Baichwal on Channel 7 was that the meeting really didn't accomplish anything, and the cuts go into effect as scheduled. However, since there was the controversy over whether the unions actually put an offer on the table, the leaders said they would go back to the membership to see if they can get a mandate to negotiate.

Update: Link.

[New Flyer]

Lets keep all our brothers and sisters who are losing their jobs in our prayers.

[Guest]

It kills me that CTA brass are asking for concessions after concessions from every level at the agency, bus operators, rail, etc... what you dont hear is CTA brass making sacrifices. God knows theyre reaping the agency for every cent. They certainly have a lot of nerve. I only hope CTA brass can sleep well at night. This is what happens when you put incompetency over knowledge! As CTA bosses are saying, "this could be avoided with bus/rail union concessions, CTA brass need to set an example before they can ask unions to give in.

[jajuan]

I think we can agree that the CTA board is too much of a political arm, and of course it's us that are paying for it in one way or another. However, let's not lose sight that the situation is not completely black and white here. The lagging economy does play a large role in this. Can the service boards be more efficient? Of course they can. But we can't ignore the part the economy also has in this.

[wordguy]

It kills me that CTA brass are asking for concessions after concessions from every level at the agency, bus operators, rail, etc... what you dont hear is CTA brass making sacrifices. God knows theyre reaping the agency for every cent. They certainly have a lot of nerve. I only hope CTA brass can sleep well at night. This is what happens when you put incompetency over knowledge! As CTA bosses are saying, "this could be avoided with bus/rail union concessions, CTA brass need to set an example before they can ask unions to give in.

Considering the CTA's long, bearded history as a refuge for patronage deadwood, I think it would be helpful if management would make the agency's 2010 budget available for public scrutiny, line item by line item. Truth in disclosure can accomplish wonders. I'm sure that there are plenty of accountants out there who could determine whether or not the appropriate cuts really HAVE been made on the management side of the ledger.

Frankly, I don't blame the union leaders for being skeptical. But the reality is, they're in a no-win situation. One the one hand, if they insist on no further concessions, nearly 1100 rank-and-file members will lose their livelihoods, also reducing the strength of the union in future negotiations. But in order to save the jobs, they need to agree to the concessions. They have my sympathy.

Owing to the deadly condition of both the state and city budgets, we know that there's no chance of a short-term bailout, as Busjack and other posters have stated. The only real long-term solution, as I see it, is the restoration of federal operating subsidies for mass transit.* (Relative to other transit agencies, the CTA may or may not be uniquely corrupt, but most systems are struggling. St. Louis made major service cuts last March. New York City Transit, despite its heavy use, is threatening heavy reductions this June).

While I'm generally supportive of President Obama, I think that his plans to freeze discretionary spending from 2011 to 2014 (as announced during his State of the Union Address) is a mistake. Such a freeze could make transit operating aid less likely to happen. Then again, maybe there are ways around it such as: 1) being part of a "green initiative", especially if fuel prices go ballistic again; or 2) being part of a future job stimulus program. It would create/preserve/restore "green" jobs.

*The loss of federal operating aid for mass transit is a legacy of our kindly Reagan Administration, which legislated its gradual phase-out, now complete --- which I think was a major cause of this mess we're in.

[Busjack]

Considering the CTA's long, bearded history as a refuge for patronage deadwood, I think it would be helpful if management would make the agency's 2010 budget available for public scrutiny, line item by line item. Truth in disclosure can accomplish wonders....

The budget, including all line items, is always posted on transitchicago.com. I guess what you might be saying is that while certain line items can be compared to see if they are up or down from the past year, there isn't enough transparency behind the line items. For instance, CTA was slightly over budget for fuel for 2009, but until one read the monthly Financial Reports, one did not discover that somehow CTA had locked in a diesel price of $4.50 a gallon, and if they did it after September, 2008, they should have known that the oil market was crashing. Even despite claiming the budget certainty of a hedge, the last couple of reports indicate that they paid in excess of $4.50. Meantime, Pace said it was using savings on fuel to offset other deficit items.

Likewise, while it is fairly easy to find in the 2010 budget where CTA is saying that it is using 2010 capital money to pay off bonds on the Option 4 buses (1830-2029 in our parlance), the source of the money to pay the $13M a year lease on 4000-4149 is not so clear. I suppose it is there somewhere, but really isn't worth my time to find it.

I suppose that similarly, the budget would indicate that the patronage deadwood had its wages frozen and has to take furlough days, but not that they actually are deadwood.

The money blown on NABIs and Block 37 was budgeted, but blown nonetheless. It certainly wasn't there to maintain the concrete on the North Main L. Now CTA has to hold "vision meetings" to figure out what to do.

Unless you really want to pay for a forensic auditor, I don't know if you will get an answer. At the time the Auditor General reviewed the 4 service boards, the CTA said we are already subject to a yearly audit, but the Auditor General found other things. Unfortunately, most of the AG's recommendations were directed to the RTA, to which the CTA said "we agree," and the state legislature essentially made a mockery of the AG's report. Now all of that is water over the 2007 dam.

[wordguy]

The budget, including all line items, is always posted on transitchicago.com. I guess what you might be saying is that while certain line items can be compared to see if they are up or down from the past year, there isn't enough transparency behind the line items.

Exactly. It's true that the CTA budget posted on-line is, by definition, a line-item budget. But yes, there's really no transparency behind those line-items. I guess my statement should have been a little clearer.

The upshot is that even if year-by-year comparisons are made, there's really no way of knowing what positions have actually been eliminated or trimmed back; only that unspecified reductions have been made.

[busfan]

Rodriguez was on Channel 7 news this morning.

He was bringing up again about the Unions need to give concessions. His math just gets under my skin. I dont know how many total managers they have in the whole system, but he keeps stating how they are giving up 18 furlow days and how that is almost a full month of pay which is a big sacrifice for them, and they have not increased their pay in 4 years. I'n not picking on managers or anything like that. It's just that they dont tell the truth and just constanly stick up for management. Even a few months ago he had an article in the paper, and they asked about the managers salerys and he stated that when you cut managers wages you are cutting the quantity of people applying for the job. The service they provide has to be well compensated for. I think that was in Sun Times in Sept. right before the cuts were announced. But anyway, his statment about a "huge" sacrafice is not correct.

In 2007 the lowest paid manager made $64,000.

In 2008 right after they got money from Blogo, they got raises and a bonus of at least $4000 per manager.

After the raise the lowest paid manager made $76,000 in 2008.

Now he says they are giving up 18 furlow days which is almost a month salery.

Doing the math,

In 2007 they made $64,000

In 2009 they made $76,000 min. (many are way over that closer to 80)

$76,000 - 18 furlow days = $70,722 per year.

I just dont understand the math they constantly come up with.

They still make over $6,500 than they did 2 years ago.

And his comments about payroll eating up 70% of the money from CTA.

If he can figure out a way to have 1 operator drive 2 buses I would like to see it.

Ridership is up and still is the highest its ever been in over 100 years.

More riders + More buses + more drivers = more employees = more revenue

They advertise they move 1.7 mil. people a day.

Their budget is 1.3 billion a year

If 1.7 mil. people a day

If the fare per person averages out to $2 a day on average (because of the seniors ride free)

that 1.24 billion a year from revenue.

Not including state and federal subsidies

To much just dont add up.

[rmadisonwi]

They advertise they move 1.7 mil. people a day.

Their budget is 1.3 billion a year

If 1.7 mil. people a day

If the fare per person averages out to $2 a day on average (because of the seniors ride free)

that 1.24 billion a year from revenue.

Not including state and federal subsidies

To much just dont add up.

Yes. What doesn't add up are your numbers. The 1.7 million number is the number of trips, not the number of "people." If someone boards a bus and transfers to a train in the AM (and reverse in the PM), that's four trips. The average fare per trip is under $1 (when counting not only free rides, but also reduced fare rides, plus the unlimited ride passes and the transfers on transit cards and Chicago cards). Plus, the 1.7 million figure is a weekday number. Saturdays and Sundays are considerably lower.

All you did was multiply 1.7 million times 2 times 365 to get $1.24 billion. Actual fare revenue is probably around half that.

If you want to see where numbers don't add up, start with your own.

[Busjack]

All you did was multiply 1.7 million times 2 times 365 to get $1.24 billion. Actual fare revenue is probably around half that.

Actually the myth you debunk is one of the greatest ones in CTA history, and I understand how busfan got there. Someone else started a thread on the CTA Tattler with the same proposition (i.e. taking the number of rides times 2 dollars) and was rebutted similarly. People can read down that thread to see how the unlinked fare is about what rmadison says, 90 some cents. That is also documented in the monthly Financial Report on the CTA site.

Of course, the people who started the discourse down this direction were my two "favorite" CTA management people, Frank Kruesi, who complained that CTA was only receiving a 93 cent subsidy per ride, and Carole Brown who had some fantastic story on her now moribund blog that somehow the fare on Metra from Kenilworth was less than a ride on the CTA (of course to generate class envy, even though Carole is probably of the economic class from Kenilworth). After being questioned about this kind of b.s. (since the RTA as a whole has a 50% recovery ratio, and CTA's is slightly above that), that is when they started admitting about the unlinked ride and that the fare per unlinked trip was in the $0.90s. After the 2008 fare increase, the recovery got back to about $1.07, but Free Rides for Seniors knocked it back to where it was.

I had previously noted that the amount of rides today is about the same as the number of originating fares 20 years ago, but what busfan was thinking was originating fares, and Kruesi thought unlinked rides. While the two are equivalent if one plunks cash into a bus farebox, because you can't get a transfer, most don't plunk cash in the farebox for that very reason.

___________________________________

Back to the topic of this thread, I saw on Channel 7 a report that the union had a press conference, which basically said that the leadership will go back to the membership probably around Wednesday, but the current position is that Free Rides for Seniors must be eliminated, even though obviously the CTA doesn't have the power to do that without legislation, and the usual about managers being knocked back. On the former, I wonder if the union members will remember that about Quinn in November, and on the latter, while I suppose that the union shouldn't be bargaining about management prerogatives, it doesn't have to open a contract that has a couple more years to run, either.

Also, to add another two cents to the Free Rides for Seniors: Even if we assume that Rodriguez is wrong that reinstating half fare would bring $30M, because we know some people who ride for free won't ride, as I previously said, I qualify it that at least they won't be taking up seats on otherwise packed buses.

The one question: If the union calls a membership meeting on, say, Wednesday, are the 1100 who were laid off part of the membership that gets to speak or vote?

[busfan]

The one question: If the union calls a membership meeting on, say, Wednesday, are the 1100 who were laid off part of the membership that gets to speak or vote?

I believe they will. Problem is you will have the 1100 voting "yes" to concessions and the other 8900 who are not getting laid off voting "no".

Rodriguez needs the 96.7 mil. in concessions from the Unions to avoid any cuts or layoffs. He keeps stating that depending on the concessions the Unions give him, that will determine the amount of routes and buses he can restore. Giving back that raise we just got, and 10 furlow days will produce about $45 mil.

That can restore half. Why should all the members take concessions to only save half the people ? The only other possible way to add the difference up to 96.7 mil. would be to increase our heatlh care costs (which is frozen in this contract), and or somehow not have to match their contribution to the pension fund. (which they have to by law. But their might be a way around that, who knows.

The union came out and read us the arbitrators decision on why he decided against the unions last week. It was very interesting.

He stated that the unions are right according to the MTA, CTA is bound to layoff people acording to seniority, part times have to be layed off first, and there shall be no seniority bumping in departments. His decision was based on a clause in our contract that states "an arbitrators decision must be based on the current working conditions and agreement the unions have with the CTA". So he over rode the MTA and based the decision on what our contract stated.

If everyone remember 2 years ago when Huberman sent out notices for the 1st doomsday. The people that got layoff notices "WARN letters), he stated in that letter that you were being layed off and it would be according to seniority, part timers 1st, and no department seniority bumping. (following the MTA act). This is why the union is upset now with Benn's decision because he over rode the MTA act when he ruled.

[Busjack]

I agree with your description of the voting issue, although 89-11 might have left the 11 with some persuasive power, while 89-0 doesn't. I don't expect a different final result though.

With regard to the arbitrator's decision, it appears that he was referring to sec. 28, but not clear that he "overrode" it:

Additionally, the Board may reduce the force of employees for lack of work or lack of funds as determined by the Board. When the number of positions or employees holding positions of regular employment within a particular job title and job schedule number are reduced, those employees with the least company seniority in that job title and job schedule number shall be first released from regular employment service. For a period of one year, an employee released from service shall be eligible for reinstatement to the job title and job schedule number from which he or she was released, in order of company seniority, if additional force of employees is required. "Company seniority" as used in this Section means the overall employment service credited to an employee by the Authority since the employee's most recent date of hire irrespective of job titles held. If 2 or more employees have the same company seniority date, time in the affected job title and job schedule number shall be used to break the company seniority tie. For purposes of this Section, company seniority shall be considered a working condition. When employees are represented by a labor organization that has a labor agreement with the Authority, the wages, hours, and working conditions (including, but not limited to, seniority rights) shall be governed by the terms of the agreement.*

The important thing to pick up is the last sentence. In effect, while the Act says that seniority must be based on hire date rather than time on the particular job title or schedule number, the rest is left to the agreement. So, if you say that the contract says that only FTOs hired before 2000 are protected, that is controlling.

The other thing that you probably don't know, but the union leaders should, is that labor arbitration is governed by the "Steelworkers Trilogy" of cases and the Illinois Arbitration Act. While the first bit of 1960 federal law is not binding under the IPLRA, it animates its arbitration provision. Basically, it says that there must be an agreement to arbitrate, but since there definitely is one here, the arbitrator's determination of the "law of the shop" cannot be further challenged, unless it totally fails to draw its essence from the contract.** Here he said that the contract and current conditions resulted in this result. Sec. 12 of the Illinois Arbitration Act basically says that that can be challenged only on grounds not relevant here.*** That's why while, a couple of weeks ago, there were reports about Jefferson saying "we'll strike if they throw out our contract," he isn't saying it now to the press.

Based on the law of the shop, the arbitrator could have said that the Huberman letter could have estopped**** the CTA from relying on the contract, and that, too, probably couldn't have been effectively challenged by the CTA. Nonetheless, he didn't rule that way.

_____________

* Link to the MTA. Then search for "seniority."

** Link to a discussion of the Steelworkers Trilogy.

*** Link to the Arbitration Act.

**** Meaning that if the party of the first part did something that caused the other side to rely on it to their detriment, the first can't enforce that.

[busfan]

Busjack,

You are good thats for sure. Wish our union would have better people looking into things for them before they waste time trying to fight loosing battles.

[Busjack]

Busjack,

You are good thats for sure. Wish our union would have better people looking into things for them before they waste time trying to fight loosing battles.

Again, I'm just telling you what I determined editing a book on the IPLRA, and another on labor contracts. In fact, I had to recheck some of the things I had initially typed.

In that there was a possibility of winning the arbitration, the unions have to try, and would be guilty of an unfair labor practice if they did not press the grievance of a member who thought that he was improperly laid off. However, they shouldn't be misleading the media and I guess the membership by making blanket assertions they can't hold up.

[busfan]

Channel 32 reported earlier today that the 2 largest union that represent CTA workers are not even close to any kind of ageement on concessions.

Then Daley steps in and I quote him saying "The unions are refusing to cooperate and give concessions to help restore service and avoid layoffs. They would rather see the people loose their job like the Teamsters did".

Thats a slap in the face to the people that got laid off from the teamsters.He might as well have just said "If you dont bow down to me, thats what you get"

He gets really upset when he dont get his way. His airport plan is falling apart pretty fast to. I just hope if he runs again people dont forget all he has done and remember everything he has done to us. Not for us.

[rotjohns]

Channel 32 reported earlier today that the 2 largest union that represent CTA workers are not even close to any kind of ageement on concessions.

Then Daley steps in and I quote him saying "The unions are refusing to cooperate and give concessions to help restore service and avoid layoffs. They would rather see the people loose their job like the Teamsters did".

Thats a slap in the face to the people that got laid off from the teamsters.He might as well have just said "If you dont bow down to me, thats what you get"

He gets really upset when he dont get his way. His airport plan is falling apart pretty fast to. I just hope if he runs again people dont forget all he has done and remember everything he has done to us. Not for us.

Don't even get me started with him. It's not surprising of his comments, because he knows it's his problem and he's gotta fix it. He'll probably look at all the troubles that this has caused and bail from running again like a chicken. Daley don't care about his city, he cares about himself. I just hope there is somebody out there worthy and capable of beating him if he decides to run.