BART Strike on hold; Sellout in works

the 'what's not working' column of the Chronicle says that they can't take up the bathroom issue because they are closed because the restrooms are the central hub of the air supply in the stations and a terrorist could be concealed in their while they readied their chemicals for placing in the air blower.

Combative rank and file BART workers need to put out a call for a Bay-Area wide sickout. This:

1. Might take off like a house on fire, and royally fuck the bosses' economy, and,

2. Break the balls of BART management, and make them give you what you want -- very rapidly.

The unions aren't your organizations. Unions are auxillary organs of capitalist exploitation, and one of their central objectives is to adjust union members to the requirements of capital.

Obviously the BART workers would be better off if their union were busted. Right. Saddam Hussein had WMD. Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Just keep repeating the lie and it will come true!

Maximalist rhetoric is annoying, not only because their pipe dreams have no chance of happening, but because it undermines people who are trying to help move regular workers towards more direct action. People like the above poster (boss and union hater) mainly come off as nutty outsiders, who have zero understanding of real workplaces.

I wouldn't dare presume that the bureaucrats aren't willing to sabotage the militancy of the union rank & file, but according to the article below, it doesn't look like they're selling out to me.

By the way, a final contract offer has to be voted up or down by the rank & file anyway. The bureaucrats don't have a say in that (other than to recommend a "yes" or "no" vote on the final contract proposal).

Once again, reality trumps Keatingesque ideological idiocy. . .

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/30/BART.TMP

With a strike deadline looming next week, BART presented its unions Wednesday with what it called "a major new offer" that would cut health benefits while charging more for them and grant up to 4 percent pay raises over four years.

One of BART's two largest unions reacted negatively to the proposal, which was announced at a news conference, calling the action a media ploy that did not reflect a desire to reach an agreement by 12:01 a.m. Friday, when contracts expire.

"They basically bypassed the union negotiating teams and are bargaining directly with employees and the public, and this is bad-faith bargaining in violation of the law," said Harold Brown, president of the roughly 800-member Amalgamated Transit Union 1555 in a prepared statement.

BART spokesman Linton Johnson said union negotiators had formally been given the proposal early in the afternoon. Officials with the Service Employees International Union 790, which has 1,450 members, were not available for comment.

The four-year contract offer includes no pay increases in the first two years but provides for raises based on the consumer price index, with a cap of 2 percent, in the final two years.

In addition, BART would raise current and retired employees' monthly contributions for family health benefits from $25 to $100 beginning July 1, 2006, and raise the contributions to $150 a month starting July 1, 2008.

The transit district also would immediately cap what it pays for health benefits at the amount charged for Kaiser Permanente's health plan, instead of providing the several options now available. Employees would have to pay additional costs if they chose health care plans from other providers.

BART said it would drop its demand to stop paying workers for a half-hour meal break. The district was pursuing other work-rule changes governing such things as job descriptions that were being opposed by the unions.

"We strongly believe this new formal proposal is reasonable and does not further burden our riders, while at the same time resolves a nearly $100 million, four-year deficit that threatens to put the entire transit system at risk," Joel Keller, president of BART's board of directors, said in a prepared statement.

The unions, which have set a strike deadline of 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, had sought pay increases of about 17 percent over three years and no cuts to health benefits, which BART officials say make up the bulk of the projected $100 million deficit over the next four years.

Meanwhile, members of a third employee union overwhelmingly approved an agreement Wednesday, but the deal does not cover wages and benefits, which are being negotiated by the two largest unions. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees 3993 represents about 200 supervisors, administrators and professional employees, including planners, safety inspectors and train controllers, among others.

Members of AFSCME did not strike in 1997 but honored the other unions' picket lines and would be likely to do the same if needed this time, said local President Norma del Mercado.

If BART workers strike next Wednesday, the impact on commuter traffic would be enormous.

The transit district is not planning to run trains during a strike, just
as in 1997, when morning backups at the Bay Bridge started an hour early and ended 30 minutes later than normal.

This week transit district officials have been touting a worst-case
analysis by UC Berkeley researchers last year showing that a sudden interruption in BART service could cause traffic gridlock throughout the Bay Area, with freeway backups stretching 26 miles.

The report, released in October, was intended to illustrate a worst-case scenario if BART were to be knocked out of commission by an earthquake. At the time the report was done, BART carried about 320,000 riders on weekdays, with some 150,000 riders using the Transbay Tube.

But Michael Cassidy, the UC Berkeley professor of civil engineering who was co-author of the report, said the study assumed that BART commuters would leave for work at the same time and travel by car.

"It's not particularly genuine to imply to the public that these are the
impacts you are likely to see" during a strike, said Cassidy. Many
commuters will choose to work from home, he said. Others will take
advantage of increased bus and ferry service.

"This was a worst-case scenario under the assumption that no alternative plans were made," Cassidy said.

You can read minds, or are you spying on "anonymous"? I know many people who have the same opinion as "anonymous". Why do you say it's KK. Even some IWW members believe that "business unions" are part of the capitalist system and are the regulators of the system for capital.

I believe that you take ir on a case by case basis ie. some unions do and some don't and some do it some of the time. THE ILA (east + gulf coast longshore union-run generally by the Mob) does that, as did the Teamsters and the Laborers. To take a relevant case today, workers in Muni who called for a wildcat strike are being brought up on charges by THEIR union.

I can't speak for what the decision to move the date of the strike call and contin ue negotiating. Time will tell. I think anonymous is a litle premature. But good people can politically disagree without ad hominem attacks. or "outing" that person.

I think "outing" someone on indymedia can be very dangerous. You don't know the reason even people who are usuallly veyr open in their politics might chose at some point to be anonyous (unless you are that mind reader). Maybe they just got a new job or something like that. Maybe they don't want the authorities to know whose wrting a particular post. In thin case, i don't think any harm was caused by your act, but don't do it again.

I know many people who have the same opinion as "anonymous"

Really? You think there are a lot of radicals out there who believe that unions (not union bureaucrats or corrupt union officials) primary purpose is to "sublimate workers to the needs of capital"? That's a very ultra-left position and it is not held by the vast majority of union members that I know.

The language used in the post to which I am objecting is 100% vintage Keating rhetoric. I don't consider it comradely or solidaric in the least. It is not a constructive criticism of unions, BART workers, or anti-capitalism. It is ultra-left posturing and ideological sectarian nonsense. It is an attack and as such I see no reason why I should show any respect for somebody who has none, ZERO, for working people in the least.

Even some IWW members believe that "business unions" are part of the capitalist system and are the regulators of the system for capital.

Most IWW members, myself included, are 100% convinced that business unions are a part of the problem. However my analysis (and the analysis of most IWW members) is that this is a failure of analysis and strategy rather than a deliberate plot. In any case, that is not the issue here. The issue is that the above poster is making ultra-left demands of rank & file workers without being one of them himself and showing no regard whatsoever for the risks they would be taking by such extremist actions.

THE ILA (east + gulf coast longshore union-run generally by the Mob) does that, as did the Teamsters and the Laborers. To take a relevant case today, workers in Muni who called for a wildcat strike are being brought up on charges by THEIR union.

I have no problem whatsoever with the rank & file MUNI drivers who're calling for a wildcat strike. Those are actual Muni union rank & file workers not ultra-left vanguardists. There's a difference Deanosaur.

I am well aware of the corruption within the ILA. The rank & file of that union is struggling mightily to fight that corruption and has been doing so for years. I doubt very seriously that that same rank & file is working to abolish the union. Remember that it is the disorganized structure and the bureaucrats that are the problem, not the union itself.

I can't speak for what the decision to move the date of the strike call and contin ue negotiating. Time will tell. I think anonymous is a litle premature. But good people can politically disagree without ad hominem attacks. or "outing" that person.

I think the above poster has absolutely no clue about how contract negotiations work. First of all, a vote to authorize a strike is not the same thing as a strike vote. Before a strike vote is taken, it is usually prudent to receive management's final contract offer. If the union votes to strike before receiving the final offer, it runs the risk of losing any tentative agreements made between itself and management on issues that are not in contention (legally protected under current labor law). By waiting for the final offer, it protects the tentative agreements.

There are any number of reasons why the strike vote may be delayed until Wednesday. Bureaucratic corruption may indeed be one of them, but there could be many others that are innocent.

What is really frustrating is that well meaning radicals who haven't actually ever been in a labor union seem to think they know how to devise a winning, militant strategy. How many of them have actually talked to BART workers and gotten their input? I suspect the answer is close to zero. If they have talked to rank & file BART workers, have they listened to what they had to say carefuly? Again, I suspect the answer is, "no".

i>I think "outing" someone on indymedia can be very dangerous. You don't know the reason even people who are usuallly veyr open in their politics might chose at some point to be anonyous (unless you are that mind reader). Maybe they just got a new job or something like that. Maybe they don't want the authorities to know whose wrting a particular post. In thin case, i don't think any harm was caused by your act, but don't do it again.

Oh give me a f**king break already! You know me well enough to know that I wouldn't "out" anybody who was in any danger or had good intentions.

Keating is not using pseudonyms because he is trying to protect himself from evil bosses or the government. He is using pseudonyms because he wants to pretend as if he is a rank & file union member (which he isn't) or that he is part of a large tendency (which doesn't exist) that believes as he does (which is crazy). It's intellectually dishonest and destructive to rank & file worker militancy, and it has absolutely none, ZERO, support among workers.

As far as I am concerned, it's essentially troll-speak and I will not stand for it.

Just to be clear, I think BART workers should be militant and organize to make BART free (because the capitalists cannot live without it and if everyone refused to pay BART fares or BART workers let everyone ride for free, there is nothing the boss class could do to stop that) and that the BART police should be abolished.

I am not opposed to mass sick-out either.

I think it is perfectly fine to suggest that BART workers can and possibly should strive towards those goals.

I disagree with vanguardist sectarians who call workers "sell outs" if they don't immediately do these things.

Just to be clear, I think BART workers should be militant and organize to make BART free (because the capitalists cannot live without it and if everyone refused to pay BART fares or BART workers let everyone ride for free, there is nothing the boss class could do to stop that) and that the BART police should be abolished.

I am not opposed to mass sick-out either.

I think it is perfectly fine to suggest that BART workers can and possibly should strive towards those goals.

I disagree with vanguardist sectarians who call workers "sell outs" if they don't immediately do these things.

I really don't know.

What is a Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

I dunno about this BARt situation. The class issues are fairly complicated, whereas it would be more straightforward if it were ILWU or workers at a business because it is much worse off, poorer ununionized workers who would be hurt most badly by a BART strike, in order to make gains for union workers who rank in power with the dockworkers. My perception from people talking, and talk radio (which can be very much filtered towar's the host's views) seems to indicate popular opinion against them which could translate into worse conditions for basic unionization in other areas of the economy. It seems like if I had spare energy, helping support the sectors of the economy who are sub-service workers i.e. often are unpaid slaves, would be the priority. These would include agricultural workers obviously, but I saw that many of those big groups workers at car washes with towels aren't being paid minimum wage (well, obviously - the gas station hires one person to run the cash register, but has about 20 people at the end of the car wash at Oxford and Bancroft, and can we believe they're being paid?). I mean, employers whose workers aren't able to get there via BART would have to make allowances next Wednesday, but I think that the interests of people not even powerful enough to establish a union should be recognized in addition to the situation of a union that is atypically powerful.