INC NEWS - solid waste workers are not cheap

[Melissa Rooney]

The solid waste discussion on the listserv has been
enlightening. I love the INC...so many passionate
people in one place. 
Melissa

Melissa Rooney
Fairfield Neighborhood

--- Chris Sevick <csevick at verizon.net> wrote:

> Reyn,
> 
> Please elaborate on why you refer to this action as
> something "to hold the citizens of Durham hostage." 
> In your opinion, would any organized strike/slowdown
> by city employees amount to holding us hostage? 
> Should we infer anti-union sentiments by your use of
> language?
> 
> - Chris Sevick
> 
> =====================
> From: Reyn Bowman <Reyn at Durham-cvb.com>
> Date: Fri May 19 09:54:22 CDT 2006
> To: bragin at nc.rr.com, RW Pickle
> <randy at 27beverly.com>
> Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - solid waste workers are not
> cheap
> 
> It's going on 40 years now and both jobs are easier
> but I worked a
> summer on the back of a sanitation truck and part of
> a stint as fry
> cook.  Fry cook is much more difficult and a lot
> more pressure with the
> same heat.
> 
> I have fond memories of working the back of a
> garbage truck.  There have
> often been days over the years that I wish I still
> had that job.  Both
> jobs though are good honest work with a sense of
> accomplishment and
> meaning (public health).
> 
> I disagree with the idea that the only way to
> resolve conflict is to
> hold the citizens of Durham hostage.
> 
> I support Patrick's close examination of the best
> way to do this.
> 
> Reyn Bowman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
> [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
> On Behalf Of bragin at nc.rr.com
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:56 AM
> To: RW Pickle
> Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - solid waste workers are not
> cheap
> 
> Randy,
> 
> i think Patrick did a pretty thorough job explaining
> the hows and whys 
> of the current sanitation worker scheduling issue,
> so there's really no 
> point in continuing to beat the straw man of these
> guys being "part-
> time" workers anymore. They're not, regardless of
> how many hours they 
> actually spend on the truck.
> 
> As to the larger issues you raise, let's think this
> through a bit.
> 
> Should sanitation workers be paid on a par with
> entry level McDonald's 
> fry cooks? This question i think answers itself.
> 
> Should sanitation workers be paid on a par with
> skilled construction 
> workers? Maybe, maybe not. By the way, i'm curious
> where your $13/hour 
> figure for construction workers comes from. Most of
> the skilled 
> electricians, plumbers, glazers, masons, etc. who i
> run into make 
> considerably more than that. Perhaps that's a figure
> for generally 
> unskilled apprentices around the job site? To my
> mind, having a guy on 
> the garbage trucks who can get the job done is worth
> more than a guy 
> with 
> a shovel and a wheelbarrow moving dirt at a
> construction site, but 
> that's a subjective analysis, and you may think
> otherwise.
> 
> Regardless, our sanitation crews perform a necessary
> function. How 
> necessary? Just look at how upset people have gotten
> at having their 
> trash go uncollected for a day. What that means in a
> simple supply/
> demand analysis, is that the demand for their labor
> is high enough that 
> their compensation is probably going to exceed the
> minimum wage which 
> you may think they are worth. 
> 
> As for unilaterally changing the compensation
> structure which Patrick 
> tells us has been in place for nearly 9 years,
> common sense and a 
> modicum of knowledge of labor history shows that
> such attempts, when 
> imposed by management, universally cause resentment
> among the workers 
> doing the job. The greater the perceived loss of
> wages or quality of 
> working conditions, the greater the resentment. In
> parts of the country 
> where workers are represented by unions, such
> attempts will almost alw
> ays be met with organized withholding of labor, or a
> strike, in other 
> words. You may think that the answer to this
> situation is to make "some 
> personnel changes in a hurry," but not only would
> that be morally 
> wrong, it falls into the category of what my father
> used to call 
> "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
> 
> Using contemporary workplace jargon, what needs to
> happen is that all 
> of the stakeholders need to be brought to the table,
> and take ownership 
> of whatever changes need to be made. It may very
> well be that 
> sanitation workers in Durham are overpaid by
> regional and historical 
> standards. But i suspect that any unilateral attempt
> to cut those wages 
> and benefits unilaterally will result in a whole lot
> more garbage being 
> uncollected. Fortunately, it takes me a month or
> more to fill my trash 
> can to the top, i compost pretty much everything
> that can be composted, 
> and i live near to the recycling center. So i'm
> probably less dependent 
> on the sanitation crews than a lot of Du
> rham residents. Even so, i don't think we do the
> city a favor by 
> calling for any employees wages to be reduced in
> this manner. Our 
> sanitation crews live in and spend money in Durham,
> contributing back 
> to our economy. Why shouldn't they be paid a living
> wage?
> 
> Finally, the temp issue is a real one. If the crews
> are compensated 
> based on the tasks (routes) completed, and not their
> hours worked, i 
> don't see any problem with that. But if the tasks
> are not being 
> completed, and the crews are still reaping the
> benefits of that wage 
> structure while the city is forced to hire temp
> workers to finish the 
> job, then that's a legitimate problem to be
> addressed. I suspect that 
> if one were to dig deeply into the issue, all kinds
> of things we don't 
> like to talk about might arise, many of which would
> have nothing to do 
> with the guys riding on the backs of the garbage
> trucks. But solving 
> this part of the problem is, i think, more difficult
> than you seem to 
> think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Barry Ragin
> 
> ----- Orig
> inal Message -----
> From: RW Pickle <randy at 27beverly.com>
> Date: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:57 am
> Subject: INC NEWS - solid waste workers are not
> cheap
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> 
> > Kelly Jarrett wrote:
> > 
> > "I'm not sure what the trash guys get paid"
> > 
> > With wages and benefits (and mind you it's only
> for 28-32 hours a 
> week
> > they do this for), it runs between $27K and $33K a
> year. Not bad 
> > for a
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com