Buyer’s remorse

If Darlyne Lawson the former chair of stations was around she would not have accepted  the current agreement of redeployment of the laid off station agents that was reached between the MTA and Local 100.

The current elected officials of the station department are Maurice Jenkins vice president, Derrick Echevarria chair, Harold Crawford vice chair collecting agents, Joe Bermudez vice chair CTAs, Anthony Atria vice chair station agents, Paul R. King vice chair supply logistics, Christine Williams recording secretary, and executive board members Annie Hallahan, Michael Morales, Paul Piazza, and Kathryn Taylor-Davidson. 

They happen to talk big and are drama queens, we would remind them that President Barack Hussein Obama dislikes drama queens. On his administration no drama is allowed and he wants people who can deliver. However in our station department we have drama. They have delivered sesame seeds to the membership and the membership can not live on sesame seeds.

It is obvious that they have been outflanked by the MTA. We here in why did you join the union demand the head or heads who approved this agreement. We reject theories - yes in theory the drama queens of the station’s department claimed it is a major victory and we will get all our people back. However the membership’s livelihood should not be based on theory but on facts and practicality.

This agreement is a self inflicting wound and a precedent setting that will harm all other titles. Why accept to numerous screening tools that may harm the membership? The MTA used a simple strategy to deal with the station department in reaching this agreement which is the carrot and stick principle.  Our drama queens from the station department took the carrot and forgot the stick, and now the MTA stick will haunt all future titles with these screening tools.

Traditionally there are titles that do not undergo medical examinations, laboratory assessments, drug and alcohol screenings. How does a company decide who to hire? From the employers perspective a pool of applicants competes for the job opening. The decision of which worker to hire is not based on a consideration of who will work for the lowest wage but rather who is most trainable. Because our employer by this agreement is uncertain about which applicant can be trained at the least cost, (as Walder has indicated in numerous settings) they will screen or sort the laid off station agents into a queue from the highest expected productivity to lowest based on each workers signals and indices. We here in why did you join the union believe this screening will harm the membership. Lets assume for argument’s sake that all the laid off will pass those screening tools in flying colors then this agreement works. But what if one member failed to overcome those screening hurdles then this agreement would be harmful to the membership. It is obvious the drama queens of the station department did not think this through and obviously they do not adhere to the principal ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’. We demand from our president John Samuelsen to be a referee and he should hand us those drama queens to our adhoc grilling.