How RTD Employees ended up striking

On March 29, 2006, RTD presented a modified proposal to the Union. The terms were somewhat improved, but it was not really much of a movement from the proposal that was rejected by 95% on March 26. To stress the importance of the matter, the Union notified RTD that we would strike on April 3 if there was no contract. The Union Executive Board suggested the members approve this proposal, since nobody wants to go through a strike, and because the Health & Welfare fund was in jeopardy if a prolonged strike would come about.

A Union is the most democratic institution there is. Everything that is done, every decision, every penny spent, has to be approved by the membership. This isn't just a Representative Democracy, it is a true Democracy. The company was aware of this, but they still did not heed the Union's warnings when we asked for more money up front, and more for health insurance. (See my previous posting.) You could say we were pushed. And in fact the Colorado Department of Labor had set up a link for RTD employees to apply for unemployment insurance. They believed we would qualify as being locked out.

The Union members rejected the proposal, though not by a large majority. I believe the members voting against it had simply reached the end of the rope when it came to being abused. Raymond Hogar, a Professor of Management at CSU, says unions seldom strike for just money, they strike out of principle.

RTD set a certain amount they would spend on their union employees, disregarding the tremendous raises they had given to top managers during our wage freeze. They never moved from this amount. Even during the strike, they took out a $500,000 contract to "protect their property." Since RTD's main income is from sales tax revenues, they received an extra net income of $200,000 per day because they did not have to pay us. That is well over 1 million dollars a week, according to RTD spokesman Scott Reed. (Reed's salary had gone up 31% to over $118,000.) The union certainly did not want to strike, only RTD could come out ahead.

That is why we had wanted binding arbitration from the beginning. The people who suffered from the strike were the Riders and the Union Members. And when you consider how many handicapped people, elderly people, poor people, children and just plain commuters it affected, you have to ask: why didn't RTD consider those people?

RTD said that they didn't want binding arbitration because the last time they were forced into it, they had to pay more than what they had budgeted. The Union proposed that any reasonable person looking at the facts would have given us a reasonable contract.

Looking at the Blogs and other comments, it is easy to see who supports Management regardless of the facts (and who supports Labor regardless of the facts, for that matter.) Those who call for privatizing the rest of RTD don't know that RTD already has a lot of trouble hiring enough drivers and mechanics, and as the economy improves they will find themselves facing the same for all the lower-paid employees as well.

The private carriers pay less than RTD (especially considering health insurance), but they don't force their drivers to work hundreds of hours without days off. RTD Manager Cal Marsella says that if they didn't have to force overtime from the bottom, it would work better. But the truth is that, most of the time, ALL the bus drivers who schedule their days off during the week will be forced to do overtime nearly EVERY DAY. That is how you end up with bus drivers who work for long periods without any days off. They have split shifts that force them to be at work for 12 or more hours to get 8 hours of pay.

I think that if RTD treated their employees a little better, encouraging an occasional day off and treating sick people to sick pay, it would go a long ways towards solving any problems they may think they have.