The question is not how many workers to rehire which is what the station department is counting and banking on but of whom to rehire (the right of whom to rehire should have not been granted). If all workers were identical the MTA would presumably be indifferent as to which worker was taken on since the productivity of each would be the same.
Since we are far from being identical us workers are differentiated one from another on the basis of numerous and sometimes hard to measure characteristics such as age, race, sex, education, motivation, skill and so on. Given the decision to rehire the laid off station agents back, the MTA claimed the ‘revolving door’ theory that is associated with training cost. We here in why did you join the union could care less about MTA training costs. It was a red herring and our prodigies in the station department went along with it.
They acquiesced and gave the MTA the right to screen the laid off station agents and it is obvious that the MTA will choose the worker who will be the most productive. The stations department should have never agreed, instead it should have been a call back without any conditions.
What will be the process that the MTA will use to perform this screening function and what are its implications for rehiring the laid off station agents? We are all aware the MTA’s object is to choose from the laid off station agents pool the workers with the highest marginal revenue product. However, the problem is that each laid off station agents productivity is uncertain prior to rehiring. It is clear that the rehiring decision will resemble a contest where the MTA attempts to pick a prize (laid off station agent) with the highest expected return.
The station department believe this is a slam dunk because they think that every station agent laid off will get back to work while they overlooked the ‘pre selection process’ for rehiring. This screening tool will be in the advantage of the MTA because they can gather a plethora of personal data in the form of observable characteristics and attributes of the laid off station agents that collectively will give the image of each laid off station agent. Of these observable characteristics some are immutably fixed such as age, sex and race. Others such as years in education, military service, scores on job placement tests and to some degree personal appearance are capable of being changed. The immutable characteristics are known as indices and the alterable characteristics are known as signals.
There are many screening tools the popular one is the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) and many critics have accused designers of the verbal SAT of cultural bias toward the white and wealthy. A famous example of this bias in the SAT I was the oarsman-regatta analogy question. A growing number of colleges are joining the SAT optional movement due to the fact that it can have a devastating impact on self-esteem and aspirations of young students thus harming American education. Lets assume the MTA screening would not impact on self esteem of our laid off station agents if that happens it will harm the Local 100.
Once again, Manhattanville, you should fact check before writing. The short small pre-selection process, something that all new hires go through, does not apply in the case of those being called for the station agent job. They will be called from the established preferrence list.
ReplyDeleteManhattanville it is important to remember when writing a story to check your facts and perhaps talk to someone involved to get the story straight. I have made myself available to you but in this instance you chose to go with someone who did not know what they were talking about or went at it alone.
Either way one can only hope that a more thorough investigation is done before you resort the the kind of name calling that does no one any good.
In the case of those being called to CTA, those were jobs that they MTA insisted were not going to go to the laid-off agents. Those jobs were negotiated into being available for the laid-off members. Inside those negatiations the screening process was born. To make it simple, the only way to get those jobs was to make a small compromise that everyone could live with.
We can live with this compromise because it is specific to these two titles and has no chance of setting a precident in other titles.
That is all because of DCAS's ruling that these titles were "not comparable" and therefore the S/A had no "rights" to the CTA jobs.
The deal made, helped get these laid-off agents "rights" to the CTA jobs.
So if you are faced with the MTA hiring off the street to fill the CTA jobs or framing a slection process that is akin to a new hire. What do you do?
The answer is provide those jobs for your laid-off members. It is simple and easy. Waiting would only add to the problems of the laid-off members.
That being said, the screening process was a key to making these jobs available for people who have been out of work for a while.
And the CTA job is a choice for the member, they can refuse it or take it with no recrimmination on their S/A list status.
When they get called for S/A they have the option to take that job or remain a CTA.
It is easy for you, who is employed and getting a check each week to say it was an improper action. But for those out of work it is a different story.