(San Francisco) Muni sickout causing delays across city
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
A sickout by Muni workers over a labor contract caused major service disruptions Monday morning, with cable cars canceled, express buses converted to locals and about two-thirds of coaches, trolleys and trains not making it onto the streets.
... The sickout comes amid displeasure over a proposed labor agreement that was the subject of a vote Friday by Muni operators. The outcome of the vote wasn't immediately known, but officials with Transport Workers Union Local 250-A had voiced concerns about the Municipal Transportation Agency's offer.
Under the proposal, the agency says, Muni workers would get 11.25 percent raises over two years, but they would pick up a 7.5 percent pension payment now paid by the MTA.
The contract would push operator pay to about $32 an hour July 1, making Muni drivers the second-highest-paid transit workers in the country, according to the MTA.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Muni-sickout-causing-delays-across-city-5522044.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Fuck unions. Who needs them? Workers always get a fair shake without collective bargaining.
Gormy regaled her FB audience the other day with the tale of a hot assembly race out her way (Concord), in which one of the candidates is a "BART union hater". I gently reminded her that transit employees in NYC, as in SF, are prohibited from striking, yet are still unionized. 
She already took me to the woodshed. 
But thanks for playing.
I did not post her real name. Or mine, for that matter; you are one of a handful of DUers who knows it, maybe the only one who knows both. And I'm pretty sure I can trust you not to troll her. And as I told her, in the unlikely event I do find anyone trolling her, I will squash them so badly they will wish they had angered Pitt instead.
Creeky wasn't part of the discussion and I've PMed him to clear that up.
Would still prefer that you hadn't posted it but you are aware of that. 
You seem confused, I didn't ask any question.
a hundred more vehicles are on the street today, but it's still a mell of a hess.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Muni-sickout-continues-for-2nd-day-5524556.php
Tactically, I'm not sure about this. I thought they made their point rather emphatically yesterday. 
AC Transit, the bus operator in the East Bay (Oakland, Berkeley and environs) faced a similar situation last year, when the drivers hated the contract the leadership came back with. So what did they do? They voted it down by a large margin. The parties returned to the bargaining table, and an acceptable contract was reached. So why isn't that happening here?
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Muni-sickout-causing-delays-across-city-5522044.php
Union officials have complained that the standard is too high. In a statement on the union's website last week, Local 250-A President Eric Williams called the arbitration procedure "a lopsided and unfair process. The membership must take a stand, which will be communicated through your vote."
Humph. Looks like those notoriously liberal SF voters put the union in a bind. If they vote the contract down, the case goes to an arbitrator* who is instructed to side with management unless the union proves its case to some overwhelming standard.
