Will CTA do what the MTA did?

[sw4400]

Reading the CBS2.com link about the Bus Drivers and Mechanics talking about a potential strike makes me wonder if the city will have a shutdown of Bus traffic if a settlement cannot be reached. As of this posting, the CTA is refusing to meet with the Union(s) to discuss the issues at hand.

[Kevin]

When there was talk of a strike a couple years ago, there were plans to initiate a "slowdown" instead of a strike. Since a strike is illegal, the plan was for drivers to follow all the rules that CTA honestly doesn't expect anyone to follow (such as not moving the bus until all passengers sat down).

I wonder if the Union will once again propose such a plan. If they did do an all out strike, CTA would have one hell of a problem on their hands. In some ways, a bus strike can be much worse than a rail strike. If trains aren't running, there's usually always a bus as an alternative. However, the opposite does not always hold true.

[Busjack]

Normally I would say no, but considering that there is a power struggle between the ATU and Teamsters, and the CTA's claimed budget problems, anything is possible.

All the MTA strike proved is that a union calling a transit strike makes the public very angry. Also, New York's Taylor Law has much more potent penalties against public employees striking than I believe any Illinois law, but that didn't keep the MTA employees from walking out.

This, like the proposed nurse's strike, might also be a way of influencing the upcoming election.

Also, I believe that the Rapid Transit employees belong to a separate ATU local, and I don't know if that one is involved in the strike threat.

[Buslover88]

I think the CTA might have a Strike just like MTA...but that would affect Thousands of People....No Buses would be running, People would be Walking and VERY Angry. But I hope I don't have to see People Walking across the Bridges, Tunnels, etc.

[trainman8119]

I don't think the fact that a strike is illegal would stop the union from striking. However, one thing that you want is some sympathy, which you would not get in a strike. However, a slow down could cause as much havoc as a strike, and be perfectly legal. Some of the operating rules are silly, so by following them, you could indeed create some serious delays, and in reality, would be doing nothing wrong...and...you would get the same effect as a strike.

Even though the rail workers and bus drivers are in different locals, you can bet that they would honor a picket line set up by the bus drivers, if there was indeed a strike. If they didn't there would be some serious labor strife between the unions. Usually union workers will honor another union's picket line.

Seriously, though, I wouldn't put too much into the talk of a strike.

[ryanbytes]

What are some of the more silly operating rules that aren't followed?

[Busjack]

Most reports about the CTA strike vote today, including in the Tribune, indicate that the dispute is over "rostering" and similar work rules. It is not clear to me as an outsider what this means.

The AECOM Consult report indicates that implementing rostering is its main recommendation for improving CTA efficiency. I guess all that CTA received for its $1.2 million consultant fee is labor trouble.

The AECOM report also seems to indicate that, otherwise, driver scheduling hasn't changed much since the streetcar days. Any comment from the bus drivers in this group on this?

[trainman8119]

The AECOM report also seems to indicate that, otherwise, driver scheduling hasn't changed much since the streetcar days. Any comment from the bus drivers in this group on this?

From what I was to understand of this rostering thing, among other things, is that the proposal is to eliminate pay for the down time on split shifts. For example, a driver has a run that works a trip or 2 in the morning and a trip or 2 in the afternoon. Under the current set up, you are considered "on duty" during the down time between the morning and afternoon part of the run, even though you are not actually working. By being on duty, you are getting paid for the down time. With the increased amount of part timers, some of this has already been elimanated. But to someone who has been around awhile and has been compensated in this manner for a long time, this would amount to a tremendous amount of lost pay. What this would amont to for a full timer would be "working" 10-12 hours and getting paid for say 6 or 7. Needless to say, for those who have it, they don't want to give it up...and I don't blame them. Skimming through the link provided, it seems that the consultant wants to increase the number of part timers and extra board personnel and eliminate the long regular runs, thus reducing payroll.

Understand that while on these split shifts, you have to be available. You can't, for example go and have a beer on your down time...you may not have time to perhaps go home and do errands or whatever you may want. There are those who will contend that you should get paid for the time you actually work. Just understand that even though you are not behind the wheel in those down times, you are still subject to rules and regulations as if you were. Therefore, giving up the pay for down time is a bad thing from a labor point. Most likely any savings created by accomplishing this will probably go into the pocket of management in the form of some sort of bonus. I am sure the consultants didn't consider this in their report either.

[Busjack]

Thanks for the explanation. From what you say, CTA may be going back to the streetcar method, under which, according to Lind Chicago Surface Lines: An Illustrated History (page 206):

In that era the crewmen were paid only for their "platform time," i.e. the time they actually spent running the car. Many runs had a four or five hour mid-day gap that was not paid for because the crew was not on the car. ... [M]any runs requried a total time for more than 12 hours, but were paid for 8 hours or less.

Most likely any savings created by accomplishing this will probably go into the pocket of management in the form of some sort of bonus. I am sure the consultants didn't consider this in their report either.  

Since CTA is running a deficit, I doubt that. However, if I were a state legislator representing the taxpayers (as opposed to those beholden to the union or patronage), I would question pouring more money into the rathole if the schedule is not efficient, or, alternatively, why was $1.2 million spent on consultant's recommendations that can't be implemented.