In response to the below message. Yes I heard about the Seattle bus
driver who was killed. That does not change my position at all. Your
implication would seem to be that an entire neighborhood must pay for
the crime in its area by allowing the City (through its employees) to
refuse to service them. This is so wrong.
First of all, the Mission is alot safer than South Central LA, the South
Bronx or the South Side of Chicago. Second of all, Muni drivers are paid
alot more than their big city counterparts. Whether you personally would
want to put yourself in that situation or not is irrelevant. Muni's job
is to service the City, all parts of the City. Crime can happen in ANY
neighborhood. Prejudicial treatment of lower income areas is unlawful
and we should not accept that attitude. Muni drivers have plenty of
people on their side to look out for their interets (namely the union).
We at RescueMuni should look out only for the interests of teh riding
public, including those in the Mission or Bayview-HuntersPoint. We are
not a Muni employees advocacy group. We are citizens advocacy group. If
drivers are needed on the 14-Mission, Muni must provide them. I don't
care if the driver wants to be there or not. The drivers preferances are
not my concern. My concern is that a bus or train shows up when it is
supposed to whether I'm in the Mission, the Richmond or North Beach.
Does a police officer have the option to refuse to work in the Mission?
No.
Does a fireman have the option of refusing to work in the Mission? No.
Should a Muni operator have the option to refuse in the Mission? NO.
If a driver does not like that, he can quit. Someone else will gladly
take his $40K+/year job.
Bryan Ceja
--------------070035EFADBEEE5AEF230A70
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <not.val@accessone.com>
Received: from accessone.com (blaze.accessone.com [198.68.191.19])
by ixmail1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id RAA08277;
for <bc1108@ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from not.val.accessone.com (not.val.accessone.com [206.213.70.72])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id RAB08222
for <bc1108@ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199812110141.RAB08222@accessone.com>
X-Sender: not.val@mail.accessone.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: bc1108@ix.netcom.com
From: not.val@accessone.com (Val Golding)
Subject: Digest rescuemuni.v001.n370
I didn't read the particular post by Mr. Parks but from what I know and can
surmise, safety and security enhancements must come first. I for one would
not want to put myself in a potentially dangerous situation if I was not
forced to. Did yoy read the story about the driver of the Seattle Metro bus
who was fatally wounded, resulting in his coach careening off a bridge,
killing one passenger and injuring some 30 others? You are free to post my
response if you wish.
==============================================================================
again I am dismayed to hear comments from a Muni employee, this time Mr.
Parks, a driver on the 22-Fillmore, regarding reassignments of funs when
needed. Mr. Parks states that if he were asked to fill in on the
14-Mission on a Friday night, he would seriously consider refusing or
missing out of work. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be
fighting against. Why should the residents of the Mission suffer by
having to wait for a bus that will not show up because Mr. Parks doesn't
want to drive it? Why would Mr. Parks think it is his privilege to deny
anyone in the City of tranist service? Does Mr. Parks think he is
employed by the City or by the 22-Fillmore?
[snip, snip]
"Specializing in technical obfuscation"
--------------070035EFADBEEE5AEF230A70--