CTA Tattler

I sympathize with the union staff. You know, it would completely suck if they engaged in a work suckage, but honestly, at least they've got a tool we riders lack, when it comes to getting attention from the legislature and The Powers What Be. It's just a shame they can't legitimately strike.

I'm so sick of the state legislature dragging their feet. Either put up or shut up, one way or the other -- just quit jerking us around!

Precisely, Sabrina. I think the state Congress is acting like a whole bunch of little children who are upset that no one's sharing the shovels in the sandbox. Grow up, already.

That said, I'm not so sure that a work action is necessarily the right way to make a political statement. There's got to be a better way--otherwise, the CTA employees are lowering themselves to the childish level of the State Congress.

I say that because I was one of many affected by the Pace wildcat strike (which was essentially an illegal action) on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. There's got to be a better way. More emails, more phone calls, more rallies--make ourselves annoying as hell and maybe they'll give.

A CTA slow-down? I'm not sure the CTA could get any slower.

Hopefully, the *threat* will help underscore the problems that need to be solved immediately. But an empty threat can be problematic, and following-through on this threat may not have the intended results.

The problem is the legislature is so dysfunctional, they don't get anything done when it needs to be done.

If a job action actually happens, attention will be diverted from the precipitating causes that lead to such an extreme action to the action itself. In other words, the news won't be the inaction of the legislature. The news will be the job action out of context.

So to avoid diverting attention from the real problem, the threat has to be an empty threat. And empty threats ultimately backfire.

So the transit workers are in a double Catch-22 situation. They were damned if they didn't make a threat, but still damned by making the threat because they'll be damned if they carry it out, and damned if they don't carry it out. No matter what they chose or choose to do, they will feel the pain.

If anything, the fact that the union needs to make this threat is an indicator of how the public as a whole has been not done a very good job of presuring the legislature they elected.

Until the legislators believe that their actions/inactions will ultimately cost them their jobs in the next election, the problem won't be solved. But there isn't anywhere near enough public outcry to indicate that this won't just be another annoying issue that'll blow-over before the next election even if they blow it completely. They need to know we're not just mad now.

The legislators need to know that we won't forget by the time the election rolls around. That's the threat that's needed. And that's the threat that can't be an empty threat.

Agreed. I understand it, but don't want to see it happen.

I do wonder, though, if this is why they've run Blue Line trains express from Austin to Medical District all week this week? And does it have anything to do with why that same train sat at Racine for 20 minutes, with no explanation, before moving?

My question would be....Other than them making an announcement, how would we actually know that there is a slowdown.

I hope they do it. I hope that the ones who do, get fired. If they don't want to work, I know alot of people who would be more than happ to take their jobs as is.

I still think we need to implement the "bologna" strategy and start sending lunchmeat to our congressional reps, Blago, Daley and most of all Ron.

It worked for the TV show Jericho with nuts, so lets try it out here.

Each and every one of them is giving us nothing but bologna and we should return the favor.

Kevin

Bring it. I'll trade a few days biking to work (in 6" of snow...) to have the state leg. see how crucial CTA is to everyone in the metro area, not just the people who use it.

dammit... I'll be happy when I get my upass this coming semester... but will i be able to use it? haha

As a European living in Chicago, I have to say: strikes work. Don't call it a strike if it's illegal to do so, but whether it's a Go-Slow action or large numbers of staff calling in sick, it gets attention. Yes, it will be taken out of context by some of the media. But it will probably prompt a percentage of riders who hadn't done so yet to look into what is really going on with this transit funding thing. More importantly, lots of employees not turning up for work gets employers worried, and large corporations who think they're losing money have much more clout than individual riders.

It won't be fun, but if it gets this process moving I'll happily put up with it.

Count me in for supporting "job action." I'm more than willing to put up with a couple days of transportation problems due to it than to have to endure the January 20th cuts or watching the huge pension reform go down in flames when the clock strikes midnight on December 31st.

Fortunately for me, if the unions decide to take job action, my employer permits me to work remotely from home. I know most people don't have this option. But which would you rather have, a shutdown of CTA for a day or two in the next couple weeks or 81 bus routes elminated for who knows how long in the middle of the winter? You think you are ok because you bus route or El service isn't on the cut list? Good luck. A large number of riders do not have cars nor can they afford to park downtown everyday. The overcrowding and delays caused by it will lead to meltdown at rush hour. Trains taking twice the time to complete their runs, buses jammed passing up riders stuck out in negative windchills.

I support CTA job action, too. I'm not a huge union guy, but I can see why they would want/need to do it, and I fully believe the legislature is falling down on this. Anything to nudge them is OK with me.

I'm with Areia.

-- Illinois elected officials have pursued labor stability at the expense of the slow death of transit (read -- gradual cuts and underfunded pension contributions instead of mass layoffs).
--Europeans fund transit much, much better, for both operations and capital, and it's no coincidence that they go on strike more than every thirty years.
--(If the Mayor is reading your blog, Kevin, he should know that the DAILY, all-inclusive fare for the Milan transit system is 1.00 Euro, or $1.46 vs. $5 for CTA. That's 70% less. Imagine how much ridership would increase if CTA's fares dropped to 60 cents and the one-day pass was just a buck-fifty.)
-- I predict a one-day walkout on December 17th.

A slow-down? Unless they drive the trains backwards...

Seriously, I'm all for unions, but CTA workers would be shooting themselves in the foot with a job action this month. A strike (or whatever) will put pressure on CHICAGO area legislators, who are already almost to a person supporting increased transit funding. It will exert little to no pressure on downstate or collar county legislators, whose constituents don't ride CTA buses and trains in large numbers.

Now, suppose a job action "works" and gets the people whose constituents feel the pain (Chicago) itching to do whatever it takes to get transit funding passed. Well, they all voted "yes" already, so the only thing they can do is capitulate to yet more of the demands from downstate and collar county legislators.

So how would you like them to do that? By giving up on all transit-related capital funding, so that more money can go to downstate roads? Or perhaps the transit funding formula can be further tilted in favor of Metra (not unprecedented - it seems that every time they amend the bill, the CTA gets less)? Or maybe a requirement that CTA fares go up when gas prices go up? Or perhaps making pensions a prohibited subject of bargaining?

In short, before any CTA union strikes, hopefully they'll stop and think about what the likely consequences are. None of them are good for CTA workers, the CTA, or Chicago.

I'm for job action, I'm tired of all this too. Its a joke.

well, someone beat me to it so i'll just repeat them:

"A slow-down? Unless they drive the trains backwards..."

I don't think Blago, Madigan, Jones, et al. are going to stop their stupidity by themselves. I think they need to be embarrassed into it. As Rick Harris said, "Maybe we have to show them what Doomsday looks like." The Springfield gang is so disconnected from the every day life of a normal person. Maybe they need to see the gridlock and get all the angry calls and e-mails from constituents. I was shocked earlier this year when the union contract concessions were announced. Obviously transit union leaders and the rank and file realize they need to change their expectations of benefits or lose their jobs. If the politicians piss away this opportunity, it will be a monumental shame. They've already wasted $77 million with their childish games. As for trains running backwards, I actually experienced it on the Brown Line coming out of Sedgwick a few Saturdays ago. I'm trying to stop bashing the CTA, but couldn't help making a snide comment to the stranger next to me about how the job action was starting already.

If the Union can get the legislature to stop acting like spoiled brats, then I'm all for it.

If the Union can get riders pissed off enough to call their representatives, then I'm all for it.

If the Union announces their intentions first, so everyone who normally takes the CTA drives downtown. . .showing what a true doomsday looks like. . .then I'm all for it.

Ah heck, I'm just all for it!

I'm sorry, but I can't go along with many of you. I value and respect your opinions, but respectfully disagree on this one.
We're talking about public service employees who are striking against their employer, the CTA- and us, the passengers, to send a message to the state legislature.
When union members strike at a private company, it can be effective because it's hurting the employer financially. How would the state legislature be hurt by this possible job action? It's the people who rely on transit service that are being affected.
If the threat of massive service cuts and fare increases hasn't developed a sense of urgency in our legislature, how would a blue flu?
I sympathize with the workers, but the union needs to find a different strategy- one that does *not* punish the people that transit employees are employed to serve.

Dec. 17th... Im guessing a bug of some sort... maybe the flu?

As much as I would be against a strike (selfishly because I would be unable to get to work), just imagine the effect it would have? The city of Chicago would literally become paralyzed!! I don't own a car, wont ride my bike in the winter, and am not walking 5 miles downtown. A small percentage of the ridership may be able to get downtown (or wherever) by other means, but most would not and usually are 100% dependent on the CTA.

The economic impact to the city would be fairly dramatic, and I'd be willing to bet that would apply pressure to Springfield and lawmakers would be forced to take notice. The CTA is not a well-oiled machine, and is fraught with issues, but I've been pleased with what Huberman has been doing and saying since he took over. While the CTA needs to make a lot of changes, there is a huge financial mess that continues to be ignored by the state, so let's not think that decades of underfunding and lack of capital funds all falls into Ron's lap now.

Your link goes to a story on a Boston Green Line groper/flasher.

I hate the idea of a work stoppage, but I would support one.

The real problems in this transit mess are caused by Chicago and Chicago-area politicians who are in the state legislature and have forgotten their roots. Job actions might just get them to remember their roots again. Seriously, out of our legislative leaders, who has caused the least trouble of all? While Michael Madigan's role has not been destructive I'd have to give the award to Frank Watson -- the only politician of any power in this state at all who isn't from the Chicago metro area.

The question is, how can you get Metra in on the job actions so that Tom Cross's constituents in Oswego squeal?

Mr. Harris' talk of a job action is avoiding his share of the blame while trying to appease his constituents. The Union knew full well the depth of the funding problems but didn't accept concessions until it was too late.

The Union has worked without valid contracts for years, preferring to wait until arbitration kicked in to get their best deals. It's tough to reward Union mismanagement and harmful to both call for and condone job actions. Mr. Harris also knows that his counterpart in NY spent some time behind bars for his part in the 2002 transit strike.

I still can't believe what I'm reading. I find it unconscionable for public employees to walk off the job so their labor union can send a message to legislators. It's one thing when a union has to call a strike to send a message to an employer over a specific grievance. However in this case, the union's grievance- in their own words- is with legislators. Who will be punished by their actions? The CTA and the riding public. I really have a problem with this suggested course of action. If the legislators cared about the riding public, the auditor general's report and the threat of severe service cuts and fare increases would have gotten the point across several months ago.

If the union wants to send a message, they should promise to stop making campaign donations to the current elected officials... but we all know that won't happen.

It would be an incredible inconvenience.

However, I was in Paris for their transit strike, and they were striking for, in my opinion, much, much less. The civil servants hopped on the bandwagon, students, etc., etc. got involved.

That said, if this city could have one quarter of the moxie that Paris has, and take it to the streets (in a nonviolent way), get a little civil disobedience going among the residents of this city, get Jesse Jackson and Sharpton (isn't this hurting the poor in this city?!), the CTA, Metra and Pace employess have a job action where everyone calls in sick, call every major media outlet in Chicago, protest in front of city hall and Blago's house and at every train station that day, business leaders and university chancellors speaking up, and show Daley (who would probably be in Italy), Blago, Tom Cross, Madigan, et al., that we are sick of this, create a little disorder and chaos, then maybe--maybe, things would improve.

Anybody with me?

Call me cynical, but I do not think there are enough people that really give a damn in this city, Jackson and Sharpton really don't care enough or could not politically afford to speak up, so I do not think it would work.

Umm, Sparky, what on earth would make you think that it would be a postitive thing for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to get involved? Both of them almost always cause more harm than good to each "cause" that they protest. The overwhelming majority of people have pretty strong negative opinions of Jackson and Sharpton and view them (rightly, in my opinion) as race-baiters. If they were to get involved in the CTA issue it would make it more difficult for something reasonable to emerge from the legislature. You are right that poor people (just like middle class and rich people) would get hurt from service cuts but that is not what is causing the process is to be so difficult. So it would not only be counterproductive but also disengenious for them to make this a class or race issue. I think the only people who really take Jesse Jackson seriously are the media who, as a result of their laziness, view him as a spokesperson for all African Americans or all liberal churchgoing people.

Oh, by the way, I do remember Jesse Jackson taking the side of the CTA unions around five or six years ago and threatening a labor action if the employees did not get what they wanted. Of course, it is well known that CTA employees get paid tremendously well and receive emormously high benefits when compared with comperable transit agencies. So Jackson certainly has not been helpful in preventing the financial state that the CTA is currently in.