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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The commentary “To Strike or not to Strike” on Scott’s Corner provides a good perspective of the conflicts going on between the Capital Metro management and the union of workers. The author thoroughly explores the viewpoints from both sides and explains the explicit as well as implicit intents of the management and the union. All the aspects discussed are then put into the current context – the economic crisis in particular. The author’s suggestion that the union and the management should agree on a $1,000 bonus without a contract or with an addition of a 3% increase in the second year for a two-year contract is seemingly an intermediate option. Considering the current economic situation, where those who are getting laid off would rather take a pay cut, the above option seems reasonable. Also, since they are not committed for more than a year, they can renegotiate the terms at the end of a year when things could have improved. Also, like the author says, striking at this time is not the best course of action.
The current proposal seems to provide a good option but with a three year commitment. The current proposal is to provide $1,200 bonus in lieu of a raise for the first year, and then provide 3% raise for the second and third year. The catch here is that this raise does not come entirely at the beginning of the year but is broken down at every six months. That would mean that workers would get 1.5% raise every six months beginning from the second year. According to me, if the union is looking for a long term work commitment, the proposal from the management seems good, but if they want the ability to negotiate better pay once the economy improves, they should avoid getting into a three-year term, and try to negotiate something shorter.
Wow, this is great! Your research puts my article to shame. Kudos on being up to date with the lives and turmoil of the Capital Metro employees, I did not know that they even had a union. Also, I am glad how you tried to explain both sides of the issue, without being biased. For a lot of writers, it is hard to do.
Now that I am done applauding your work, I have to say that I agree with you. A strike does not appear as the best option right now. It may help speed up the amount of time it takes for union workers to achieve their rights, but at what cost? Inevitably it may cause more harm than good, like you said. After a strike, civilians who rely on the bus services may grow reluctant to use them, due to the mistreatment of its employees and due to the fact that they are no longer reliable. If a person cannot rely on the bus, why should they wait for it?
If both parties try to settle their differences in a calm and constructive manner, then everyone will win. Negotiate, give the laborers their deserved bonus and try to work out a decent salary and health plan option. Stop threatening to strike and get together with management and reach a consensus. I do not think they are trying hard enough and they are opting for an easy solution, which is drastic and foolish. Only when there is no other option should a strike go on; when the pressure is too much and everyone feels the strain and Capital Metro will not listen, or do anything towards compensation, can a strike truly be affective. The union certainly has a lot on their plate; I hope they make the right decision.
Post a Comment