BART Strike Looms

15th August 2009 09:03 AM

BART stoppage threatens thousands of commuters

By: Mike Aldax

August 14, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — Get ready for a nightmare commute in the Bay Area starting Monday morning, when the entire BART system is poised to stop running and drivers on highways and city streets could experience gridlock of epic proportions.

At midnight Sunday, BART workers plan to walk off the job following a collapse in labor negotiations. The union representing train operators and station agents declared the strike action Thursday, after more than four months of tumultuous negotiations that ultimately failed.

The announcement came one week after BART and union leaders reached tentative deals that many thought would avert a work stoppage or lockout. The last step was to gather final approval from union members, which was expected since their leaders publicly endorsed the deals. Members of two BART unions overwhelmingly approved their contracts, but those with Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555, which represents train operators and station agents, rejected theirs.

It was the second deal Local 1555 members voted down since negotiations began in April.

“This is completely in the union’s court,” BART spokesman Linton Johnson said. “It’s their choosing to throw our riders out in the street.”

Johnson said the union would have to “offer something” to break the impasse.

But with no one left to operate the trains or work the stations, BART service will grind to a halt, leaving some 340,000 daily commuters scrambling to find transportation.

Travel alternatives are slim in the Bay Area. Many commuters will choose to drive instead, adding to highway and street congestion. Those driving to San Francisco from the East Bay will likely experience the longest delays, since their best option — the Bay Bridge — will be overwhelmed by new traffic.

“I’m totally screwed,” said Carissa Spencer, a freelance filmmaker who lives in San Francisco but works all around the Bay Area. “I’m trying to be green and ride BART, but I guess I’m going to have to not be green and drive my SUV.”

Others will attempt to pile aboard ferries, buses, Caltrain or Muni. However, those modes couldn’t possibly accommodate the influx of additional passengers, particularly in this economy, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

“Bay Area commuters have shown a lot of resilience. That resilience will be tested come Monday,” commission manager Randy Rentschler said Thursday. “Everyone should be concerned. Everyone’s going to be inconvenienced.”

How bad it’s going to be remains to be seen. Many Bay Area residents still remember how a six-day BART strike in 1997 clogged roadways and nearly doubled the time it took to drive to The City. Currently, 85,000 more people ride BART each day and the number of vehicles traveling from farther away has also increased.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/BART...-53145872.html

First, let me say that I am a supporter of unions and unionizing. When done correctly, and for the right reasons, the clout of organized labor is an important offset to the abuses of the private sector employees by employers.

The question here is whether the union membership has a legitimate complaint and I must say no, they don't.

It borders on being delusional to argue that one should not see some effect in one's total compensation package these days. When an increasing number of people are glad just to have jobs it's insane to argue that one, minor, segment of the workforce should be able to hold the rest hostage to their absurd demands.

BART is already one of the most expensive regional transit systems in the country.

I think it's time for a no-strike clause to be placed into the contract. Don't like it? Find another job.

**Feslin** · 17th August 2009 01:29 PM

[quote name='johnlocke' date='15 August 2009 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1250348635' post='5525']The question here is whether the union membership has a legitimate complaint and I must say no, they don't.[/quote]

Fire them. If no one else the employer is willing to hire is willing to take the job, the complaint is legitimate. If the employer find's someone they're willing to hire who's willing to take the job, the complaint isn't legitimate.

**mjollnir** · 18th August 2009 09:56 AM

How can you support unions and be against this? This is what unions are about! Unions have ruined industry in this country...completely ran all of our manufacturing jobs and industry out of this country. If you support unions, you support this kind of bullshit....sorry!

**Bluesguy** · 20th August 2009 04:45 PM

Fire them and hire non-union workers to take their place and provide the security they need when the union engages in the violence and tries to intimidate them or worse kill them. Reagan did with the ATC union, time to start standing up to public works and government unions and get rid of them.

20th August 2009 05:39 PM

[quote name='Stinger' date='20 August 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1250808301' post='8694']

Fire them and hire non-union workers to take their place and provide the security they need when the union engages in the violence and tries to intimidate them or worse kill them. Reagan did with the ATC union, time to start standing up to public works and government unions and get rid of them.

[/quote]

and that worked out so well that the FAA now has to plead with air traffic controllers not to retire.

**Bluesguy** · 20th August 2009 06:54 PM

[quote name='johnlocke' date='20 August 2009 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1250811571' post='8723']

and that worked out so well that the FAA now has to plead with air traffic controllers not to retire.

[/quote]

It worked out quite fine. New ones were hired and trained and those are the ones retiring now. What they are pleading is to let them work to a later retirement age instead of the arcane mandatory early retirement age of 56 put in place years ago. You see most of those Reagan rightfully fired would have retired already.