You are correct, Brandon. I happen to know that the ferry workers have overtime BUILT IN to their schedule every week (for work on Sundays, on the woodside boat and for training) - they will lose this if the schedule changes and that is the underlying reason why the union is opposing HRM's effort to save money.
I won't address your claims about management salaries as I don't have facts that would permit me to form an opinion either way.
And that's the crux of the matter here - there's a distinct lack of information regarding these negotiations, and what's out there is hardly believable. Wilson claims in this article and others that HRM is looking for 270 changes to the current contract, but he's only making waves about 2 issues - part timers and contracting out. Does that mean he's happy with the other 268? Where are the details on those issues? Further, I've had a look at the ATU contract on line and I've noticed that Metro Transit features a number of departments or divisions. Within the contract, the same language in a lot of cases appears in a number of sections - if management is seeking a change that affects that language, is the union counting that as one change or multiple? Is this a case of double or multiple counting to get to the figure of 270? We just don't know.
Conspicuously absent here is information regarding the union's demands - I have my doubts that the union came to the table without any. HRM is not making comment at this time, so we know nothing about the union's demands or what they will cost the taxpayer.
But with negotiations resuming, I have a feeling that this week will be illuminating.
Interesting points and I won't dispute you have reasons to be proud. I've had a look at the ATU 508 web site and I take it the two of you are on the executive which means you're also involved in the bargaining. As you head back to the table tomorrow can I leave you with a couple of thoughts? I have no idea whether or not past mismanagement is the cause of any of the financial difficulties faced by both HRM and Metro Transit. But it's my understanding that Robar and perhaps others on the staff are new - could it be that he's been tasked to create a sustainable transit service in light of fiscal realities and that's why HRM is looking for certain concessions on things that were not well managed in the past? I have my doubts that anyone is trying to take from the workers for the sake of taking and, if transit isn't sustainable into the future, there'll be job losses and not job gains.
Thanks for the update but that's all circumstantial. I would hope the entire membership would show up for a vote as important as this, regardless of who is president. And we really don't know exactly what was voted down here - HRM's actual contract offer, or a package of misinformation spun by the union.
Wilson is a joke. I've a friend who's a driver - the general ATU populace has no confidence in him. They had to bring some guy in from Ontario to help him through the negotiations because he can't handle them on his own. And now he's running around from spreading fear but no facts - I wonder who's pulling the strings on this puppet?
Recent Comments
I won't address your claims about management salaries as I don't have facts that would permit me to form an opinion either way.
And that's the crux of the matter here - there's a distinct lack of information regarding these negotiations, and what's out there is hardly believable. Wilson claims in this article and others that HRM is looking for 270 changes to the current contract, but he's only making waves about 2 issues - part timers and contracting out. Does that mean he's happy with the other 268? Where are the details on those issues? Further, I've had a look at the ATU contract on line and I've noticed that Metro Transit features a number of departments or divisions. Within the contract, the same language in a lot of cases appears in a number of sections - if management is seeking a change that affects that language, is the union counting that as one change or multiple? Is this a case of double or multiple counting to get to the figure of 270? We just don't know.
Conspicuously absent here is information regarding the union's demands - I have my doubts that the union came to the table without any. HRM is not making comment at this time, so we know nothing about the union's demands or what they will cost the taxpayer.
But with negotiations resuming, I have a feeling that this week will be illuminating.
Interesting points and I won't dispute you have reasons to be proud. I've had a look at the ATU 508 web site and I take it the two of you are on the executive which means you're also involved in the bargaining. As you head back to the table tomorrow can I leave you with a couple of thoughts? I have no idea whether or not past mismanagement is the cause of any of the financial difficulties faced by both HRM and Metro Transit. But it's my understanding that Robar and perhaps others on the staff are new - could it be that he's been tasked to create a sustainable transit service in light of fiscal realities and that's why HRM is looking for certain concessions on things that were not well managed in the past? I have my doubts that anyone is trying to take from the workers for the sake of taking and, if transit isn't sustainable into the future, there'll be job losses and not job gains.