--- It's really quiet around here. I know what you're thinking: the
husband has finally left the building. Nope. While he did go out for a
time this morning, what I'm referring to it the lack of noise caused by
the bus drivers strike. We live on a bus route. Buses whizz by from
about five in the morning until midnight. I've gotten used to their
rumblings. We've lived here for so long that I barely notice it
anymore, but when the buses don't run it's pretty freaky. Let me guess.
Your eyes just went wide with amazement that public employees are on
strike here in the People's Republic of Minnesota, right? You were sure
that such a thing could never
happen here, right? That peace and prosperity rule the third most taxed
state in the nation. All that money had to be creating a place where
fuzzy bunnies roam the landscape and everyone loves one another.
{/sarcasm}
Yep. That's right. The Metro Transit bus drivers are walking the picket
line and have been for almost two weeks. This is throwing most people
who rely upon public transportation, like Mr. H., into a tailspin. The
budgets of these average citizens are being thrown completely out of
whack because of the strike: they now have to find parking in downtown,
which costs a fortune and is scarce, and they're paying outrageous
prices for gas, which is also off the charts. And all so that the bus
drivers can make more money and save on health care costs. Money is
switching pockets, in other words, and the gas stations and taxi
companies are LOVING this strike. The reason the drivers are striking
is because of health care costs and retirement benes. The usual
concerns. The Met Council---the organization that handles all the
coordination of public transportation between all the various cities in
the Twin Citites metro area---says it can't afford what the union wants and isn't going to pass along the costs to the riders. The bus drivers union says the Met Council can afford what
the union wants and this is just a political ploy.
I don't know about you, but just from the quality of the arguments
presented and how they're presented, I'm much more likely to believe
the Met Council (of which I'm no big fan---light rail, anyone?) than a
union which has a politicial manifesto posted on its website instead of
an actual argument:
...the real problem comes from the top, Governor Pawlenty. Peter
Bell and Mike Setzer are just puppets and have no authority to act.
One of the major reasons we are in this position is that transit needs
dedicated funding, say on the gas tax for the metropolitan area, or a area sales tax.
Every year we have to go back to the legislature for funding. Funding
is unpredictable. You cannot plan without an adequate funding stream. Just before Pawlenty was elected they were talking about doubling our system in ten years, New Governor, everything has changed.
{emphasis added by moi}
This whole thing is cheesing me. It should come as no great surprise
that I dislike unions. But let me tell you why I dislike them: I just
don't think they're necessary anymore. They wield great power, and
while this is why they were formed in the first place---when the
working man and woman actually needed an advocate to speak for
them---it is not necessary now. The workers have the power. They know
this and they wield it whenever possible. The formation of unions in
the Industrial Revolution was a necessary to equalize the balance of
power. The average, uneducated worker, at one point in history, needed
someone to tell them that, hey, they actually had power to wield; that
their labor was a tool to get their bosses to take their demands
seriously. The things we take for granted nowadays---like a forty-hour
work week, paid vacation, health insurance---these all came about
because unions demanded them for their members and got them. It makes
you wonder, however, about the unions' effectiveness and the overall
need for them when bus drivers---who, here in the cities, top wage is
$21.80 an hour---are arguing over a 1% salary increase and health
insurance costs. Where, exactly, is the righteous cause of worker's
rights in haggling over those piddly details? That they're willing to
strike; to throw the lives of the average citizen into an uproar over
saving a few bucks on their premiums? It's important to keep in mind
that these union members pay union dues---money to support the union's
administration and strike fund. If I were a union member, I know I
would be thinking that I wasn't exactly getting a good return on
investment if this
is what the union calls a strike for. One of the things that
consistently surprises me about the unions nowadays is that while they
claim to be international, I don't exactly see the Teamsters setting up
shop in Mexico or Central America. Now, I'm picking on the Teamsters
because they claim to be one of the largest, most powerful unions out there.
(Well, that and because Jimmy Hoffa---the REAL Jimmy Hoffa---put a
contract out on the husband's uncle's life back in the day and I feel
like dishing up some payback on his behalf.) Just taking a peek at
their organizational chart confirms this: any bureaucracy that has that
many arms probably wields some power. And according to Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.
they have the ear of the most powerful people in Washington. The
Teamsters also claim to be international, but this isn't really true.
They're like the the Des Moines International Airport. Des
Moines can boast an international airport because they have one flight
to Canada on a daily basis: the fact that that the Teamsters are in
Canada counts as international. Don't believe me? Just look at their membership demographics:
Teamsters members are also spread out geographically. The largest
concentrations of Teamsters are in the regions in the Central and
Eastern states. Teamster Membership by Region:
For all their whining about how the international outsourcing of labor
has affected their ranks, jeez, you would have figured they'd have
diversified into other markets. Nope. Apparently, the disenfranchised
laborers in Mexico and Central America don't make enough money to
justify any potential actions made on their behalf by the Teamsters to
better their working conditions. Not enough union dues would be paid
into the coffers to justify such an action: their P/E ratio would be
affected. Can't have that. I know this is sounding like an anti-labor
rant. I'm sure some labor people are going to be pissed off at me for
trampling on the rights of all the average working man and woman. Fine.
Go ahead. I'm tired of this nonsense. We live in a free market society.
Yep. The free market:
words that strike fear into the heart of the average union member,
because there's no fairness in the free market. Everything is at
will---employment, benefits---you name it, nothing is guaranteed. That
means if they're hired in the first place, they could be fired for no
reason whatsoever---including the inability of the company to pay for
their services. And that's exactly what a person offers a company when
they go to work for them: their services. What union members generally
forget is that they *can* take their services elsewhere, if they so
choose, or they can choose to work for a company that is offering them
a fair wage, and if that company isn't offering a fair wage, again, they can go elsewhere. There is choice involved---on both sides of the equation.
Unions want to limit that choice and that, I think, is what I find most reprehensible in their behavior. Their attitude is stick
with us, we'll take care of you, but we need you to pay your union dues
and you don't get anything if you quit after a time. By their very
nature, unions take the concept of choice out of the hands of the
workers, and honestly, how is that a better situation than when
employers took advantage of workers? The beast has simply switched
masters: instead of the employers holding the choke chain, it's now the
unions that wield the power to yank the leash. I've seen it happen.
When I managed the coffee shop, it was located within a grocery store.
Do you have any idea how many kids that stocked and bagged came over to
me looking for another job? Not because they minded bagging groceries, but they did
mind having union dues automatically deducted from their
paychecks---even though they had never been invited to join the union
in the first place? This is completely legal here in Minnesota: we're
not a "Right to Work" state: if there's a union that manages the labor
of a certain community of workers---like grocery store employees---you have
to join said union to get the job. It had gotten to a point where there
was no choice involved for the grocery store employees because they
were never asked in the first place if they wanted to refuse the union
membership along with the job. It was a surprise to every kid that
worked at that grocery store when they got their first paycheck and saw
that a goodly portion of it had been deducted in union dues. This, of
course, is at a grocery chain that regularly schedules people who
wanted forty hours a week---and the benefits that came with full time
employment---for a thirty nine point five hours every week. And
these are people who paid---and undoubtedly still pay---union dues.
Where, exactly, is the union? What are they doing to stop this
travesty? This dirty and lowly act on behalf of the grocery stores?
Aren't they supposed to take care of this sort of flagrant violation? I
thought they were supposed to stick up for workers rights?
Nope. They didn't do a damn thing about it. When I started managing at
that store, this was the main complaint of the checkers that worked
there. While I don't work at that store anymore, I do still shop at
another branch of their chain. Guess what I heard one of the checkers
at this
location bitching about the other day? Same story, different day. It
was, and still is, my supposition that the union didn't want to bite
the hand that fed it all those automatic deductions from people it had
never offered the choice to join up in the first place. After all, that
would be a lot of work. You'd actually have to inform new employees of
what was going on---meetings cost money---and that's a goodly amount of
effort expended to inform a kid who bags groceries---a high turnover
demographic---of something that probably wouldn't affect them for too
long anyway because they'd quit. It's sneaky and insidious behavior, if
you ask me. But it's also lazy---in the extreme. The union had worked
everything to its advantage. If you want a job doing this, you have to
belong to the union. They were covered legally, but things didn't start
out that way---people got lazy over the years where it worked its way
to an automatic deduction from someone's paycheck: someone who didn't
know they had the option to not join. What exactly are the bus drivers
going to get from this strike? It's pretty apparent that the Met
Council and the governnor aren't going to cave to their demands. The
longer the strike goes on, the less power the union has. People who
took the bus before the strike are making other arrangements, and those
arrangements are becoming a part of their lives. People are getting
used to the situation, and while they will undoubtedly be happy when it
comes to a close, how many people do you think might have actually
found a better solution to their commuting worries in the meantime? I'm
sure quite a few will have been reminded just how much of a pain taking
the bus actually is compared to driving or carpooling themselves to
their jobs. They will be reminded of the fact that bus drivers are not
nice people. They're always crabby, in my opinion. Yes, they have to
deal with a lot, but when it costs what it does to ride the bus, you'd
think that they'd have some customer service skills. Apparently,
however, that isn't one of the requirements for them to keep their
jobs, because, you know, there's probably some deal on the books that
was negotiated by the unions once upon a time that ensures they keep
their jobs even if they've got a serious bunch in their knickers. I
digress, but people will also notice how long it takes to get into
their jobs when they take the bus because of all the stops. Some people
might actually be getting the chance to sleep in. There are all sorts
of factors here, but none of them mean good things for the bus drivers.