Should Public Transportation Agencies be Allowed to Strike?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by tomalak301, Jul 3, 2013.

  1. tomalak301

    tomalak301 Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, CA
    The last couple of days, Traffic in the Bay Area has been a nightmare because BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) union workers have gone on strike. In watching the news and coverage about this, one interesting thing that was brought up was that there are states (And I only know about the US) that are not allowed to strike, like Chicago and Washington DC.

    So my question is should Union workers for Public Transportation agencies be allowed to strike? I know in the 1980s, President Reagan fired air traffic controllers for striking because that job was so important to the US's infrastructure.

    I understand the importance of Unions, but what this union is doing really is crippling for the Bay Area. I heard something like the Bay Area is losing $73 million a day (according to a study in this article and just the traffic itself (Something I might be in tomorrow night) is pretty much grinding the Bay Area to a halt. For that reason, I don't think they should strike, and the reasons for striking are so outlandish, it makes this whole situation kind of sad.
     
  2. RobertVA

    RobertVA Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia USA
    It's my understanding that all civilian employees of federal government agencies are prohibited from striking.

    In Virginia employees of state and local government agencies aren't even allowed to collectively bargain, although they are allowed the option to form and join lobbying groups. Employees of private businesses, partnerships, and corporations can still petition for union representation elections, but union membership cannot be required if the election is successful (still a hassle to quit once you join - there might be tight, infrequent time windows).
     
  3. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    Of course they should.

    Do people find it inconvenient? Well, that's kinda the point of striking.
     
  4. Ríu ríu chíu

    Ríu ríu chíu Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
    ^ And here's something I never thought I'd say: I agree with iguana.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2013
  5. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    Mind. Blown.
     
  6. Ríu ríu chíu

    Ríu ríu chíu Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
    ^ :lol:

    Self-centered though it may be, though...I find myself hoping they get this shit worked out by the 27th...
     
  7. Davros

    Davros Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Kaled bunker, Skaro
    Every worker should be able to go on strike.
     
  8. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Though which sector strikes more the private sector or public sector. I suspect it might be the later.
     
  9. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    Earlier this year our Metro busdrivers (public transport) kept having stopwork meetings resulting in there being no buses for about 4 hours at a time. On one day the drivers had two stopwork meeting at that day (at 9am and 3pm) so Tas Metro cancelled all bus services that day.

    The management had given themselves a 23% pay rise and the drivers were asking for a 3% rise but were told that they could only get a 2% rise. I can understand why the drivers were upset, if management's pay rise had been lower the drivers probably would have been content with 2%.
     
  10. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    I'm obvioulsy in the wrong job, a 23% pay raise!
     
  11. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    Actually I just looked it up. It was the Metro Board that got the 23% rise, the management 'only' got 15%.
     
  12. Tora Ziyal

    Tora Ziyal Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Thread was worthwhile just for this. :devil:

    And I agree with them both. Virtually everyone should be allowed to strike. The only exceptions, imo, are are those on whom lives and safety depend -- doctors, fire fighters, and so on.
     
  13. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    But what could happen is that ones person right to strike interfers with somone elses rights?
     
  14. Ó Méith

    Ó Méith Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Just be glad you don't have to put up with Bob Crow & RMT.
     
  15. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    ^Tube strikes?, makes me glad I don't live in London. Or that I don't have to relay on Public Transportation.
     
  16. Argus Skyhawk

    Argus Skyhawk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2001
    Location:
    Argus Skyhawk
    Well, Chicago and Washington DC are not exactly states. Sorry to be nitpicky. If strikes are illegal in those two cities I'm surprised to learn that.
    The U.S. President had authority to fire air traffic controllers?

    As for whether Public Transportation employees should be allowed to strike, I would say Yes, but I would encourage such employees to use a strike only as a last resort. But then I suspect they would anyway, since no one really wants to go without receiving a paycheck for a long period.
     
  17. tomalak301

    tomalak301 Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, CA
    Yeah the whole Cities/States thing was a tad nitpicky. Thank you for the correction though. :)

    As for the Air Traffic Control thing, This Article summarizes it better than I could.

    As for this Strike, it's an inconvenience that is costing this region millions and so much loss of efficiency all for better wages. At least last night the traffic wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be but this week is just as chaotic and messy as it was in 1997.
     
  18. tomalak301

    tomalak301 Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, CA
    So getting to work to make a living in a region with already a high cost of living is not an exception to the rule? I see Public Transportation as a public service, even though I do think the longer this strike goes on, the more people will get used to getting around without it. That should be a negotiating tactic.
     
  19. tomalak301

    tomalak301 Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, CA
    And some good news, the Bart Strike is over. Trains start running again at 3:00 PDT. The old contract is getting extended to August 4th, and from now until then, they will finish up negotiating a new contract. Thank God for that.
     
  20. Timewalker

    Timewalker Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Location:
    In many different universes, simultaneously.
    And people who need to get to the hospital for surgery and have no other way than by public transportation can just go without? :rolleyes:

    No. Unless the job is literally too dangerous for the worker or the employer suddenly decides to pay less than minimum wage, I have ZERO sympathy for strikers. Especially civil servants.