To Strike or not to Strike

With negotiations falling apart and Capital Metro employees talking strike, it becomes imperative for the union to consider what its options are. While striking may be the most immediate way to get what union members want, there are other ways of dealing with an impasse in negotiations that do not ignore the public interests in the process. I would like to propose an alternative that could avert public service being disrupted and achieve the goals of both management and labor.

Management has an interest in keeping the same service levels intact, while dealing with the economic realities of a downturn in sales tax revenue. It is reacting to these factors by proposing a lower level of pay for new drivers, increased deductibles on health insurance, and a $1000 bonus for existing employees in lieu of a pay scale increase for 2007. Since the union and management have not had an existing contract, the deductible increases have already been unilaterally imposed. By my math, that means that the net bonus actually received would be $900 for one employee and $800 for a family. In addition, management plans to triple the deductible amount over the next three years, resulting in a wash.

From the union's point of view, they have been operating without a raise for two years. I'm not sure what the pay scale of the non-unionized administrative staff is, but it is a good guess that it is significantly higher that the rank-and-file of Capital Metro. As with most labor contracts this is an unspoken factor in the minds of employees when looking at their pay being broadcast to the public, while the top-tier managers keep their pay-scales under wraps. In addition, it is my experience that it is the top pay possible of a unionized employee is almost always presented to the public in an effort by management to create an impression that the members are being paid at a higher rate than is actually the case.

Another factor in the negotiations is the economic uncertainty that is surrounding the timing of this particular contract period. Housing prices are down, and obviously the 3% sales tax revenue decrease is reflective of the ability for the organization to generate the revenue it needs to maintain service levels. It should always be in the minds of public employees that their customers are the citizens and the employees' welfare is based on the perception that the public has of the service being provided. While a strike may be the most expeditious way to achieve a pay and benefits increase, the ramifications for the future may outweigh the benefit.

Given all the factors involved, it is my opinion that every one's interests would be better served by having management give the $1000 bonus without a contract and the two parties settle on a one year contract for the 3% increase to which they have already agreed. I also think that it would be in the union's best interest to have a public relations campaign during the next year, detailing the pay of management and touting the service that the employees provide to the public. While this might be out of the union's pocket, it would appear to me that it would generate much more good will from the taxpayers and could lead to better pay and benefits down the line.

It is unclear, at this time, how long the economy will continue to slow. It is clear, however, that the Capital Metro management has gotten their message out to the public. I don't believe that the union has been effective in this regard. Striking under these conditions is probably not the best course of action, because it is counter-productive to the long-term goals of the union. Public perception, not management coercion is the enemy in this fight.

In the article, "Sagging Pants and First Class Flights: The Priorities of Mayor Moncrief," the North Texas Conservative blog brings to light the Ft. Worth mayor's excesses in office. The title pretty much tells the story to follow. In reality, it is two stories in one; the first being the privately funded fight against baggy trousers and the second being publicly funded, first class flights to Dubai.

The first story is the ridiculous fight against sagging pants that Mayor Moncrief has embarked on. According to the blog, it is basically a public awareness campaign attempting to convince young people to refrain from wearing pants that reveal their under drawers. This part of the article is fairly well written, with plenty of information to back up the writer's opinion that this campaign is a waste of the Mayor's attention.

The second part of the article, concerning the Mayor's trip, is a could have used a little information regarding the purpose of his trip. I believe that this would have provided the reader with more facts to interpret the contended wastefulness on Mr. Moncrief's part. While the travel accommodations seemed excessive, it would have been helpful to assess the cost vs. benefit of his travels. The writer also mentions the travel of DFW directors without explaining the relevance to the story.

I believe that the writer would have been more effective had he split this story into two separate ones; the difference between a privately funded public awareness campaign and a publicly funded trip warrant separate consideration. It seems that the most convincing arguments regarding the misplaced priorities of Mayor Moncrief were made on the sagging pants aspects of the article. The second half merely criticises the excesses of his travel arrangements, but does not effectively argue that the agenda was wrong. The conclusion of the article, that the needs of Ft Worth's residences are not being met, is a completely unsupported contention.