toll-collectors' strike
Nov. 27th, 2004 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioAs you know, the Teamsters union organized a strike of the Turnpike toll collectors and maintenance crews to begin on the busiest travel day of the year. The state was forced to let travellers use the road for free on Wednesday, and has been collecting reduced tolls since then.
While many drivers are happy with this turn of events, as a taxpayer I am outraged. In most lines of work, sabotage that costs an employer money would be punished. I have heard nothing of reimbursement from the Teamsters, nor do I expect to.
I read in today's newspaper that the state has hired temporary workers to begin collecting the regular tolls, and that when the strike ends these workers will be laid off. I have a better idea: hire them permanently and fire the strikers. Quickly.
The striking workers are not being taken advantage of, as should be clear from the ease with which you hired their replacements. They make an average of $18.50 per hour, not counting overtime, which is a lot more than other cashiers make. (80% of those on strike make more than $50,000 per year.) Each year they also receive 15 paid holidays and four weeks' vacation. The deal they rejected included fully-paid health care, protection from layoffs for three years, and annual raises.
Their greed is ridiculous, and I urge you to fire these spoiled brats and replace them with people who want to work for the more-than-fair compensation the state has offered. Please restore the Turnpike to normal business as quickly as possible, before even more of our tax dollars have to be diverted to paying for this loss.
Thank you.
I haven't actually sent it yet, so feedback is very welcome. What's the correct way to address the governor, anyway? I don't think it's Dear Governor".
"Open letter" means I'll be sending copies to the newspaper and my representatives, not just whining here. :-)
Update: I may be making some unwarranted assumptions about the terms of their employment; need to check.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-28 01:54 am (UTC)Out of curiosity, for what are they striking?
They've been working without a contract for more than a year; I don't know what the proximate cause is. This is the only article I've seen so far that quotes the union's side. (Until then the union was declining comment.) The article says that the workers are upset that the HMO they've been using is being eliminated in favor of Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but that seems spurious to me. I mean, the details haven't been published, but the phrase "fully-paid health care" has been, and they rejected that, apparently because they don't like the specific flavor. (Note that management has the same health plan, so it's probably not crap.) See the article for more.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-28 02:20 am (UTC)striking is almost always a last resort. working without a contract is like working without a paycheck - and it's tremendously bad for morale, stress, etc. the upside to a union is that you can negotiate for better pay, benefists, etc. - the downside is that you are stuck with what you negotiate for, usually for a long time.
for what it's worth, I think that calling them simple cashiers is a gross understatement. would you want to be paid $10 an hour to be the only toll taker open when the crazy with the handgun decides he gets to ride for free?
~Devil's Advocate :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-28 03:34 am (UTC)Is it? I would think there would be legal remedies if you don't get paid for work you have already done. Working without a contract seems more like working without knowing you'll have a job tomorrow (which is also serious, of course).
the downside is that you are stuck with what you negotiate for, usually for a long time.
And apparently there are non-union workers in some of these jobs and they've been doing better on salary increases. So the unionized workers have a legitimate beef with their union, but not with the state on that point. As you said, there are good and bad aspects of joining a union.
for what it's worth, I think that calling them simple cashiers is a gross understatement. would you want to be paid $10 an hour to be the only toll taker open when the crazy with the handgun decides he gets to ride for free?
Is this materially different from being the only guy at the 7-11 at 3AM when the armed guy looking for drug money comes in, or the pizza-delivery guy who's told by his boss that he must deliver in the bad neighborhood?
I did not intend the word "cashier" to be insulting; is there a better word that puts the job in proper perspective?
In this case it sure sounds like the union and/or the strikers are doing a disservice to all unionized workers. There are legitimate reasons to form unions, but every time people strike for not getting red-carpet treatment, they make all unions look that much worse. Not everyone takes the time to examine individual cases; for a lot of people the argument stops with "those damned unions are at it again". That's unfortunate, and I'd love to hear of other union folks speaking up in cases like that.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-29 01:56 am (UTC)Only upside was that I had keys to things I shouldn't have and could keep personal utilities personal. I did not not wish to schlep_everything_. Nor compromise my quality. I am versatile and could do an adequate job with olive oil. Although I like a particular formula of cream that does not stain and has the right consistency. And time to do things right.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-28 02:55 am (UTC)Also, the article says they only have 50 temps, and plan on getting 300. Which I find amusing. Some of those are third shift positions. Yeah, they're just going to find 100 people this week dying to work 3rd shift for $16/hr, no benes, and no job security. Riiiiiight.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-28 03:39 am (UTC)Dang -- I somehow managed to read right past the sidebar. Oops! (The $16.25 was quoted in the print article this morning -- not in a sidebar IIRC, but minor repackaging of information for print and web is nothing new.)
Yeah, they're just going to find 100 people this week dying to work 3rd shift for $16/hr, no benes, and no job security. Riiiiiight.
On the other hand, what I'm suggesting is that they just hire those (up to) 800 people at the offered %16.25 plus bennies and job security (or up to the current rate of $18.50 if that's what the market demands). This is a case where I think it's reasonable to say "you walk out, you lose". This does not appear to be a case of exploitation or unsafe working conditions or some other situation for which a work stoppage is a legitimate response.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-28 05:42 am (UTC)In the Scranton area? Hell, they could probably find 1,000. That's like hitting a gold mine compared to what you get around here. I know plenty of people living temp job to temp job who consider themselves lucky to get $9/hr.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-29 07:44 pm (UTC)Well, if someone's been out of work for over a year, and no unemployment benefits left, and the only other jobs out there are retail or McD's for minimum wage, you bet your ass I'd jump on a 3rd shift job for $16 an hour, no matter how long it'll last. It's money, and some people will take it where they can find work to get it.