why shouldnt public employees have similar bargining rights to the teamters...

Stan
Amen to Joe and public unions. They serve NO purpose other than lining their own pockets and holding tax payers hostage. Use the Reagan tactic....show up or be fired.

These aren't public employees; they work for the private company that operates the city's school buses. And that company is doing nothing but messing around to pocket more money instead of paying people what they're worth. They are not performing regular maintenance on the buses; they are paying drivers less; they are telling the drivers to ignore the rules they once followed regarding safety for the children on those buses.

In this case, because the function of carting kids to public schools has been outsourced to a private company (Durham), the drivers aren't in a public sector union.

"bargaining rights" is just codeword for "threatening violence if they don't get what they want."

Conservatives don't have a problem with Unions, they have a problem with government-backed unions, and thanks to the NLRB and public-sector unions we have a deadly combination in this country that is killing our state budgets.

I say let them go on strike, then just fire them all and hire new drivers. It's a down economy, I'm sure there's a lot of people looking for jobs.

And Tom speaks in fluent plutocratic dialect of Marxian Economics

Tom Utley:
"bargaining rights" is just codeword for "threatening violence if they don't get what they want."...
Don't know what is the source of this cynicism, but I think bargaining rights is a codeword for management and workers treating each other like adults, rather than some kind of fiefdom-like arrangement. Do you really think people who work for a living, providing the ability for the company to generate profits, don't know anything about the business and do not have a vested interest in the success and safety of the business? Your disdain for working people is really arrogant. Yes, they should all shut up and just be thankful they have a job. Those idiots don't know how good they have it, and they don't realize that if better safety standards were really necessary, their management would provide it without being asked.

"bargaining rights" is the right to have representation; it's the equivalent of legal representation in a court of law.

To deny that right to representation, then, only defeats the founding principle of our country.

Those who don't like that founding principle should move to countries that share the same opinion -- North Korea, China....

I personally agree that public unions shouldn't be allowed. Of course I also think that public unions shouldn't be necessary.

Tom Utley, you're not a conservative, you're a regressive. Big difference.

JoSCh,
that was unexpected, that you are against the existence of public employee unions.

Let's be clear on something; public employees are actual human beings with a skill set valued and needed by the general public. They also have lives and families and hopes and dreams, including financial security and a normal life. Why would anyone discriminate against them because they work directly for the government we all depend upon for services?
When I was a steward, in a public employee organization (not called a union for some reason), the big issue was scheduling work. We were a 24/7 essential service, we worked Christmas, Thanksgiving, weekends, all that stuff in a rotating shift environment. At one time, if someone called in sick, someone else, scheduled to be off that day, would get ordered into work regardless of other plans, and his day off would simply be changed. No overtime involved. Example, a friend of mine had his wife and kids in the car and they were ready to head to Carowinds...the fool answered his phone, and the family outing was canceled and he went to work. Not even given the dignity of overtime. Our biggest issue was having a work schedule fixed for two weeks so we could count of when we could plan our lives. We never negotiated for salary (it was not allowed by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement), but we could negotiate working conditions.
Treat workers like human beings! Public employees serve your needs, treat them with dignity.

Did you read the second sentence of my post before you responded to the first sentence, Robert Kelly? Being "in a union" doesn't make a situation better just as it doesn't make a situation worse. They have a place, but our government would be more cost effective if unions weren't required inside it's framework. And it's a failure of the government to fulfill it's mission when they are.

JoSCh,
yes, I did read your entire post before responding. Although it would be great if unions weren't necessary, they have been and will continue to be necessary. So, in my opinion, the unions must be allowed to exist. You might think they are less efficient than non-union workplaces, but why should any group of employees be denied the right to organize? Government workers are people, and they are workers.

Josch, I think I get the sentiment of your comment that public unions shouldn't be allowed, and because the employer of those public unions could be the picture-perfect example to follow (it being the govt itself).

However, i find too many instances in which public employees are openly disregarded and disrespected. This happens most in state gov positions -- take our police force, for example, and teachers, too. Greatly underpaid and restricted from representation in both cases. And when it happens to gov employees, private industry takes that for use as excuses to duplicate such mistreatment.

The government needs to set example -- especially in this case of labor.

Yes, reg, that was what I meant.

Today's unions add overhead unless you're talking about a union of lawyers and that can only mean inefficiency. The government already has excessive overhead and from my experience in the DoD often the unions and existing government overhead would be duplication of function. Gov't employees should be (and often are, in my experience anyway) compensated prevailing wage and standard benefits. They shouldn't *need* a union, the gov't should be fair. That was my point.

Joe doesn't know what he's talking about. So I guess you don't either.

It's a right to work FOR LESS state. The private company these drivers work for wants to pay them less; wants the drivers to ignore safety rules; and is not performing the maintenance on those buses that keep our children safe.

Why does the public have to listen to innuendoes, false information without being aprised of what is involved in the grievance? Maybe the public would be more receptive if they knew the particulars of the complaint. Also, what is the salary of these drivers compared to previous public drivers?

Maizenbluedoc,
Good questions. I guess that's why this story was labelled as "opinion" not "news".
I was a union steward in my 30s, and I was management in my 50s and early 60s, working with the union stewards and negotiating with them. I was successful and received praise from my bosses for how well the place ran with respect to employee relations, and in truth the union was a strength to be tapped.
All these union bashers think union members are just money-grubbing malcontents, but that was not my experience at all! The union members (and the non-union employees as well) did the work and understood the complications and the challenges of the job. They had suggestions and positive contributions, and I implemented many of their ideas...which improved overall morale and performance. I also found that by negotiating in good faith, I was able to get the union leaders to accept some things they were not real happy about, and sell those ideas to the membership, because there was a good reason. In short, union bashers frequently don't know what they are talking about, and management who hate unions might very possibly be simply bad managers who don't like to have that fact pointed out. After 12 years of management, successful management, I am still pro-union and I think unions have given this country a lot, and provided for a safer and more fair work environment. Financially, I believe the unions were the reason for the growth of the middle class in this country.

Maintenance is done by 3 entities: the State and General Diesel for the old State owned buses, and Durham for newer Durham owned buses. To be fair, the maintenance complaints should not be targeted at Durham.

I have a copy of the contract; it says Durham is to assume all the maintenance that the county itself previously performed.

Yes, the County previously only did a portion of the maintenance as does Durham today.

Would you care to specify the maintenance that the state must do in comparison to the county/now Durham?

The following are estimates: Charleston uses about 400 school buses. The State owns and provides 275-300 buses for Charleston. The State maintains about 200 and contracts maintenance through General Diesel for 80-90 of the State owned buses. The State owned buses average about 15 years old. Durham owns and maintans the rest or, about 100-125 bsues. Durham's fleet is <5 years old.

Right wing media. They can't refer to a union member without saying "thug." As if the nice lady that drives my kids to school is a thug. They dehumanize anyone that doesn't share every aspect of their ideology.

PS

THE RESULTS of GOP regression: 1929 depression and 2008 recession.

oh/and joe knows jack crap...proof: for a start he confused public and private sector unions and he is an x-teamster...

and guess who the bus drivers are represented by? would you believe, Teamsters 509...joe should get know his union bros before he bans them.

full disclosure:

not now or ever a union member or employee...but had excellent relations with building trades unions...just a matter of mutual respect and fairness...

competed w/ nonunion shops; paid over scale (shared profits); and found work for old folks who had slowed down...jobs still made good profit.