Union Membership Meeting Notice

~Thursday, April 10, 2008, at 7:30PM in Union Hall,
3049 South 36TH ST (rear of Bldg) (Union Hall Map)

~Friday, April 11, 2008, at 10:00AM in the Union Office,
6923 Lakewood Dr W, B-1

~Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at 7:30PM
Longshoreman’s Hall, 627 14th AVE (Longview) (Longshoreman's Hall Map)

     It’s good to be cranking out another newsletter. I unfortunately was on jury duty from November 26, 2007 to February 8, 2008, the longest and hopefully last time I’ll have to serve. I would like to thank my fellow Officers and Stewards for keeping things moving in my absence.

     In the evenings after I finished jury duty, I spent time in the Union Office catching up and developing a Master Agreement for our “Link” Light Rail Operators (LRV). On February 13th we submitted a “proposed” agreement to Sound Transit and another meeting was held on February 28th for clarification of the submitted proposal. Our next meeting for what we hope will be a proposal to take to the Operators will be held on March 20th. Needless to say this has been a somewhat troubling time for our Sound Transit LRV Operators, as some members of Sound Transit management who are in “no way” affected by these members attempt to be unionized enabling them to have rights and protections, are going out of their way to try and intimidate our members. The only reasons we can determine that they oppose the Union are; guaranteed pay increases, progressive discipline policy (presently they are “at will” employees, who can be terminated at the Employers whim), a grievance process (they have none) and seniority rights to name a few. They presently have a starting wage but no wage scale-Pay increases are based on yearly evaluations. Simple documented discipline for an unfastened button can result in “no” wage increase.
Another fear for the non-represented hourly employees of an agency like Sound Transit (ST) is the likelihood of closing the wage gaps between the Unionized or represented workers, and non-represented who envision a diminished feeling of power and superiority. We’ll see what happens.

Transit Security Officers:
     Pierce Transit has informed the Union of their intent to add a new classification to the workforce – Transit Security Officers.
     Per our negotiated contract, PT must inform the Union of the new classification and the Union has the right to petition the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) for unit clarification (whether they represented by ATU or not).
     If PERC decides they should be represented by ATU Local 758, we will have the right to negotiate wages, benefits and working conditions.
     Why are we trying to add these Security Officers to our ranks?
     There are several reasons: 1) We have historically represented “all” hourly employees on this property 2) the duties they will perform are not new. Their job duties would be similar in nature to what our Service Supervisors have and are doing now. 3) These individuals would still have the right to join any Union of their choice if they petitioned to do so. These are just a few of the reasons we asked for unit clarification. The unit clarification preliminary conference will take place on March 20th. We’ll keep you posted.

Shop Stewards:
     Due to increasing desire of our members to participate in your Union, I have contacted our fellow Local to the north ATU Local 587 and their President BA Lance Norton to enroll some of our members in their Shop Steward training class. We were only able to get 5 spots for which we are grateful. The commitment I made both last and this term, is to educate the members of our Local so that they may educate others of the rights and benefits Union membership offers. These are the “first” five but there are many more interested in this training. In addition we will be posting photos of your Executive Board Officers and Shop Stewards on our Union bulletin boards in the near future.
I want to thank these members who have stepped up, and others who have volunteered and will be trained in the future. Thanks again to Lance Norton and the members of ATU Local 587-Seattle who conduct the training classes.

Longview:
     International Vice-President Don Hansen, Executive Board Rep Mike Cochran and I met with the new CUBS Transit Services Manager Kevin Merry on February 15th. Mr. Merry comes from the Longview Police Department.
     In discussion with Mr. Merry it is clear that he has a vision of improving employee/member relations by bringing their transit system into the 21st century (example: marked bus stops). Yes, marked bus stops! He’s not afraid of expanding the system and the growing pains that come with a growing population.
     Another issue that will affect the CUBS operation, is the retirement of about 50% of the Operators within the next year, to include Linda Grizzle one of our long serving Shop Stewards. Just like everything everywhere, things keep changing.

Contract Surveys:
     On Tuesday March 5th & Wednesday March 6th, your Executive Board compiled the surveys regarding the upcoming contract negotiations. Needless to say when reviewing the surveys the top four (4) issues of each classification were 1st wages, 2nd medical cost, 3rd long term care and 4th deferred comp. These of course were not unexpected. There were some concerns that were not contractual issues, which lead me to believe there are some members that do not fully understand policies or procedures that are not contract negotiation issues, and there are indeed remedies available to them on a day to day basis by contacting certain departments and individuals.
     One topic that comes up at “every” contract negotiations, is “Social Security”. Social Security is “not” a contractual issue. Why? Social Security is an agency issue to include both represented and non-represented employees of Pierce Transit. Contrary to the beliefs of some, the Union did not “give up” Social Security. Some members who were City of Tacoma employees were in both Social Security and the Tacoma Employee Retirement System (TERS). When the agency went from City to Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corps, (PTBAA) all Pierce Transit employees/members were given the choice of opting out of both TERS and Social Security, and were offered a lump sum payment for changing over to PERS. A majority of employees/members decided to take the lump sum payment, opting out of Social Security and joining the PERS retirement system. This resulted in no more Social Security contributions for PT employees.
     The bottom line is it would take a 50% + 1 yes vote of the “entire” agency to petition Social Security to conduct a vote to participate in the Social Security system.
     Another issue that appeared on the surveys is a desire to remove the “no strike clause”.
     As public employees of Washington State and a local governing body (Pierce Transit) we have been prohibited from striking since 1958. To address our inability to strike, in 1992 in a battle that went all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court, we were able to obtain binding arbitration (RCW 41.56). Binding arbitration rarely results in more than each side would receive by negotiating in “good faith”, so it is paramount that the negotiation team get the best possible proposal to present to the membership. Arbitration rarely if ever grants what one would term “excessive” awards. That said, “strikes” rarely if ever work, everyone has to make a commitment. If less than 80% of all members strike it is not effective, and strikes usually produce very little if any gains.

     It is the intent of your negotiation team to get the best possible proposal for the membership and leave nothing hanging “out there”. Every member in good standing will have the ability to vote on the proposal. Whether it passes or fails it will be your vote as members, and not your negotiation team. The results are driven by you the member, what you accept or don’t is in your hands.

Legislative Session:
     The year 2008 is moving right along. We are already in the month of March and the legislative session has drawn to a close. In this session we had an interest in several bills.

HB 2216 – Union member on Transit Boards; was not heard in the Senate due to the fact the chair Mary Margaret Haugen does not like Transit Boards. She feels the board members should be elected independently to the Board – she did not have an issue with Union participation. This bill could have opened the door to, and provided a unique perspective from individuals who represent and do the grunt work of Transit systems. The buzz words in the political arena are transparency, involvement, insight, what better process would there have been with union involvement on the transit boards? The union would not have had a vote, but would have had a say. We’ll try again next year.

HB 3058 – This bill related to busses on rural roads discharging passengers, that mandated pulling off as far as possible to the right so as to not impede passing vehicles or traffic.
     The problem with this bill was, a lot of shoulders on rural roads cannot or will not support the weight of a bus, or is not wide enough to accommodate a bus, but the reason the bill was introduced – it is illegal for a vehicle to impede traffic while boarding/deboarding passengers unless it is a “school bus” or refuse collector. An Operator could be cited for doing so. Personally I feel this is something the agency should address. If you’re ever cited for failing to comply; on a narrow or unsafe shoulder, kindly submit your citation to Risk Management, and contact this office.

SB 6900 – was the vehicle engine displacement tax/ fee. This would have probably resulted in a whole lot of elected officials last terms. This “proposed” bill could have added from $70 to $600 to your tab fees (a 2.0 liter engine to 8.0 liter engine). Thankfully it died.

The last bill that I’ll note is:

SB 6622 – This bill would have targeted individuals (managers + non-represented supervisors) in state agencies and local governments who create hostile work environments by psychologically, or physically abusing “employees”. This bill would have created “incentives” for the employer to rid the agencies of these types of individuals. Needless to say this was broadly supported by the Labor community and caused panic in HR departments. I’ve been documenting individuals that fit the above categories for years, so I eagerly awaited the passage of this bill.

     Well to sum up the legislative agenda, we’ll try again next year for HB 2216, because your ATU Legislative Council of which all the President/Business Agents of ATU Locals in Washington State belong to, feel it’s the right thing to do on behalf of our members.