[sustran] Follow up to Dr. Pendakur's comments

[Wendell Cox]

Did I miss Dr. Pendakur's comment? Not sure what you are referring to....

But you have it "right on" in terms of the impacts of higher than market
labor costs on the very people we are trying to serve.

Issue isnt unionization --- I have no problem with unionization --- my
problem is that in a non-competitive environment unionizatoin tends to raise
costs above market, through higher labor costs and ineffective work rules. I
know that there is a tendency to believe that this increase is paid for by
owners, but it is not --- it is paid for by consumers and taxpayers, who for
the most part have their wages and work conditions established in the market.

US experience in competitive industries is clear --- unions have little
impact on the level of employee compensatoin or even on work rules. US
competitive tendering examples show this, where the same unions that
represent public agency employees represent private employees --- in the
private sector, however, market compensation seems sufficient to satisfy
unions (since they really have no choice). Best example is in Seattle..
though there are others.

The fundamental question is this.... Does public transport exist for the
purpose of providing mobility (and an alternative to the auto) or does it
exist for the benefit of the workers. If it is the latter, then there is no
public purpoe in its being subsidized, and anyway subsidies will largely be
used to benefit labor, not the public (which of course has happened). As
public transport gears up for greater subsidy support, the real question is
whether there will be value for the new money --- if there is not then all
of the talk of moving auto trips to public transport will be of no greater
value than the periodic recitation of the ten commandments.

Best regards,
Wendell Cox

>
>Dr. Pendakur gets to what is often the unspoken difference in
>viewpoints for the debate on contracting. We can often agree that
>contracting saves money, but it is ultimately a value question
>whether we want to push wages as low as they can be driven
>just because we have the power to do it.
>
>My personal viewpoint is that I am often at odds with some
>unions in the US over their work rules and perhaps overly generous
>compensation in some cases. But it is because this means that we receive
>less service under inadequate public service budgets and that people at
>the very bottom often get hurt.  It is not because I begrudge workers a
>middle class income. In a country where 50 percent of the population
>receive only 20 percent of the income, I support unionization
>as a matter of social equity.  The prevailing political opinion
>and many transportation professionals obviously disagrees with me.
>
>Eric Bruun
>
>
>
>On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Dr. V. S. Pendakur wrote:
>
>> 
>> There is susstantial experience ( number of systems and number of years )
>> in this regardamong the smaller transit systems in British Columbia here. 
>> There are sevral success stories and also several complex experiences. 
>> Success stories,generally,  combine compatible land use planning within the
>> transit corridors.  Complex ones involve competetive bidding by new comers
>> essentiaslly offering lower wages and benefits to new employees a la Wall
>> Mart.  There are some major questions of social policy in this context
>> unlike say in the US where these questions are noty considered important or
>> significant in the transit field.
>> 
>> cheers.
>> ****************************************************
>> Dr. V. Setty Pendakur
>> School of Community and Regional Planning
>> University of British Columbia
>> Vancouver, BC, Canada  V6T 1Z2
>> 1-604-822-3394-voice, 1-604-822-3787-fax
>> ***************************************************
>> 
>> ----------
>> > From: Wendell Cox  <wcox at publicpurpose.com>
>> > To: Jon Caldara <joncaldara at aol.com>; Hil Hornung <subway33 at aol.com>;
>> Jerry Schneider <jbs at u.washington.edu>; Bill Barton <bbarton at xmission.com>;
>> Steve Buckstein <cascadepol at aol.com>; George Watts <gwatts at lochrie.com>;
>> Steve Excell <excell at cris.com>; Don Shoup <shoup at ucla.edu>; Gen Giuliano
>> <giuliano at almaak.usc.edu>; Harry Richardson <hrichard at usc.edu>; James Moore
>> <jmoore at almaak.usc.edu>; John Kain <johnkain at husc.harvard.edu>; Charles
>> Lave <calave at orion.oac.uci.edu>; Martin Wachs
>> <MWACHS at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>; Mel Webber <webber at ced.berkeley.edu>; Peter
>> Gordon <pgordon at almaak.usc.edu>; Greg Schwann Schwann
>> <g.schwann at auckland.ac.nz>; Ken Small <ksmall at uci.edu>; Victor Regnier
>> <regnier at usc.edu>; pickrell at volpe1.dot.gov; MWACHS at UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU;
>> Catherine G. Burke <cburke at almaak.usc.edu>; utsg at mailbase.ac.uk;
>> sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
>> > Subject: [sustran] Wall Street Journal Public Transport Editorial
>> > Date: Wednesday, September 03, 1997 5:44 AM
>> > 
>> > This morning's Wall Street Journal carries an editorial on urban public
>> > transport: "Getting There." Them is competitive tendering (competitive
>> > contracting) and failure of the US federal subsidy program to increase
>> > public transport ridership.
>> > 
>> > Available at the following address to subscribers --- 2 week free trial
>> is
>> > available.
>> > 
>> >
>> https://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB873237388293645500.ht
>> m
>> > 
>> > Entry to the site is at
>> > 
>> > http://www.wsj.com
>> > 
>> > Best regards,
>> > Wendell Cox
>> > WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
>> > International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic
>> Planning
>> > The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
>> > http://www.publicpurpose.com
>> > Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
>> > P.O. Box 8083;. Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
>> > 
>> 
>
>
>
WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
http://www.publicpurpose.com
Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
P.O. Box 8083;. Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA