Everyone Sings Kumbaya At City Hall When It Comes to MUNI
Who says City Hall's denizens can't hold hands and sing Kumbaya in peace and harmony? To read today's Chronicle and today's Examiner, that seems to be the case as negotiators found enough cookies to give to labor unions (who'd previously opposed any MUNI reform efforts) to put this thing on the ballot. And belatedly, the Mayor and others joined in. Kumba-ya
Snark aside, this should be interesting. There's enough in this measure to try and stabilize MUNI funding and give at least some more latitude in workplace rules and the like, which we all know is a Good Thing, and reduces some of the bureaucratic paperwork and overhead of taking money from parking meters and giving it to MUNI. However, it also continues the trend of keeping as many of the actual decision makers insulated from any check or balance from you, the MUNI rider, which I'm not so sure is a good thing.
What do you think? Post your comments here! Also, we're continuing to raise the issue of safety at Irving and 9th, both here, and at the Mayor's own website in an attempt to get a response from the Powers That Be.
So far, we've heard just the sound of crickets chirping....hmm....
Comments
if TWU agrees its prima facie useless. between guaranteeing high wages and thwarting actual performance all this does is pour more money down the toilet at a faster rate. Nice photo op for the usual suspects!
Posted by: treansit troublemaker | July 24, 2007 1:01 PM
@TT: actually in this case the union jobs most affected by the measure originally were SEIU midlevel manager jobs, and would have expanded to 10% the number of jobs that would be exempt from union protection rules. Instead it will now be 2.75%.
However, they still kept the part where they can pay workers more if they agree to more flexible work rules and schedules, a big problem at muni.
it is not a great compromise, but labor union leaders, in their usual wisdom, were all set to block this attempt to make some changes. as usual they offered no positive alternative (and when SEIU leader Robert Haaland and otheres were offered a chance to talk to you, the MUNI riders directly, they did not).
Most of this thing seems to be OK, but at some point I figure they had to give in to some labor demands so they would not pay for the "no" campaign.
It's too bad that labor leaders seem to be good at vetoing and forcing compromise instead of showing us how they'd improve MUNI funding, reliablity and efficiency...surely there's some labor folks who want MUNI to run great, aren't there?
Posted by: Greg
|
July 24, 2007 1:32 PM
@TT: actually in this case the union jobs most affected by the measure originally were SEIU midlevel manager jobs, and would have expanded to 10% the number of jobs that would be exempt from union protection rules. Instead it will now be 2.75%.
However, they still kept the part where they can pay workers more if they agree to more flexible work rules and schedules, a big problem at muni.
it is not a great compromise, but labor union leaders, in their usual wisdom, were all set to block this attempt to make some changes. as usual they offered no positive alternative (and when SEIU leader Robert Haaland and otheres were offered a chance to talk to you, the MUNI riders directly, they did not).
Most of this thing seems to be OK, but at some point I figure they had to give in to some labor demands so they would not pay for the "no" campaign.
It's too bad that labor leaders seem to be good at vetoing and forcing compromise instead of showing us how they'd improve MUNI funding, reliablity and efficiency...surely there's some labor folks who want MUNI to run great, aren't there?
Posted by: Greg
|
July 24, 2007 1:32 PM
@TT: actually in this case the union jobs most affected by the measure originally were SEIU midlevel manager jobs, and would have expanded to 10% the number of jobs that would be exempt from union protection rules. Instead it will now be 2.75%.
However, they still kept the part where they can pay workers more if they agree to more flexible work rules and schedules, a big problem at muni.
it is not a great compromise, but labor union leaders, in their usual wisdom, were all set to block this attempt to make some changes. as usual they offered no positive alternative (and when SEIU leader Robert Haaland and otheres were offered a chance to talk to you, the MUNI riders directly, they did not).
Most of this thing seems to be OK, but at some point I figure they had to give in to some labor demands so they would not pay for the "no" campaign.
It's too bad that labor leaders seem to be good at vetoing and forcing compromise instead of showing us how they'd improve MUNI funding, reliablity and efficiency...surely there's some labor folks who want MUNI to run great, aren't there?
Posted by: Greg
|
July 24, 2007 1:33 PM
well, I would rather NOT have them on board. Prop E passed despite their opposition. We need a major culture shift and I have yet to see TWU make any effort.
Posted by: trabsit troublemaker | July 24, 2007 11:48 PM