Political Machine
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
And so it begins. The political machine for next year’s election is kicking into high gear. Sure, there’s been sparring back and forth for some time now, but with the first primaries looming in the beginning of 2008 (Iowa’s primary on January 3rd is the first), the tempers are flaring and mud is slinging as candidates jockey to prove they are the ones best suited for their party’s nomination.
But enough about the Republicans
Today the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) announced its support for Hillary Clinton in her bid for the presidency in 2008. Anyone in transit is familiar with the ATU. They are one of the twin powers in transit unions with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and have gained much fame (and possibly infamy) for work stoppages in bids for better worker contracts.
Evidently by throwing its support behind Sen. Clinton, the ATU feels that she is the best candidate to represent the issues of transit and transit workers in the upcoming election.
Boy do I hope so.
I started this blog shortly after the last State of the Union Address. You know the one, where we heard several times about breaking our dependency on foreign oil. Here is a replay:
“It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply — and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology…solar and wind energy…and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.
“We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years — thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.
“To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 — this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks — and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.
“Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment — and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.”
As I said in that blog in February, it’s interesting that the president failed to mention public transit in his speech anywhere.
For the past year I have traveled the country (well, the world really) and seen that transit agencies aren’t just working in alternative fuels and technological breakthroughs the president spoke about, they are leading the way with them. Every single agency I traveled to this year uses biodiesel, hybrid buses or some other sort of alternative power for its system.
So as that political machine gets kicked into high gear, here’s a message for candidates seeking more support: Transit Works.
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
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.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
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.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
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.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
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.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
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.