Bus Proposal by Mayor

Judy wrote:

> > Try Mililani, then.
> > Cow-Orker's commute is now upwards of 2 hours each way.
>
> And before the strike it was an hour and 15 each way in commute traffic?
> Still less than tragic.

Try the difference between a perhaps-20-minute bus ride and a two-hour
walk.

Agreed, still less than "tragic", but even so ... no sympathy whatsoever
from me for the GREEDY bus drivers.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1062361216-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > OTS was formed because of the 3 and 6 month strikes
> > in the past. If this one lasts much longer, then
> > there will be a lot of pressure to convert the OTS
> > system to a city-owned system. Hopefully, the
> > strike will end when the city council approves the
> > new fare hikes-- soon. If not, then it may be much
> > longer than expected.
> >
> You have got to be kidding me. Did they think that
> by forming OTS they could avoid future strikes. Or
> was there some other fundamenhtal reason they chose
> forming OTS.

There hasn't been one ever since the founding of OTS.
And there hasn't been the low pay and bad working
conditions like under the last private owner-- Harry
Weinberg. If it wasn't for the poor revenues to the
city, then the strike might never had occurred. The
current organization of OTS doesn't depend on the whim,
or greed of a single private owner.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1062455709-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> Well the proposal by the mayor of the city taking over
> the bus system does solve this problem. No more
> strikes.
>

How is that possible. Are you saying that in Honolulu it is against the law
for people to go on strike?

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1062455704-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> > >
> > You have got to be kidding me. Did they think that
> > by forming OTS they could avoid future strikes. Or
> > was there some other fundamenhtal reason they chose
> > forming OTS.
>
> There hasn't been one ever since the founding of OTS.
> And there hasn't been the low pay and bad working
> conditions like under the last private owner-- Harry
> Weinberg.

And how many years has that been?

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

>
>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1062455704-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > > >
> > > You have got to be kidding me. Did they think
> > > that by forming OTS they could avoid future
> > > strikes. Or was there some other fundamenhtal
> > > reason they chose forming OTS.
> >
> > There hasn't been one ever since the founding of
> > OTS. And there hasn't been the low pay and bad
> > working conditions like under the last private
> > owner-- Harry Weinberg.
>
> And how many years has that been?

I wasn't in the islands then. I think that was about
the 70's and mayor Fasi brought in a fleet of 100
busses from texas-- more than a generation ago. That's
a better record than under Weinberg. I think the
previous one had been in the 50's, and because of poor
maintenance and bad wages, the city was expecting worse
service and more strikes in the coming years. There's
nothing inherently good about privitization unless it
brings the element of competition with it.

--alvin

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

>
>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1062455709-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> >
> > Well the proposal by the mayor of the city taking
> > over the bus system does solve this problem. No
> > more strikes.
> >
>
> How is that possible. Are you saying that in
> Honolulu it is against the law for people to go on
> strike?

For city employees, the law can require binding
arbitration.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1062549314-sch@news.lava.net...
>

>
> I wasn't in the islands then. I think that was about
> the 70's and mayor Fasi brought in a fleet of 100
> busses from texas-- more than a generation ago.

That is pretty good.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1062549316-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> > news:1062455709-sch@news.lava.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well the proposal by the mayor of the city taking
> > > over the bus system does solve this problem. No
> > > more strikes.
> > >
> >
> > How is that possible. Are you saying that in
> > Honolulu it is against the law for people to go on
> > strike?
>
> For city employees, the law can require binding
> arbitration.
>
It occurs to me I do not know what binding arbitration is. Can the
arbitrator "force" the two parties to agree, or does binding arbitration
simply means they have to talk to each other.

Thanks for the answer.

<quante981@m> wrote in message
news:1062564613-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> Certain government workers in Honolulu and the state are deemed
> essential workers and cannot strike. Police and fire personnel.
> There is no guarantee that government bus workers would be defined as
> essential workers or if they even would want to be.

It is hard to imagine that a bus driver would be considered an essential
worker, and if that is the case, then the answer is, they could go on strike
even if they are required to binding arbitration. Is that right?

After all what is
> essential can be subjective. Life is proceeding pretty much as usual
> for most people during this bus strike. I think most government
> workers don't want to strike. Striking is too much like the private
> sector. Workers lose wages and benefits while on strike. TheBus
> workers are private sector.

Which does bring up an interesting thought. While these workers are on
strike, they are not getting paid (are they still entitled to their
benefits, like health insurance?). It would seem to me that a long strike
means that it would take quite a while before they break even, even if they
get everything they want, assuming of course that there is not some
agreement on back pay. Of course those that follow will reap the benefits.

<quante981@m> wrote in message
news:1063069513-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> How they can see 3 years down the road and say they won't have enough
> funds is mind boggling. The economists can barely predict how much
> money the government will have 6 months ahead.

And pray tell, how then do they plan for the future, because State spending
will increase regardless of what the revenue stream looks like in the
future.