Friday, December 16, 2011
Transit / Politics / Clout City Why Rahm and Forrest blame the unions—because it works
Posted by Mick Dumke on 12.16.11 at 02:30 PM
I realize, given the nature of our existence, that lots of stories start this way. That is to say, given our existence in Chicago, which is to say, given the fact that the CTA isn’t quite reliable.
Bottom line: I wasn’t too surprised when ten minutes of waiting became 12, then 15.
Eventually a muffled voice came over the PA system to inform us what was going on:
“Hsxawc faoaknt xbt aybalf!”
The dozens of other people on the platform had stopped to listen, pulling out their ear buds or cocking their heads or looking around to see if anyone else could actually make out what was being said. No one could.
“What was that?”
“I think they said we’re fucked.”
“Shhh!”
“ … vatlknar. Hsxawc faoaknt xbt aybalf!”
While the rest of us were searching for answers, the woman next to me had an insight.
“I think it’s something that would be helpful to know,” she said. She was wearing a nice cashmere overcoat and struck me as tall, though she may have just carried herself with authority. She looked at her phone. “Train tracker only says it’s delayed.”
Train tracker and I had reached the same conclusion. I glanced up the track for the umpteenth time. No headlights, no rumble, no tunnel wind.
The woman looked at her phone again. “I’m at the point of calling Forrest Claypool!” she said. “It’s time he dealt with these CTA people!”
I gathered that she was talking about CTA workers—the very workers Claypool has blamed for causing the system’s chronic budget woes with pay and benefit abuses.
So I said I knew what she meant—but maybe it was about more than the rank-and-file workers. Maybe it was also about years of patronage employees, management fat, poor planning, insider contracts, rusting infrastructure—
She gave me an irritated look, as if I were, well, me. “It’s these workers and their contracts,” she informed me. “Claypool needs to get rid of them all—or at least most of them. No, that won’t fix the crumbling infrastructure, but it will help. They don’t need to get the day off for their birthdays.”
Actually, I think they’ve got to show up for their birthdays, though they might get paid double-time.
“All that waste! And so many of them, all they do is talk to each other!”
They also get us home safely each night. But I merely asked who’s supposed to be managing these CTA talkers.
She shrugged. “They’re in unions.”
Yes—unions. I've heard about them causing this mess, and the mess in the schools, and in city and state governments around the country. I get it ...
There was another announcement: “Nasknhoart fzeafl, Hsxawc faoaknt xbt aybalf!”
The woman looked at her phone. I decided to climb the stairs and wait for the bus.
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
like
dislike
A major problem with the way these debates play out is that many people view any attempt to ask for sacrifices from union members as an attempt to blame them for all the problems. That's true with both sides. This woman obviously is an idiot (or at least incorrect with regard to how she frames the issue). For one thing, she has no idea whether the delay had anything to do with worker issues. It probably didn't. And more importantly, like many others she appears to view any notion that those in charge are to blame for financial problems as mutually exclusive to the idea that union contracts are too generous. She is certainly right that CTA workers benefit from contracts that are way too generous and unsustainable. That has been well documented (such as here: http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_ne… ). But she should have agreed with you when you mentioned that management problems have also been a serious issue in causing the CTA to be in the state that it's in. For one thing, all CTA union contracts are agreed to by CTA leaders and politicians. They are the people that supposedly offer the contract.
It's always amazing to me how often people think that when you criticize union contracts you are taking the blame away from management. This was an example from someone who wants the union to make sacrifices. And of course, this absurd framing of the issue is also prevalent from those who oppose union sacrifices. Often in these types of debates, when someone points out the problems that result from union contracts and specific union provisions those on the other side of the debate will say "why are you blaming unions for this, why not blame the people who agreed to give them all these benefits?". In the education reform debate, that's a line that Diane Ravitch, the most outspoken advocate against reform, has said. It's as if they don't understand that union contract discussions are not an exercise in who to blame or who to attack. It is supposed to be a process by which political and government leaders attempt to do what is best for the government infrastructure they are leading long-term so that it can best serve its purpose. For the process to work well, the citizenry is supposed to push their government leaders to look out for the interests of the residents in the negotiating process by insisting they get as much service as possible for the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. The citizenry is not supposed to take the side of the union. Union members are supposed to be the only people who insist that the union looks out for their interests. So we shouldn't even be having these discussions of whether union members are to blame. I don't blame union members for agreeing to absurd compensation and work rules that benefit them far more than needed. The people to blame are the politicians and other leaders who agreed to give them these generous contracts. And I think, by the way, that's who Claypool was blaming. He was blaming his predecessors and others who oversaw the CTA for the inflated and unsustainable union contracts and not the union members themselves.
Related Stories
-
Our first-ever awards for 'achievement' in local politics
Honoring the deeds and misdeeds of 2011 at the city, county, and state level
- Dec 29, 2011
