Jump to content

The cost of deadheading


CDTA

Recommended Posts


In terms of the total merger of the operations, one would only need to ensure the total number of JOBS remains the same (or there is reduction through attrition). Do consider though that Spring Creek ditched ATU 1181 to join TWU 100. That leaves ATU 1056 at 3 garages, ATU 726 for SI Division, ATU 1179 for 2 garages (JFK and FR), and TWU 100 for everyone else. That should simplify things. That said, what the state needs to do is to pass a law saying that for a given job title for an agency, the union must be systemwide within that agency (albeit easier said than done). (This is why all Greyhound drivers are represented by ATU 1700). When the merger is completed, Grand Avenue could take LGA routes such as the Q18, Q39, and Q67 (as mentioned earlier), and Spring Creek could take the B13 and B14, with the B100 going to Flatbush. It might also be wise to consider a B41/B103 restructuring as well to reduce B103 unreliability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aemoreira81 said:

That said, what the state needs to do is to pass a law saying that for a given job title for an agency, the union must be systemwide within that agency (albeit easier said than done)

This is technically Union busting. It’s illegal, absent a Right to work law being passed. Employers can discourage union membership where one doesn’t exist, but they can’t force employees to give up representation, which is what the State (the employer) would be doing if it took this action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/4/2018 at 6:41 PM, Deucey said:

This is technically Union busting. It’s illegal, absent a Right to work law being passed. Employers can discourage union membership where one doesn’t exist, but they can’t force employees to give up representation, which is what the State (the employer) would be doing if it took this action.

Actually, the idea is that there would be one negotiating body for all workers in a specific title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aemoreira81 said:

Actually, the idea is that there would be one negotiating body for all workers in a specific title.

It’s still union busting. If an employer is encouraging workers in one employment class to join another union - for ANY reason , that’s union busting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

In order to be legal, the idea would have to be presented by another union as part of a bid to take over representation. 

Or to do a representation swap or alliance, like SEIU's UNAC and the California Nurses Association did at hospitals in Southern California a few years ago.

ANYTHING similar that's suggested or implemented by management is union-busting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.