Again, there's a difference between public employee unions and those
operating in private industry. Unions operating in private industry are
increasingly cooperative with management because they realize that their
jobs simply won't exist anymore if they don't provide competitive
service. While TWU clings to ridiculous work rules that help cripple
the entire system, many unions in private industry are embracing the
rapidly-changing workplace and the need for organizations to respond
quickly to the needs of customers. Muni's unions are not typical of
what's going on in the real world.
Corporate abuses and excess exist. So? I'm not sure how that relates
to Muni. Well, I can think of one way: If Muni doesn't reform, it will
certainly be sold off to a private operator of some sort. If that
happens, Muni's management, Muni's unions, and the pinheads in City Hall
will have only themselves to blame. And will spend a considerable
amount of time arguing about its apportionment.
Reforming Muni can take any number of forms, whether it's making the
organization more flexible and responsive, adjusting its relationship to
the local political swamp, or contracting out. But taxpayers simply
won't tolerate an attempt to throw more money at this very badly broken
organization. Voters wisely mistrust City Hall and want evidence their
dollars won't be squandered.
Complaining that private industry is responsible for all sorts of
terrible stuff and that unions spared us all from 80-hour sweatshop
weeks doesn't get us far. It doesn't change the fact that Muni's unions
are choking the organization to death with their intransigent demands
and City Hall's spinelessness in the face of those demands.
> And let's not forget that without unions we wouldn't have the 40-hour
> workweek, overtime pay, occupational health & safety laws, Social
> Security, etc. Do unions have problems? Sure they do. But if Muni's
> unions are so powerful, why don't we have more bus and rail service,
> which would require more drivers, which would mean more union members?
> Arcane work rules should be addressed, but they are far from the biggest
> obstacle to improving Muni service.
If unions aren't so powerful, why did the Board of Supervisors
unanimously approve this turkey of a contract? Not one of them stood up
to say no. Not the sanctimonious left, not the self-styled fiscal
conservatives, none in the middle.
We'd probably have more city employees if the city could get away with
expanding the payroll. The halcyon days of fat revenue sharing checks
from DC are over, Prop 13 limits how high property taxes can go, and
state law makes it harder to impose many other taxes, too. Whether one
thinks that trand is good or bad, it does limit how large the city
workforce can grow. Within that limit, the city employees' unions use
their political clout to maximize their take of the pie.
The city excuses its poor performance by blaming Washington and
Sacramento. Because there's some truth to their claim, they've avoided
responsibility for spending the dollars they have so poorly, and for
failing to reorient themselves to serve customers rather than serve
themselves.
But let's assume I'm wrong. Let's assume that expecting Muni drivers to
better serve customers is an unconscionable form of abuse. Let's assume
that Muni's managers are, without exception, enlightened, hardworking
souls who don't let themselves get out of bed in the morning until
they've cooked up three new ways to improve customer service. Let's
assume our mayor and Board of Supervisors is the pinnacle of humanity's
experiment with democracy. Let's assume Willie Brown just wilts at the
idea he might do favors for tobacco companies, East Bay developers, or
public employee unions who shower him with cash and in-kind resources.
Okay. Assume all of that is true. Will the voters cough up more cash
on faith? Do you really think so?