DIVISION MEETING REPORT: PICKS, HARDSHIPS, UNION DEMOCRACY Car Equipment VP Arnold Cherry is spreading the story that New Directions is Òto blameÓ for the elimination of hardship tour and RDO changes. In fact, at the Division meeting, Cherry spoke strongly in favor of the motion that everyone work their pick job, but he rejected the New Directions argument that the union also attempt to help people with genuine hardships. Below we report on last weekÕs Division meeting. We will let the facts speak for themselves. However, we would also like to give our view on what we did wrong at the Division meeting and how to stop back door deals that violate seniority while maintaining genuine hardships. DISCUSSION ABOUT REGINA HICKMAN The meeting opened with a motion from 207 Barn Chairman Neil Persaud that Regina Hickman work her pick job. As detailed in our leaflet, ÒWhy is the Union Leadership Violating Pick and Seniority Rights?,Ó Hickman, the Recording Secretary of 207 Overhaul Shop, did not have enough seniority to hold her location and was forced to pick into the adjacent Barn. The following day however, at union request, a job was created for her back in the Shop, bypassing senior CTAs. Her newly vacated job in the Barn was made available to other Barn CTAs, but not to CTAs outside the facility. And Pat Murphy from the Pick Room assigned a CTA from the very bottom of the list to take her place at this senior location. Over a hundred workers in the Barn and Shop signed a letter to Cherry against this abuse of seniority rights. Nevertheless, Cherry denied that anyoneÕs seniority was violated. He said his objective was to leave elected officials in place. Most speakers rejected CherryÕs argument.Officers from various Barns spoke against this idea of (as one characterized it) Òsuper-seniorityÓ for officers. 240th St Vice Chairman Tito Ortiz - a New Directions member - revealed that he had been forced to pick out of his location just this month; apparently only certain officers rate CherryÕs special assistance. AN AMENDMENT ON PICK JOBS At this point, Executive Board member Naomi Allen proposed an amendment: ÒAll workers should work their pick jobs; the union should attempt to gain hardships for workers with genuine problems.Ó Some people claimed this motion was contradictory and Allen agreed to split it into two parts. The first part was attached to PersaudÕs original motion on Hickman, which now received support from many people and was approved 34 - 9. Allen then offered the 2nd part of her motion, for protecting hardships. Much controversy ensued. Cherry argued strongly that enforcing the pick while granting any hardships was impossible. He said, ÒCar Maintenance is the only division with hardships. [This is actually untrue.] We should all be grown men and women and work the job we picked. There will be no hardships in Car Maintenance.Ó Cherry then called for the motion to be ruled out of order and Division Chairman Randolph Pringle agreed. The motion on hardships was never voted on. SENIORITY RIGHTS AND HARDSHIPS New Directions believes - and this is our difference with Cherry - that just as we set aside a certain number of jobs for restricted workers, a limited number of genuine hardships can exist side by side with an honestly conducted seniority pick. One of the fundamental protections that all transit workers have is the seniority pick right. The pick is meant to eliminate favoritism in the choice and working of jobs. How many times have we seen management post terrible hours - inconvenient for them too - just so they can trade better hours for more work? Or milk more work out of junior workers by offering to ÒprotectÓ their job by posting, but not enforcing, mid-week RDOs? Or release a brown-noser from their pick job in order to stir envy and resentment, in the hopes of breaking unity? Management makes these ÒdealsÓ to get their way on work procedures. Enforcing the pick will actually force management to post more desirable shifts and RDOs instead of holding them as favors.Nevertheless, there are some workers that have a genuine level of hardship. With the growing number of households in which all adults work, many of these involve care - for a child, a parent, someone thatÕs sick. New Directions believes that we should try hard not to turn our backs on these members, anymore than we do restricted duty members - someday any one of us may be in the same boat. But hardships should be put in the hands of our elected union officers - not management. This makes it more likely that the arrangements will be made only for those with real hardships. And it decreases the possibility that these arrangements will become the kind of ÒdealÓ which hurt other workersÕ rights. This is not just wishful thinking. This is actually how hardships are handled by the New Directions-led union committee in Rapid Transit. This was the meaning behind AllenÕs resolution. Of course, no system like this is perfect. In the long run we need better contract language protecting restricted work and hardships without violating seniority rights. But this is no reason not to try our best to protect all members, to mix the justice of the seniority pick with the mercy of necessary hardships. BUT WE MADE A MISTAKE IN THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS DEALT WITH Having said this, New Directions members, including Division officers, made a mistake in the way a question involving thousands of workers was dealt with. In the heat of the moment, a simple resolution, demanding that a particular officer (who was seen as getting special treatment) work her pick job, was suddenly transformed into a sweeping change of working conditions.This was wrong. New Directions believes strongly in worker democracy. But real democracy can only come when thousands of transit workers take an active role in transit affairs and decisions. Especially in these times when few workers come to union meetings, we need to take special care that on important matters, any member who wishes must have a chance to speak. Accordingly, the Division Committee is asking Vice President Cherry to postpone any action on this matter until after an emergency Division meeting is held, at which time the necessary full discussion of this question can take place.