Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:21:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris <red-AT-iww.org> Subject: AUT: [criticism of] BART Strike Over. Long. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:39:40 -0700 From: blurd-AT-slip.net To: "-AT-list" <anarchy-list-AT-cwi.nl> Subject: org: BRT Strike Over. Long. I imagine that most people from the U.S. have been hearingt something about a strike by workers at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). A tentative agreement was announced this morning, and trains should be running either late tommorrow, or more likely for the monday morning commute. Both management and th eunions are claiming victory. The strike, the first in 22 years, lasted excactly one week. The strike was around wages, benefits, but most importantly the two tiered wage structure( under which it took new workersd 6 years to reach industry standard wages). In the end the two teir structuctre remains, but is shortened by half, to three years. The union also got 4 percent raises for 3 years and a one time payment of $3000 per worker. Unlike the UPS strike, which enjoyed strong support throughout the Bay Area, the BART strike was, to say the least controversial. The system, which connects parts of the East Bay with San Francisco is quite expensive and is designed primarily for commuters from Contra Costa County- whiteyville- who work in San Francisco's Financial District. Many workers also rely on the system, which is the easiest way of getting accross the Bay, especially during rush hour. Although the strike was unpopular among many sectors of the population- from workers to environmentalists- it was especially unpopular in- you guessed it Contra Costa County, where strikers were spit at, had garbage thrown on them, threatened and so on, throughout the strike. In San Francisco, the situation was similar, but only in the Financial District. Oakland, Richmond, the Mission District, Colma- all areas with a high concentration of workers saw mixed support for the strike. The local media- with one exception- have done their level best to undermine the strikers. Over and over they portrayed the unions as greedy, and already overpaid. They would constantly quote the highest possible wage for a given job, while never minetioning how long it took to reach that wage. They also never mentioned the high attrition rate, especially among the engineers, who can easlity make twice to three times what they make at BART down in Silicon Valley. The one exception to the rotten, although not surprising, coverage was one reporter- I don't know his name- on channel 2' smorning show, who was interviewing this politician- Quentin Kopp who is trying to take BART worker's right to strike away- and asked him good, hard questions and placed the blame for the strike firmly on management's shoulders. But boy was he the exception. Every say the papers and news programs were full of stories about angry commuters, small business owners and other 'victims' of the strike. One huge mistake I think that the unions made was not having piucket lines visable throughout the system. They only had a couple of lines up, and they were hard to find. Between the mechanics, train operators, clerical and support staff and the station agents, it seems like they could have had a lot more picket lines up. This helped alienate the strikers from the public. I saw a lot of support for the UPS strike in my neighborhood, but the BART strikers were entirely invisable to us, even though I live very close to a main BART stop. So, that's the schtick on the BART strike. Against the backdrop of decades of crushing union defeates, it is nice to see soem union power in action. The mainstream labor movement will never really advance the revolution, but a defensive half win, is still, well a defensive half win, which seems batter than a slam dunk defeat- like PATCO, Hormel, Detroit Newspapers, Greyhound and on and on. Solidarity forever. Paul --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005