First proposal - Why consolidate two distinct different titles? It makes no sense, imagine a hospital consolidating the titles of medical doctor and nurse into a single title with two levels. Clearly a motorman title is different than a conductor title - why should one work out of classification one wonders? However our assumption is the management wants to glide down to the path of One Person Train Operator. It is possibility in the future however their pay would be double hourly pay for the spread. In addition to that each location or crew room will maintain an extra list that is composed at a minimum four (4) extras on each classification - at the maximum eight (8) extras on each classification daily (twenty four hours) and their assignment will be made to the duties normally assigned to their classification.
Second proposal - No
Third proposal - Maybe, as a counter offer the NYCTA will relinquish the right to fix operating and personnel schedules. There will be a two (2) step review process at the first year end, and the second at the second year end. If the probationer’s performance is unsatisfactory he/she must be counseled by his/her department head in the presence of the probationer’s Union Representative. A notation will be made of the counseling session in the review form. The probationary period may be extended by mutual consent not to exceed thirty (30) working days. A probationary employee may not be dismissed during probation period. If in the event there is a serious infraction the probation period may be extended beyond the thirty (30) working days by mutual consent.
Forth proposal - No - what if in the future there are budget constrains.
Fifth proposal - One year lock-in assignment is not feasible for the employee however it is great for the management.
Sixth proposal - Maybe, in assailing sick rules our counter offer section 2.6.J would be beneficial to the management thus eliminate section 2.6.I.
Seventh proposal - Maybe, our counter offer for that, eliminate section 2.6.G.
Eighth proposal - Maybe, counter offer for that is that the division pay will be raised to a guaranteed sixty one (61) hours weekly.
This was your post in April. After reading it I have to wonder what they promised you to make you flip. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteProof in the pudding
A little advice: If you want to earn a huge pay scale you better turn in your fruits to your constituents.
That is undoubtedly a lesson that everyone learns - the previous administration of TWU Local 100 under Roger Toussaint has delivered fruits to the benefit of the membership. There are many to be described there, even the last 3 percent raise will be delivered on May 2011. Anyway, if you judge or assess the previous administration, you see that they have been able to deliver fruits to the membership. This is an undeniable fact based on their performance - any reasonable person will conclude that they have earned their pay.
Now the onus is on John Samuelsen and the TBOU leadership. If they can ever deliver any fruits to the benefit of TWU Local 100 membership in the contract of 2012 then they deserve the lavishly awarded pay scale. Here is a forecast, John Samuelsen with his TBOU leadership team will not deliver any fruits to the benefit of TWU Local 100 membership, but rather hand over concessions.
It would appear that the so-called John Samuelsen and TBOU will deliver zero fruits in the 2012 contract. Thus we are not sure what good their claim that they have taken a pay cut is. Is that a signal to the membership of TWU Local 100 that we should expect a pay cut? However maybe they will come with another wild claim - we don't want to be uncharitable.
John Sameulsen with his TBOU team must deliver fruits to the benefit of the TWU Local 100 membership. Before he can run with his wild claims, nothing is believable until John Samuelsen with his TBOU delivers a comparable contract to that of Roger Toussaint, or forever he will be known a midget in performance. First we would like to know where is the property wild claim of 350 Schemerhorn Avenue - that was in the mass membership meeting on November 6, 2010. Now looking back we realize it was just a meaningless wild claim. Moving to a building on 1700 Broadway which is unfriendly towards the membership clearly reveals faulty leadership. Those alone warrant that John Samuelsen with his TBOU are not helping to better TWU Local 100 in any way. It is a ridiculous notion of Samuelsen’s lackeys that his administration be compared to the previous administration.
Clearly John Samuelsen’s performance - or lack thereof - stands in contrast to the work of the previous administration powerhouse of Roger Toussaint which is known for its performance prowess. In the performance race a reasonable conclusion can be made that the previous administration pummeled John Samuelsen’s. The current failed policies, 2010 layoffs, robber baron solidarity fund, and financial irregularities with their wild claims from John Samuelsen and TBOU is a remainder that TWU Local 100 is sinking down the drain. However through our vigilance we will prevail.
Posted by manhattanville at 4/20/2011
Like you have never changed your mind Mahoney?
ReplyDeleteA message from Roger Toussaint:
ReplyDeleteFrom Roger Toussaint, President TWU Local 100 (2001-2009)
I write in the interest of 'truth in reporting' and in response to Pete Donohue's Transit column of Jan 7th. The article is laden with inaccuracies of which I will address but a few.
John Samuelsen was on my staff at Local 100 for 5 years, from 2001 to 2005. In all elections up to that time, he ran on the same slate with me and on my coat tails and never as an independent.
As for being "an organizer of the 2005 Transit strike", nothing could be further from the truth. In the months before the 2005 strike Samuelsen actively boycotted the mobilizations (called "Days of Action" and actively discouraged participation at the mass membership meeting at Jacob Javits Convention Center) which readied the members for that struggle; in fact he had to be ordered to organize picketing during the "Days of Action"; his closest supporters on the Executive Board voted against the strike; 10 days before the contract deadline and while on my staff, he sent a letter addressed to me to the media first to launch a political split; on the second day of the strike Samuelsen was deeply involved in a backdoor attempt to discourage officers from standing firm and to collapse the strike from within - this came in the form of attempting to go around our by laws and the Executive Board and submit management's last offer for a membership vote ; of the hundreds of officers involved in the strike, Samuelsen was the only one to submit paper work seeking to be paid by the Union for the time we were out on strike. When we lost dues checkoff after the strike, John Samuelsen issued at least seven flyers telling the members that any dues they paid would be wasted on staff! That's the record that I know.
While we were focused on the confontation that was coming and on the life or death struggle to survive the cut off of dues - Samuelsen was focused on his political agenda and career and indeed operating like an agent provocateur.
On the other hand, from a reporting standpoint, Pete Donohue lets Samuelsen off real easy on two critical items 1) What is really Samuelsen's politics? ( I know that Samuelsen refused to lift a finger in the 2008 Obama election, evidently saw no significance for what it represented in the life of this Country and is very close to the Republican party and its key operatives in south Brooklyn) and 2) Why did Samuelsen really leave his job as a guard on Rikers Island and the 20 year pension it came with, to take a 30 yr age 62 pension at NYCT? Strangely, Donohue betrays no reporter's curiosity here.
That type of digging is left to other reporters.