Comments on: Political Machine

By: Jim Conklin

Jim Conklin — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:26:25 +0000

What can benefit the public transit debate as a campaign issue is a persepctive that is informed by history. It seems wrong to blame unions singularly for the cost to provide transit when poor management by transit agencies is equally a root cause. And, mismanagement and wrong-headed policy is often a function of both ineptitude and stupidity coupled with local political interference. Typically lesser levels of scrutiny and accountability than are operative in the private sector are circumstantial enablers for poor management and nebulous outside influence so bad situations have longevity. As a former TWU member who has had soem experience in managing employees represented by the ATU, TWU, UTU, BLE and other unions I’m familair with their goals conflict. The unions often over-reach as part of their overall strategy. Management is sometimes fairly criticized as arbitrary or overly strident. Both management and labor spend 90% of their time on the 10% of employees that underperform and inflate costs to provide service. But, were it not for unions and their bargaining leverage, management employees would be more likely to be underpaid or treated badly, and attracting professionals to the field would be more difficult. With respect to the candidates, understand first that the current administration is driven by plutocratic notions, not fairness, efficiency or practical approaches to problem solving. The change in local match requirements was both a strong and emblematic indication that the administration does not highly value public transit. Sterotypically, public transit serves poor and middle class citizens predominantly, reduces aggregate oil revenues and negatively impacts some other sectors, and support for transit diverts public funds from competing programs that might otherwise more directly benefit other strata of society. This is a philosophical divide with supporters of transit and each side has its’ arguments. The Clinton adminstration, while disappointing in some measure with respect to transit, at least recognized the criticality of transit in the overall mix of mobility resources and infrastructure and it supported many new transportation initiatives. There are many reasons why some in the transit community and others reliant on transit might vote against another Clinton administration that relate specifically to the candidate. But there is no evidence to date that suggests that the candidate would refute the established cause and effect relationships of sound, effective, and efficient transit systems and economic vitality that the Clinton adminstratiosn recognized and that this administration steadfastly rejects, Wendell Cox’ arguments notwithstanding. A caution should be raised to everyone considering the transit issue as it concerns the field of candidates; the Clinton adminstration pandered to organized labor and involved them inappropriately in influencing Federal policy, notably in the appointment of talking heads to the FRA and FTA that parroted union positions. Unions advocate for members. Transit officials manage with the resources available to them. Administrators are charged with promulgating their respective missions on behalf of all citizens. Agitation is prductive and cooperation is essential, but tipping the balance toward any sector necessarily comes at the expense of some others and we have seen that manifest with both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Maybe some other candidates will propose a middle-ground.

By: David Wohlwill

David Wohlwill — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:40:04 +0000

I would like to see Mass Transit provide information on all of the candidates’ views on mass transit. This could take the form of a questionnare which has the benefit of allowing all candidates the opportunity to respond to similar questions. Alternatively, Mass Transit could conduct research on the candidates’ actions in their capacities as governors, congressmen or senators. These would include support of or opposition to transit funding measures, promotion of or opposition to particular transit projects, views towards transit supportive land use, views towards Buy America provision and other issues.

By: Hugh Jardonn

Hugh Jardonn — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:41:13 +0000

There are lots of reasons not to vote for the-endorsed candidate. She’s not trustworthy and will say and do anything for a vote. This country can do much better than voting for Mrs. Slick Willie for President.

By: Eric Bruun

Eric Bruun — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:23:14 +0000

Two important distinctions need to be made that
Galen Dutch needs to recognize.

The SEIU is not in the same league as the TWU or ATU. SEIU mostly represents the lowest paid workers in society. Second, large city locals are far more militant than small city locals. For every Philadelphia or New York there is 100 transit systems where workers are paid very modestly and benefits are minimal.

By: Galen L. Dutch

Galen L. Dutch — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:37:34 +0000

I am NOT voting for any candidate that is backed by a huge government employees union such as the ATU, the TWU, or the SEIU. As evidenced from the transit workers strike in France, government employee unions can put a “strangle hold” on commuters and reak havoc on the economy.

With all the manufacturing and technical jobs leaving the U.S., the last thing we need is for government employee unions to get more control over our lives such as being able to shut down mass transit on the nationwide level.

If 90% of the commuting public in the U.S. had to rely on transit that is vulnerable to a strike like the one that hit France, our whole economy would collapse into a Depression.

Mass transit is definitely the technological wave of the future, but it cannot become a reality in the highly politicized government employee controlled environment it is today.