The Carmen's Union says it's not against safety, but that arbitrarily banning mere possession of a phone by T drivers is both a workplace change that requires negotiation and potentially a safety problem on its own.
In a statement, the union says it could go to court to try to block enforcement of the rule without bargaining.
Our Union is deeply disturbed by MBTA management’s decision to turn bargained policy on its head, determining that all bus and transportation workers are guilty until proven innocent and declaring management judge, jury and executioner without due process.
There are times when alternative communications, like cellphones, are actually needed on the bus - on an urgent basis for everyone’s protection. To the extent that the MBTA proposes to ban them all together, this policy offers no solution to safety emergencies. ...
The rights of MBTA workers should not and will not be pushed aside in a rush to address an isolated situation. Safety and the legal process should both be respected in this case.
On Monday, the T announced a complete ban on phone possession by drivers in response to last month's crash of a bus in Newton Corner, which the T says was linked to the driver being on the phone at the time.
Previously, only workers found on the phone could be summarily fired.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Take it or leave it......
By RichM
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 8:35am
Sorry, the safety of riders is not negotiable. If your members feel they cannot do the job without a cell phone perhaps they should seek employment elsewhere.
"We're going to need more
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:13am
"We're going to need more money if you want to arrive at your destination alive."
- The T Union
Typical...
By Gary C
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 8:39am
You know it's crap like this that gives unions a bad name. Management proposes a sensible change and the union threatens to go to court unless they get paid off. Sickening.
Christ on a crutch.
By erik g
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:05am
I don't even...
Do you know what the purpose of a union is? It's a mechanism for a collective bargaining agreement between management and employees. They bargain for what T management can and can't do to drivers, and the terms of the employment status of workers. Inherent in that arrangement is the fact that one side can't change the rules of employee contracts without negotiation with the union. And the T just did that, putting the jobs of hundreds of people at risk for no especially good reason.
Would I rather that bus drivers not be on their cell phones? Yup. Do I think that the rule is going to be abused to make working conditions worse for drivers? Yup. Is a unilateral change of the collective bargaining agreement illegal under federal law? Yup. Which is why the union is going to sue them for it.
yup
By cybah
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:46am
and we wonder why fares go up... let's sue to get our way so we can play Farmville while we drive a bus.
*slaps head*
Is this matter REALLY worth suing over? What a bunch of cry babies. Why didn't they make a stink three years ago when the original no cell phone policy was put in place. What makes different now?
Oh ya the T is serious about it..
Making conditons worse for drivers?
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:29pm
The T is only putting at risk the jobs of people WHO PUT OUR LIVES AT RISK. It should also be noted that operators somehow managed to operate *GASP* without cell phones for almost 100 years. Also I'm willing to wager that 100% of all MBTA buses and train cars have at least 1 passenger with a functioning cell phone, not to mention the vehicle;s radio, the emergency phones all along the tunnels and in stations.
Congratulations erik g
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/19/2014 - 8:40am
I was vehemently fuming at the carmen's union, and your post actually got me to see the other side, and switch my position to one of agreeing with what is a principled, albeit unpopular, stand by them.
Slowly boiling a frog
By Kaz
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:12am
Well, I'm sure the factories didn't setup company towns overnight. Which "sensible" change should the union be allowed to finally act on it as being "too much"? The first? The fifth? The hundredth?
If we've all come to agree that January 1, both sides were happy, but then management made a change that alters the workers' side of the deal, then why shouldn't the workers have the right to say "hey, wait a sec, we didn't discuss this. Let's get back to something we can both agree on".
In fact, let's say this policy change is both reasonable and necesary. Why wasn't it announced as the MBTA and the Carmen's Union have agreed that for the safety of the passengers, there will be a change in the discipline policy regarding having a phone? Why didn't the MBTA go to the Union first, then make the policy change?
The Ankle Grabber Constituency
By Chris Rich
Thu, 06/19/2014 - 7:06am
.. in the vast corporate employee wasteland seethes with jealousy at the idea of negotiated work.
They take what they get and you should too.
You know, I'm very pro-union,
By Hyde_Parker
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:51am
You know, I'm very pro-union, but I agree with you.
Until the bus breaks down
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 8:50am
I was on a bus once and it lost all power so they couldn't radio in. The driver would not even use a passengers phone to call dispatch because he feared being fired for it.
There needs to be consideration for these isolated incidents too, I'm all for safety but not for sitting on a dead bus. (A passenger called it in for him if I recall)
This is the one and only
By Bostonrose48
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:27am
This is the one and only situation that I can think of where a cellphone might be needed.
possession of a phone
By Ralph
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:48am
You want another sensible reason. Bus drivers get their breaks out in the field. When taking a break, they should have the right to make personal phone calls. If they are forbidden from carrying a cell phone, where should they make these calls? It's not about money but also about employers not being able to control employees while not on the clock.
Call who?
By BostonDog
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:18am
When the bus breaks down they use their MBTA-issued radio to call it in, as is standard procedure.
It's pretty normal for jobs to require people to be without cell phones. Bordom isn't a critical problem.
Doctors offices, dentists,
By Felicity
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:37am
Doctors offices, dentists, auto mechanics, schools, babysitters, prospective landlords, prospective employers, the cable guy, and everyone else that does business 9-5.
I'm 50/50 on this one. Yes I
By Bostonrose48
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:24am
I'm 50/50 on this one. Yes I agree they should be able to look at their phones during their breaks but if they* could be trusted not to use it then I doubt management would have put the rule into place.
*collective they, I don't necessarily believe that EVERY T employee can't be trusted but it seems like in almost every crash someone was distracted by their phone.
Question
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:01am
Are such calls truly NECESSARY?
Answer - No!
Question - How did workers deal with the issue forty years ago?
Answer - They WAITED until they got off work. If it was a real emergency, their supervisor would contact them.
It's time we as a society woke up and finally lose this utter nonsense that people have an absolute right to be in communication with everyone in their lives 24/7.
And if you can't live without your phone for most of the working day, perhaps you need to find another job.
Thus spake this anonymous dude posting from his phone
By Dan Farnkoff
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 1:08pm
At 11 am, probably from work...
breakdown & no power
By Bumpy
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:30am
Why didn't you offer to phone the dispatcher? Problem solved.:-)
There has to be a sensible way
By tachometer
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 3:51pm
How about a policy that cell phones must be completely powered off while operating a train or bus with an allowance to use them while on standby at the end of the line when you are outside of the vehicle or in case of an emergency to call the police or dispatch? Any operator found with a phone powered on while in the vehicle outside of those criteria would be suspended. Any operator found using a phone while in the vehicle outside of those criteria would be fired.
Coming up with sensible compromises....
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 3:56pm
... is why there is supposed to be bargaining over such issues.
For such emergencies as a bus breaking down, etc.,
By mplo
Thu, 06/19/2014 - 7:03pm
I myself do not wish to be caught sitting on a dead bus or MBTA subway train. Therefore, I am willing to make an exception to a "no cell phone use by drivers" rule. However, the superiors should enforce the "cellphone for emergency use only" rule, make sure that MBTA drivers don't abuse that ruling, and implement stiff penalties for those who do abuse the "cellphone use for emergency only" rule.
So I can maybe... kinda...
By Bostonrose48
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 8:52am
So I can maybe... kinda... sorta see that T employees might need their phone to call for help etc.. And then I think about it and I really can't really see it. Because honestly, in the last few years how many times have T employees needed their phones versus how many times have they caused crashes because they were on their phones.
No need for a phone
By RichM
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:00am
They have a radio to call dispatch.......
They don't cover the whole
By tk
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:54am
They don't cover the whole range of the bus routes.
Where?
By bosguy22
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:06am
Don't they cover?
A contract is a contract.
By kvn
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:04am
A contract is a contract. What if the T's fuel supplier tried to raise their contract price because they just wanted to, beyond the limits of the negotiated constraints on paper. The language of the prohibition of the cell phone must be carefully worded so as to avoid any abuses that may be caused by the mismanagement by management , or any inadvertent actions. What if an employee was putting his phone in his locker,before his scheduled punch, and an overly zealous supervisor , with perhaps an axe to grind, starts discharge procedures, harassing the employee, and causing payment of loss wages.
You don't carry a phone on duty - period!
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:08am
How is that ambigious? How can that be abused? Why is this even subject to negotiation?
Cellphones are NOT a necessity, learn to live with that.
Hey , King anon, that would
By kvn
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 5:32pm
Hey , King anon, that would be implimentation. A contract exists, thus negotiations are necessary. Thats it in a nutshell.
I'd say THAT is pretty much
By Hutch
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:53am
I'd say THAT is pretty much wrongful termination lawsuits and unions are for.
Ask the union one question
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:06am
How were family emergencies handled thirty years ago before everyone had a cell phone grafter to their ear?
Cell phones are a CONVENIENCE, not a necessity. Grow up and live with the restrictions.
How were family emergencies
By SoBoYuppie
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:14am
They weren't and people died.
- The Original SoBo Yuppie
Or
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:21am
You called the family member's office/place of work and told them you were going to the hospital.
At least I did. I forgot to tell my dad which hospital I was being taken to, but I realized it when I was in the emergency room and 10 minutes later he walked in. Good guess, Dad!
now
By johnmcboston
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:34am
And how many would have died had the bus completed it's journey over the bridge onto the highway below?
The same number as the day before
By Kaz
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:44pm
You know, when there wasn't a story about a bus hanging over the edge of a bridge for you to hang your woes on and yet you weren't concerned about the lackadaisical approach the MBTA was taking with its half-hearted cell phone policy then.
Ask the T one question
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:53am
Are those same systems that were used 30 years ago to contact a driver in an emergency still in place, working, and back up to speed?
You assume that the organizational capacity for such wasn't scrapped in an era of downsizing of "off line" personnel ... a tenuous assumption at best.
Yes, the system is still in place
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:09am
Dispatchers have direct phone lines, and train/bus operators, as well as station/depot staff, have two way radios.
And, given the amout of money the T jsut spent upgrading their radio systems, lack of radio coverage is not a valid excuse for allowing employees to keep their toys with them on duty.
Absolutely right
By Kaz
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:42pm
They should instead use the toys provided in the vehicle that require equivalent distraction from the road to operate.
It has already been proven that
By roadman
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 3:04pm
two way radios are far less of a distraction to drivers than hand-held cell phones are. Plus, the two way radios can't be used for non-business related purposes.
Still a distraction
By Kaz
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 3:23pm
So, I guess *some* risk to passenger safety is acceptable. To hear some people talk, anything that keeps the public from being as safe as possible should be banned.
Because I don't like
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:22am
Because I don't like something, DO WHAT I SAY and DONT ASK QUESTIONS
If you are on break - on your own time- you should be able to use a cell phone... for whatever reason you want. This policy (and the MBTAs unilateral implementation) is wrong.
Hooray for unions
By Lunchbox
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:07am
Putting collective bargaining procedures before public safety since 1912
Not an either-or
By Kaz
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:17am
We can have public safety AND fair treatment of employees.
I'm with the unions
By SoBoYuppie
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:13am
Almost always I am anti-union but in this case I am on their side.
These T riders are parents, they care for elderly parents..etc. They need to be able to receive a phone call from a school or neighbor.
Blindly making ALL employees leave their phones at home for the action of a few knuckleheads is not an intelligent way to solve problems.
- The Original SoBo Yuppie
Union
By BostonDog
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:52am
Maybe if the Union took a hard line on this with its members and let them know they won't defend someone accused of using a cell phone while driving we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
If the union was seen as working to solve problems as opposed to defending members clearly doing something wrong maybe the T wouldn't have to issue such a drastic policy. It bugs me how the union is the first to blame management and never owns up to one of its own people doing something really stupid.
A thoughtful comment. Thank you, BostonDog.
By issacg
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:09am
Thank you for a thoughtful comment that bypasses the typical "let's generate some outrage!" nonsense.
This nicely sums up my experience with unions. Union leadership gets stuck defending the worst apples, and the entire membership, and indeed, the institution itself, pays the price of getting tagged with the worst-performers' behavior/work ethic. The situation is, of course, tragic because we all know that there are many, many excellent workers across many professions who are union members.
That said, the situation (i.e., the public perception of unions) has gotten so bad that I recently declined a reasonably good job offer because it was a union position. I determined that for a professional like me, the potential costs of being associated with the worst apples outweighed the (otherwise generous) benefits.
I know from experience
By BostonDog
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:25am
I too have been in unions where they defend the worst people meanwhile the hardworking folks get shafted by the lazy few who don't care and hide behind the threat of filing a grievance.
There is a lot of really horrible bosses/companies and unions are needed to ensure safe working conditions, fair pay, etc. Sadly the politics of who gets elected to lead the union is even worst then government politics -- often the union is guilty of the same things they accuse "management" of doing. I've found that the worst employees also happen to be the union stewards.
If MBTA drivers have a valid safety argument the union can work to ensure the MBTA assigns them phones which can only be used to call emergency numbers and dispatch. If the drivers want to be able to conduct personal business during breaks the union can ask that phones and internet tablets be installed in the break rooms. There are ways the union can improve things for the drivers without a knee-jerk condemnation of the T's no-phone policy.
The union can't not represent
By kvn
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:22pm
The union can't not represent,it be the law. See NLRB. " failure to represent ." Stop picking on the workers, they are entitled to human dignity, union or not. The cell phone today is a major part of society , the welfare even provides for it. What is needed is reasonable, fair ,workable language in the working contract, not a flocking edict from King T to appease the hypocritical masses, who place their own wants and needs above all others. There is a way to do this properly, and this new one isn't it.
Give it a break
By BostonDog
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:50pm
So having the ability to use a cell phone whenever one wants is now a basic human right?
We're talking about not being allowed to use a cell phone while at work, a policy many (most?) of employers have. No one is forcing T drivers to lick the floors or expose themselves or anything else which might question one's dignity. No one is prohibiting them from owning and using a cell phone for the 16 hours a day they aren't on the clock.
They just can't have a personal phone with them while driving a bus/train/trolly. If they need to have constant access to a cell phone they can find another job which allows for such things. Save your outrage for real human rights violations.
So am I hypocritically putting my "want" to not have the bus crash into things above the bus driver's "need" to talk on the phone?
That's not what unions do
By merlinmurph
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 3:18pm
That's not what unions do. They exist to represent the union member, regardless of the infraction. Always.
When I worked in a union many years ago, you could get caught drinking, get fired, and the union would fight for you and often win.
Look, I'm not anti-union, but...
By Bookerman
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:20am
This is absurd. It is things like this that make me think that all unions do these days is obstruct sensible policies and make it more expensive to do business in these United States.
The hyperbole in the first paragraph is pretty amazing. Equating whether an employee can have a cell phone to some type of constitutional right that would require due process is quite a stretch. To make it further sound like we are talking about guilt or innocence is even more crazy.
And I don't know that I would call multiple crashes due to cell phones an "isolated situation." If they want to try and negotiate the way the policy is written, fine, but statements like this one are nothing more than threatening chest pounding that puts public opinion on management's side.
Maybe the rule should be something like they can have a phone, but if they are caught using it in a non-emergency situation, it is grounds for immediate termination?
Wow, I didn't know I had the
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:42am
Wow, I didn't know I had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of angry birds. Thanks T union for fighting for the man's basic rights!
Not about the phones...
By anon
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 9:44am
It is obvious this is more about due process of collective bargaining and less about drivers keeping cell phones on them.
People need to relax with the sensationalism.
Company Phones?
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:19am
I know it will cost more, but if safety truly is the issue at hand, and the current infrastructure hasn't been maintained such that if the dispatch radios (buses) don't work and the copper-line phones inside the tunnels don't work (subway), perhaps the T should issue company phones that are to be used in case of an emergency or T business only.
They are handed one at the beginning of their shift and are turned in at the end of shift. Easy to keep an eye on the transactions per phone.
Clearly a few employees have shown that they're not capable of leaving their cell phones in their bag (purse, backpack, whatever) until they're on break. This is too bad because those bad apples have spoiled the bushel. We do not need to be in contact at all times. And if someone does need to contact a driver, they can call a central number, just like we all did when we needed to call mom or dad at their office growing up.
Unless the MBTA started
By Finn
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:34am
Unless the MBTA started handing out cell phones to their drivers at some point, or if the current contract requires drivers to have cell phones while working, how can forbidding their use be called a 'workplace change'? Cell phones are brought to the work environment by the driver voluntarily, they are not required in order for the driver to do their job, and they are discouraged by the management already...so they cannot be, by definition, 'part of the workplace environment'.
On another note
By Bostonrose48
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:39am
Gotta love the comments by the union members
Makes me agree with them even less.
Threw us under the bus?
By Finn
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 10:44am
Threw us under the bus? Priceless. As for Union camaraderie, it seems Jason had no problem throwing the 'she-he' under the bus. Should be called the Massachusetts Bay Transphobia Authority. The T believes in diversity.
Really?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:21am
So a driver should risk losing their job because they can be fired for having your celphone in their possession?
Under this zero-tolerance policy, that could happen. Nobody wants to lose their job because some dimwitted passenger left a phone on a bus. (transphobic bullshit notwithstanding ...)
According to what he is
By Bostonrose48
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:31am
According to what he is saying policy states that he call central and inform them he found a lost phone. If this is the case then he has a valid reason to have a phone in his possession and can prove it (by the fact that he called someone to let them know he has a cell phone and why etc.) and any manager that fires him based on that is an asshole. In that case the union would have a legitimate reason to fight the ban.
I don't get why it has to be this complicated
By joecab
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:02am
I really don't understand why they can't simply make a rule that you cannot use a phone while on an MBTA vehicle except for cases of extreme emergency.
By imposing a strict ban they're saying their employees can't be trusted. At all. So those are the kinds of people they employ? What do they do in other major cities?
They Tried That, But It Wasn't Effective ...
By Elmer
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 12:37pm
... On multiple occasions, bus and train operators have demonstrated that carrying a cell phone results in an irresistible temptation to use it while driving.
In light of that fact, it would be irresponsible for the Ⓣ not to take every action possible to eliminate this recurring cause of accidents.
It was very fortunate that Ms. Shaw's bus didn't crash through the guardrail and off the bridge onto the Turnpike, potentially causing multiple fatalities. Clearly, it was a wakeup call for the Ⓣ to take stronger measures to address the problem.
Banning the use of cell phones didn't eliminate the danger; what else can they do now but ban them entirely? Would you rather they wait until more people are killed?
the world "we" want?
By geep9
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:11am
Let's just go straight to a world where the only rights an employee has are those granted by the employer. Seems like some many people like the idea of the gilded age. Not sure why.
American corporations....
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:14am
... are doing their best to make this a reality as soon as they possibly can.
Alas.
Indentured servitude. Debt peonage. Let's bring back the good old day.
I just can't...
By cybah
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 11:42am
I just can't even begin to comment..
Wow really? You NEED your cell phone? Really? What did people do before cell phones?
OH THE HUMANITY OF NOT HAVING A CELL PHONE WHILE WORKING. (when it isn't required for your job)
The T Union can go straight to hell on this one. Nice to know they could care less about passenger safety.
I ... just... can't.... even...
got your phone cybah?
By Dan Farnkoff
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 1:38pm
Just curious.
huh?
By cybah
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 1:40pm
what do you mean?
in case you were curious
By cybah
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 1:44pm
Unlike MBTA drivers, my phone is required for my job, so much so, my company PAYS for my cell phone and I'm required (as per my contract) to carry my work phone at all times.
I'll take your word for it.
By Dan Farnkoff
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 1:55pm
Nice to be able to use it to talk to your wife/ husband about dinner plans, post personal opinions on UHub (during your break, I hope!) or potentially get informed of a family emergency...rights you would deny all MBTA employees because a few morons couldn't understand the policy. Easier to keep the whole class after school than find the jackass who threw the spitballs. Surprise field inspections would seem to be a smarter idea than a blanket ban on possession. In any event, I don't favor unilateral contract changes. Undermines whole labor relations process, as Kaz and others suggested.
But
By cybah
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:10pm
Why do I need to do that? I have a computer to do that from. I also have an office phone to make calls from.
In all seriousness, I don't drive a 3 Ton machine with 60+ passengers on it for my job. [b] BIG DIFFERENCE [/b]
Stop trying to make a connection with 'other workers' and denying rights. What RIGHT is there to carry a cell phone while working, especially while driving a bus with helpless passengers on it. Oh ya, there are none. A cell phone is not a god given right.
If you don't like the rules, you can find another job that suits your values and what is acceptable for phone usage at work. It's just that simple. No one is forcing MBTA employees to stay.
Well if you feel that way because some 'morons' didn't follow the rules. Poopoo on them. If self-policing worked, we would not be having this discussion right now. End of story.
The rules
By Kaz
Wed, 06/18/2014 - 2:15pm
The rules say that the union gets to fight this as it sees fit because that's how collective bargaining works.
If you don't like the rules...don't pretend to hide behind the ones you like and ignore the ones you don't.
Pages
Add comment