September, 08 Issue 13

How long do you think you can remain in a relationship with a spouse that spends money, makes plans and talks about your business without first consulting you?

Being privileged to do what you want is great…, if you’re independent. The reality is that the relationship between the Company and the Union is somewhat of a marriage, we are coequal partners in an enforceable Labor Contract.

I believe it’s important to hold each other’s feet to the fire when it comes to keeping agreements.

Accountability…, a deal is a deal as so eloquently stated in Section 2.2 of our Collective Bargaining Agreement.

It’s called a “Zipper Clause” which basically states each party had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject appropriate for collective bargaining, and that each agrees that the other shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter after the agreement is signed.

Last month the Company decided they wanted to promote a few mechanics…, the problem started when they wanted to administer a test in order to narrow the selection. Naturally, the Union would have objected to any such testing because it’s not required in order to make the step into another classification, as per Section 36 of our CBA.

It’s clear no testing! In order to move from a “C” mechanic to a “B” and eventually to “A” an employee is only subject to the “Screening Committee”… after that, the committee makes their recommendation to the Director of Maintenance and the promotions are made. It’s just that simple!

On the Operator side…, it’s the same thing! Keeping this Company within the confines of our labor contract is becoming a real issue.

It’s been a long time past practice as well as a “Company rule” that Operators can be disciplined for not calling in downtime at the 10-minute mark. R&R Section 2-K Schedule Adherence, Subsection 2.

Lately, the Company has only “asked” that Operators call in their downtime at the 2-minute mark when leaving the layover late. We have no problem with that… ask!

Here is where the whole problem begins... The Company is “asking”, you to call in because they know that you can’t be disciplined for not calling in down time at the 2-minute mark, it’s not consistent with the Company’s R&R.   

However, you will be disciplined for leaving your layover late unless you do as the Company “asks” and call in your downtime at the 2-minute mark. 

So…, the very “call” you’re not required to make is the “call” you must make in order not to be disciplined!

This is similar to an oxymoron, like “Little Big Town or Jumbo Shrimp” its contradictory… double talk! 

These rules work in tandem…, how can the Company act as if they were consistent with the R&R and in the same breath create a consequence for Operators over an a option to call-in at the 2-minute mark?

There’s no requirement… It’s not our fault that the 10-minute rule doesn’t work anymore… No reason to bend it, try asking for a change!

Safety is Never a Choice... Right?

Try telling that to Operator Raicine Green, recently terminated for an unfortunate second preventable accident, which was later upheld by the panel at the August Accident Review Board.

On the day of the accident, Op. Green was uncommonly assigned an “articulating coach” by dispatch in order to make pull-out…, a dangerous choice considering some of the bus stops she had to make and maneuver about along Eastern Avenue and the speed by which such vehicle can achieve in short distances.

According to Op Green, she was normally assigned the newer more powerful Double Decker, which in her opinion made merging into faster traffic a tad safer. Because of this advantage, she was always glad to be assigned one.

As she was leaving the bus stop just north of the St. Rose Parkway on the route 110, she was tasked with having to build enough speed to merge into 45 mph traffic from a dead stop. With traffic suddenly appearing in her driver’s side mirror from around the bend just feet behind her coach…, she had to quickly traverse 4-lanes of traffic all within 175 yards into a short single left hand turning lane in order to negotiate that left turn onto “Silverado Ranch”.

It’s no surprise to me that she didn’t make it. This exact same scenario at this exact location has been before the Accident Review Board panel in the past. 

According to Op. Green, the ticket-issuing officer was surprised that the RTC would actually put a bus stop in that location and then not expect any repercussions. He even put in the Traffic Report that…“per RTC route was required to enter left turn lane #1 at the intersection of Silverado Ranch” and then gave Op. Raicine his pager number in case there was a future problem.

Unfortunately, for Op. Raicine the ARB panel is only concerned with preventability, they ruled that the choice to maneuver dangerously was hers. Frankly speaking, it’s a textbook “squeeze play” and that’s why her accident case was upheld as preventable.

When I drove the route some years back, I occasionally had to make that stop, when I did, I would usually continued straight without making the turn.

I frequently got the “whut-whut” from some unsuspecting southbound 110 operator on the opposite side of the street that noticed me heading straight.

Call it in..., too dangerous to maneuver, tell radio to send a supervisor to pick up the passengers you missed on the loop, whatever just don’t substitute safety for accommodation because the Company will not have your back.

In most cases, when  I crossed the St. Rose Parkway on my northbound trip I could see if anyone was standing at that stop, if not, I would maintain my lane and speed and still be able to safely make the left turn onto Silverado Ranch.

As for Raicine, she had virtues, one being accommodation…, a good attribute for an operator in a “city” run system. She wanted to be the kind of operator that just got the job done, said hello and got people to work on time.  

Most of us don’t really want to use the radio because we think they have enough of a job. By doing so enables them to continue putting you at risk. Ironically, I use to get the feeling when the BOC asked if I felt “safe to continue”, that they really wanted me to say yes and that they hated it when I used their rules against them... Maybe it was the sigh of inconvenience that did it.                                                            

I think we both knew from the beginning that she had a difficult accident case, considering the yardstick it would be measured against.

Think about it...“Big bus merging left unbeknownst to operator collides with second vehicle”.

After losing the accident case before the panel, we quickly prepared for an “appeal”…, we not only needed a winning argument for this next step but a place to take it as well, one obviously  beyond the narrow criteria offered by the Accident Review Board.

Our argument… How could the Company not insist that bus stops like these need to be removed immediately, that they create a maneuvering hazard that put our operators as well as the riding public at high risk.

Trevor Halloran, Ops Mgr. specifically approached the RTC on this matter at his Tuesday, August 26 meeting. To me this action added a considerable amount of credence to our argument.

At this point, I thought we had an ally in our corner so we filed a grievance and decided to have Trevor Halloran hear our argument. Only later to find out he didn’t want to…, However, Management knew he had to, so...

After the Union/Management meeting on Tuesday, September 2, Chuck Kellogg suggested that rather than move the issue through the grievance procedure we should consider taking it to the Director of Transportation, Greg Cook for an immediate and final ruling.

Contemplating this action, as oppose to weeks of proceedings was appealing, especially since Op. Green had some other prospects and didn’t care to keep showing up to hearings.

He went on to explain that Mr. Cook would consider circumstances that were “outside” of the purview of the Accident Review Board.

Chuck got used...; Mr. Cook stuck to the letter of the contract in that disagreements were only about supporting elevation to the National Safety Council whereby his ruling was final.

It was going to take broad shoulders to retain this operator or make her whole and have her move on.

Although we felt the Company put Op. Green and her passengers at risk and should have shared in the responsibility by making her whole… That will be the premise of some future argument.

     As far as this Union is concerned… It does matter if we’re at risk! The amount of suffering we go through while out of work waiting for these proceedings is important!

The one good thing that happened as a direct result of this case was that the Company was “open” to the Union proposing new language that would expedite deliberation; we felt it was unfair for the “Chair” Louis Young, to remain in the room after the Union made their closing arguments. Mr. Young gracefully understood and said we should sit down and work on the details.

At the September 2 Union/Management meeting the Company and the Union agreed to take a better look at the Accident Review Board process.

My Favorite Martin Says..., Mind Your Business!

     Our Valued Mechanics

On behalf of the mechanics, Robert Naylor, EBO, Simmons yard has proposed a by-law change that if passed, would allow Union mechanics to vote exclusively on their own issues.

Recently, he has retracted the proposed change for editing. There were a few kinks that need ironing ..., like how this will apply to grievances etcetera.

     However, once the edits are made, the proposed change must for the sake of time for viewing, start from the beginning again and post in its new form for 30 more days prior to the “reading” and subsequent voting.

Members may only vote “yea” or “nay” on the proposed changes. If anyone during the “reading” stage of the process, disagrees with the sentence structure or objects to the by-law change itself, when it comes time to vote , they may cast a nay vote.

Only the author may at any time during the process withdraw the proposed by-law change for modification. However, as you can see, doing so starts the process from the beginning.         

For information purposes, any member of Local 1637 may propose a by-law change at any time and/or for any reason.    

Start by drafting your own by-law change and submit it 5-days prior to the next General Membership meeting.

As most of us may attest, our mechanics and operators are an extremely valuable asset to the overall operation of this transit system and without either of them, the system crumbles.

With that said…, I will address the crux of this article.

     It is obvious that the operators outman the mechanics about 8 to 1.  Simply put that means there are more operators than mechanics.

     As the by-laws now stand, we as operators have the “numbers” to vote down any proposal offered up by the maintenance department.  This includes all aspect that are solely maintenance issues and do not concern us as operators. Many of these issues, operators, including myself, do not understand.

It’s for that reason this by-law change was drafted. It allows, only mechanics the right to vote on issues that are exclusive to their department. Although the Executive Board has discussed this in detail, I, for one, will vote to pass this by-law change. 

Let me to explain my reasoning...

If you as an operator were terminated for a passenger fall onboard your coach would you want a mechanic to be on the Accident Review Board panel?

No…, because generally speaking, mechanics know less of the possible contingencies involved in whether this type of accident can be charged as preventable.

Just as they have no experience with this scenario, we as operators, inexperienced in the matters of maintenance should not be allowed in deciding maintenance issues.

However, when it comes to blended conditions that affect Maintenance and Operations, operators as well a maintenance employees will vote collectively.

Some may argue this to be the beginning of a separation, a dissention in the ranks. I say not, if anything, it will bind us.

As in most situations “smaller” usually resents “larger”…, the “tyranny of the minority”. Where equality is always an issue, the smaller and larger will each represent the same unit value despite sizes or the larger is divided into even segments.  We do that in Nevada politics…, during the state’s “Congressional Session”, Clark County holds more seats than Elko, Esmeralda or any of the “smaller” county’s.

However, when the issues become particular to an area, especially one of expertise, what do you do? One thing for sure…, no one wants a layman deciding.

Allowing maintenance to decide on issues exclusive to their department will permit them to utilize their own version of remedy, rely on their own resources and deal directly with their success and failure.

One common concern among the “Operators” on the Executive Board is a problem I feel is easily remedied. If Management tries to play the Mechanics against the Operators in a job action scenario by offering one what they want in terms of wage and not the other… Well that’s why we have by-laws.

I suspect this proposed by law change will not pass the e-board for recommendation to membership unless it is modified to reflect language that protects mechanics and operators alike from this kind of “Divide and Separate” management strategy.

Presently, Rick Valero, Duane Ushijima and Robert Naylor and composing such language, but ultimately its up to our International Union. This will undoubtedly delay thing but will ultimately be viewed in a more favorable light when it come down to the vote.

     There department is as complicated as their issues. Most operators are unaware that Maintenance is separated into two divisions of seniority, Departmental and Classification…

Departmental seniority is the length of service commencing from the date of hire and Classification seniority is the date an individual first moves within the A, B and C classification position.    

My point is this…  Let the mechanics handled their own situations, develop their own ways of preventing the Company from instituting whatever variety of injustice and let them learn to work through the tough issues.

Few of us are not aware of the various issues in maintenance and if they were, we would have to have been educated on the spot if we were to take immediate action.

How can we, as operators, benefit from this change?

By allowing this change, we would mend this affinity break in alliance and rekindle the fraternity between the Operators and Mechanics of Local 1637 and be better soldiers in case of work stoppage in the future.

We are all brothers and sisters in the fight for fair treatment on the front lines of every issue…, would you ask a Marine how to weigh anchor!

I encourage each of you to stand with me in support of our brothers and sisters in their fight for fair representation.

Remember, what goes around, comes around!

Martin E Kamenar,

EBO, AJ Maintenance

Tompkins Operator.