CTA Tattler

I'm just shocked that the legislature can't vote on the union deal as a separate item. If that was taken care of, wouldn't the funding situation automatically be much different?

Seeing as how the unions tend to have democratic politicians on their side (if not in their pocket), hopefully this wakes up the legislative leaders. I'm not generally supportive of unions, but I think they did a great job of sending the message that, hey, you're screwing around with our workers... people's livelihood... twice now they've been days away from not knowing whether they'd have a job on the following Monday.

Pointing out that management and union leadership is on the same page on this is a very keen observation, hopefully one that our policymakers realize as well.

We're well beyond worrying about what's legal in this region and in this country. If the intent of the law was enforced the statehouse and the legislature would be empty.

That said, I think the unions are doing all they can. Problem is, nobody in Springfield gives a damn about whether the RTA shuts down or not. They think they can win by getting the voters to believe it's all the other guy's fault. Or that the people of the region and the state are so stupid and passive that there will be no payback. Strike or no strike, the only real solution to the problem is to dump the governor and all the legislative leaders for once and for all and replace them with responsible grownups.

Transit strikes that have occurred in other towns (New York's transit strike of a few years ago comes to mind) are also illegal. The unions struck anyway and were later forced to pay a fine.

I'm generally not in favor of transit strikes since it tends to hurt the working poor who need transit to get to their jobs more than it hurts management. But, in this case, a strike would be instructive to the leadership in Springfield. Show them what life would be like without transit in Chicago, how life essentially comes to a stop, traffic nightmares, people walking to work, etc. Show them that it affects all walks of life in Chicago to have transit stopped. Maybe then they would get serious with the transit funding and avoid further doomsdays.

The latest is that the work action might be a "slowdown". How could we tell????????????

The mind boggles ;)

There is much talk about all the cost-cutting measures under Pres. Huberman, I would like to know how many employees and consultants have been hired since the change of administration, their salary, etc. I would like to know the net change in employees and salary. There is now a VP and GM of Strategic Solutions,a City Hall lawyer was hired to work with a consultant to fix bus bunching, and CTA has borrowed more money to fix slow zones (broke, borrow more money), but how about some real reforms.

The pro-transit people in the House should break the transit problem (or rather its solution) up into at least three pieces:

1) a bill to implement the pension reform on January 1st;

2) a bill to implement the rest of SB572 on June 1, 2008; and

3) temporary funding for the RTA for January-May 2008.

The first bill should be popular enough to get the 3/5 vote it needs. The Senate and Governor would be hard pressed not to support it.

The second bill would only require a simple majority vote - which SB572 already got several weeks ago in the House. This would put some much needed attention on the Senate to *do* something - whether it's passing SB572 or something else. If this bill passes and the Governor vetoes it, he'll be squarely to blame for the continuing transit crisis and will be under the gun to find a solution.

The third bill would basically be a placeholder (it would require 3/5 support - which it apparently doesn't have - due to the pre-June 1st implementation date). If splitting things up like this actually resulted in a June 1st funding bill becoming law, odds are that means the politics of the situation have progressed enough to get January-May funding through, too. Or else perhaps Governor Funnymoney can find some more temporary money - he seems good at that.

Anyhow, this would at least change the dynamics of the current deadlock. And the dynamics desperately need to be changed ASAP.

NO TEMPORARY FUNDING!

Oh come on now. There's a difference between temporary funding as an alternative to a long-term solution and temporary funding to bridge a gap after a long term solution is already in place.

"Oh come on now. There's a difference between temporary funding as an alternative to a long-term solution and temporary funding to bridge a gap after a long term solution is already in place."

Agreed. But it's a moot point if we're not even to the gap that'll fall between the passing of a funding solution, and the actual implimentation of that solution.

Let's say you tell your kids that bedtime is 9pm. If 8:55 comes along, they're on their way, but need an extra 5 minutes to finish brushing their teeth, that's one thing. But if it's 9:05, and they're still parked in front of the TV, the time for temporary reprieves has passed.

The little kids in Springfield need to be told that the TV needed to be turned-off months ago. It's too late to suddenly remember that they need to stay up to do some homework. And it's too bad if they're hungry or thirsty. It's already past bedtime, and (through their own fault) they are not just out of time, they owe us time.

Playtime is over. And, frankly, shame on us for not having been better parents in the past. But now it's bedtime. No more temporary reprieves. Period.

The bedtime analogy doesn't quite work. The issue isn't simply does the legislature solve the problem now or later; the point of my suggestion was that the problem can be split up into two pieces, with the biggest piece actually being easier to pass (because of the lower vote threshold needed).

A more apt "kid" analogy would be: Your kid is failing at school and needs tutoring, big time. Turns out you can get him tutoring inexpensively through the school - starting next semester. That addresses most of the problem, but you still have to figure out how to get the kid through the rest of this semester. Under these circumstances, you wouldn't turn down the school-sponsored tutoring just because you don't know what to do for the next month. Likewise with the RTA funding bill.

I absolutely support a work action, which would probably mean a work slowdown, since strikes are illegal.

All the trains running at 5 mph, overcrowded platforms, buses driving at 5 mph, cars snarled behind them.

It'd be annoying, but it might give the people a little taste of what things will be like if doomsday goes through.

Should boost the political pressure on people.

They should try to get Metra employees on board with slowdown as well, for maximum effect.