From 2012
Interview with Ron Heintzman - Portland Afoot
This interview with Ron Heintzman, ATU Local 757 presidential candidate in June 2012, was conducted May 31 and excerpted in a blog post and in Portland Afoot's 10-minute newsmagazine for June 2012.
Portland Afoot editor Michael Andersen: You were first president in 88, right?
Ron Heintzman: Yes, in 1988.
PA: How did that go down? What was your introduction to the leadership?
RH: I had been in the transit police dept at trimet, as a
transit police officer, and in 1988, prior to that, we were experiencing
a lot of problems with our small department. And that kind of gave me
the push to run for office, because we tried to make some changes and we
just weren't very successful.
PA: What were the changes?
RH: Just working conditions. We thought we needed. .. what
we thought at the time is that the union was not responsive to us
because w ere such a small dept compared to the majority of poepe who
were bus drivers. That was really the catalyst for me to get involved.
So I decided we needed to change things and needed to get involved. So I
decided to run. I had never had a union position before. I ran for
union president and was elected in july of 88.
PA: Cool. And just out of the blue. Had you been on the executive board
RH: No. I had held no position with ATU at all. Back then,
of course, up to July of 1988, the real concern among trimet and their
passengers was safety. And of course that was my specialty, being in the
transit safety department. So we had a lot of ideas of imporvemsnts
that needed to be made to be sure the transit system was safe. And I
think that was one of the things that kind of put me up in a position
where I could be electable.
PA: What were those improvements?
RH: One, we felt that TriMet needed to have more dedicated
transit police. At that time I think we had 15, and with all the
problems with TriMet systems, that just didn't seem to be enough.
PA: And how many of them are there now? There are like, dozens.
RH: Well, of course it transferred to the Portland Police
Bureau in '89. And the last thing I saw on TV was a report that there's
up to around 60.
PA: That sounds right.
RH: And I'm sure that's probably still not enough.
PA: Yeah. I didn't realize that the cops were paid by TriMet. They were all TriMet instead of being on contract.
RH: In fact, when I went back to work in 1982, I was a
transit police officer. Of course, mass transit districts in the state
of oregon hav ethe authority to hire sworn police officers just like the
city or municipality. So they were lal sworn police officres. They had
to meet the same requirements as Portland police officers or any
sheriff's office in the state. They were all trained at the police
academy. And so that was in place probably about 10 years. And then when
I took over as president in 1988, we had negotiations the following
year, 1989. And the TriMet general manager at the time, James Cowen,
approached me with the interest of subcontracting with the Portland
Police Bureau. He just always had a problem with the bus companies being
in the police business. And I too had some frustrations and some of the
folks in the transit police unit as far as the supervisoin. They were
being supervised by people who really had no expertise in law
enforcement. And they thought they were just spinning their wheels in a
lot of respects, taking direction from people who were probably good at
their own fields of finance or administration but not having the
professional background. But so we were able to reach an agreement where
we entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the city of
Portland. Of course, the state laws were such – and they're still that
way today – that if one public entity absorbs the functions of another
entity, that certain rights are brought forward. For example, pension,
retirement, health insurance, things like that. Seniority. So when we
agreed to allow them to transfer that function to the Portland Police
Bureau, then all those police officers were brought over.
PA: What was your background before joining TriMet?
RH: Actually, I was in college. I was in ROTC. I was
commissioned 2nd Lieutenant back in 1975. I served two years of active
duty in military police. I served that time in Fort Hood, Texas. After
my active duty service, I went to work for the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission. And I served as a liquor agent there from about 1977 to
1982, when I went to work for TriMet.
PA: And then you did police academy after that and so on and were put in...
RH: I actually did the police academy when I was at the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
PA: Oh, are those sworn officers?
RH: They're peace officers. Pretty much the same thing,
there's just a little difference in stature. I think the only difference
between a police officer and a peace officer is that a peace officer
cannot obtain a warrant. At least back then, that was the primary
difference. And at the same time I had attended Washington State
University, graduated in 1975, and then I attended when I was working
for the liquor control commission, I went back to the university of
Portland and got my master's degree in '82.
PA: In what?
RH: Criminal justice.
PA: So then you were elected in '88, remained president through '02.
RH: Right. I was elected to five terms. The terms were all
three years. And then in August of 2002, I was appointed international
vice president. And that role, I primarily worked in the western part of
the United States. And the primary function of the international vice
president is assisting locals in negotiating their collective bargaining
agreements. In the ATU, there's about 300 locals within the United
States and Canada, so there's 16 international vice presidents in the US
and two in Canada. So I stayed in that, I was appointed in August of
2002, and then I ran for election at two subsequent conventions and then
in June of 2009, I was appointed executive vice president. I moved back
to Washington, to washington DC in the No. 2 position. I stayed in that
position until July of 2010 when the international president at the
time, Warren George, decided to step down. That was three months before
the convention, in September, so I became the international president in
July of 2010 and then I lost the election on September 30 of that year.
PA: Yeah. And George appointed you to the vice president position as well, initially?
RH: No. Jim Lasalle, James Lasalle, was the international president at the time. He's the one who appointed me.
PA: George's predecessor?
RH: Yeah.
PA: And there was also this election in '01, where you initially lost but then that was thrown out?
RH: That was in 2000. In 2000, I lost in a runoff to Wally
Feist by I think 9 or 14 votes. And members subsequently filed a
challenge. The challenge was based on there were new employees who had
come to work at TriMet who were not allowed to vote. And according to
the DOL, it appeared that they should have had the right to vote. So the
local first had to come back to the election whether to redo that
election, and that happened – it passed by a very slim margin – and then
the international ordered that a new election be held. This was all
within a time frame of about 90 days.
PA: So why should you be president?
RH: Well, I think you look around the country rigiht now,
you look at Wisconsin, you look at Ohio, public-sector unions
particularly are under attack. I think we're going to see more
right-to-work legislation come out in states you probably never would
have expected it to be introduced in. I know in the past they've tried
it here in the state of oregon and were unsuccessful, but that's not
going to stop them. I'm sure they're going to be back. But I look at
that situation and it's pretty similar to the local here in Portland. I
look at all the contracts that the local has, which is about 23, and
rigiht now I think there's something like 12 open, and within the next
few months there's going to be more. And some of these have been open
for a long period of time and the reason for that is that they haven't
been able to settle. And it's getting tougher. Almost every employer
says that the economics of the day don't warrant any types of increases.
In fact, most of the employers are coming to the bargaining table with
takeaways. And that's the same here. Since I've been back since October
of 2010, I've been doing some part-time work for the local and attending
hearings, arbitrations and some negotiations. And I'm seeing it's
tough. It's really tough right now. The thing that was really alarming
to me, though, is the relationship the union has with TriMet. I've been
there since I went to work at TriMEt in 82, so I've been there for 30
years, and I've been there under four different managers. And I have to
say that we had some difficult times throughout that 30-year time
period. But for the most part, we were always able to get to a deal or
get to where labor relations were back on track and people were working
for much benefit. I see the current leadership as the most anti-union in
the entire history. And I feel strongly about that. I think the current
general manager, Neil McFarlane, is a nice guy, but he's in the wrong
job. Back in 2009, I believe when Fred Hansen informed me that he was
stepping down and that Neil McFarlane's going to take his position, my
first response to Fred was, who? And then he explained to me that he
comes from the planning department, had been in capital projects. Like I
said, nice person, probably those jobs he did extremely well. But he's
just not cut out to be GM. He doesn't know how to work the bus. And when
your largest part of your workforce is union, you see the obvious
important priority that you want to try and establish. What I see as the
problem is because he has no experience, I don't think personally he's
that strong that sometimes you might have to be to be the general
manager of TriMet. And so he's relying on his senior subordinates. And
most of them are extremely anti-union. They've been anti-union as long
as they've been at TriMet. Some have been there for a while. The
difference is between now and the prior general managers, the prior
general managers being Fred Hansen and Tom Walsh, that they had to at
least have some type of relationship with the union, and they were both
political and they understood the process. And they've been there
before. And so while we did have our disputes from time to time, at the
end of the day they knew that to continue a fight with the union was not
in their best interest. And especially if they wanted to continue to
operate the system, now TriMet's been judged as one of the best TriMet
systems in the country. And we attribute that to the worksers. They're
the people who made it. Those are the people the passengers interact
with on a daily basis. So that's the difference between the current
administration and the administration in the past. We don't have a
leader, and he's kind of let his subordinates make the decisions.
They're – as I've said before and I'll continue to say – they're
extremely anti-union. So we're in for battle. This current contract
dispute, I think that's just a start. So when people ask me why am I
running for president, my first response is that I really have not
planned on it, no intentions to come back and run. But I see how
dangerous things look at TriMet in respect to wages and benefits as
we've been able to negotiate over the last 30 years. And TriMet has
vowed to take those away. And had they approached it like most folks
would have and said we need to see some changes long term, we would have
been able to say, okay, we can do this, we can step in this. That's how
we make change. You don't make substantial change with one swoop. And
that's what this administration has tried to do in the present contract
dispute. We've been at this for almost three years. I can tell you that
numerous negotiation sessions, we actually offered more than what the
parties presented during the arbitration proceeding. But the problem was
that that was never enough. They wanted insurance reform, they wanted
wage reform, they wanted pension reform, and I kept saying at the time,
you know, McFarlane, I said, You can't expect to get all of those in one
swoop. You have to be practical. You have to be realistic. The
membership is not going to stand for that. If you want to find some
reasonable ways, we're willing. But as long as you continue to take
those positions, we're not ever going to get to a point.
PA: I want to get to the details of the contract, but I
want to follow up on some things you said. So you see McFarlane as more
of an engineer? I sometimes feel like he sees the union as basically a
source of inefficiency in the system. Like, why don't people just take
the wages that are offered, and...
RH: Right. He sees things exactly as an engineer. Black
and white, there's no grey area. And I think his background at TriMet, I
mean, he was in engineering and planning and capital projects. It's a
whole different world when you're put into the top position where 2500
of your employees belong to a union. You have to find a way to work with
them, even though you might not like it and you might not like the
people who are in charge, you have to find a way or else that's not
going to be successful.
PA: Would you dispute that the union has a very good
contract? From my perspective, I'll say, it seems to me that the union
has a great deal. And there's no shame in that, the union's negotiated a
good deal. Because of the work you've put in over the years, you've
been unusually successful at getting these great benefits on the
contract. And obviously anybody in those shoes would fight to keep what
they've got. But would you agree with the premise that this is an
excellent contract right now?
RH: Oh, I would say that it is. And I would say, correctly
as you stated, I've negotiated those contracts since '88. The one thing
that infuriates me though is that in the current dispute is talking
about insurance. And TriMet is first to say they've got the best
insurance in the entire country. That's not true.
PA: But how could it be better?
RH: Well, there's different programs. There's some
programs that don't even have a $5 copay. But the point that needs to be
made is that you can't just pick one part of the compensation package
out. You have to look at the whole package. And you have to look at
wages, you have to look at insurance, sick leave, vacation, pension.
That's the only way you're going to get a true apples to apples. So for
Neil McFarlane and his staff to be saying, oh, they've got the best in
the country, it's not true and it's not a fair representation. Now one
thing – and I've said this long – people who drive bus for 20 or 25
years tend to have lots of medical issues. They have back problems, all
types of problems. Urinary problems. And in fact once you look at people
once they work 20, 25 years and retire, we have a high mortality rate.
They don't live that long afterwards. So back starting in '88, when we
went to the bargaining talbe for the first time, our priority was in
getting the best benefits for our people. And I'm talking insurance. So
you can look back at those five collective bargaining agreements back to
1988 and you can compare if you want to, like Neil McFarlane's been
doing, say, oh, look at the state employee wages compared to ours. Well,
if you look at them, you'll see that they got higher percentage
increases than we did. The reason is because we chose to take less in
wages and less in other areas to focus on the health insurance. Because
we know for the people we represent that's the most important thing for
them, is to have health insurance. Because they're going to need it,
especially when they get older. So that's why we did what we did. And I
call that smart bargaining. Because we were more concerned about the
people. And so now, there's enough studies that have been done that
really clearly illustrate that driving a bus for 20, 25 years is a real
hazard.
PA: Yeah, that makes sense. I looked at the compensation
of the 25 bus agencies the closest in size to TriMet – figuring, you
know, it's harder to drive a bus in a big city than in a small town and
so on – in terms of wages, TriMet was a little bit below average. In
terms of the health care per worker, it was a little bit above average.
The thing that doesn't measure is the post-employment health care. And
that's one of the things that TriMet's most remarkable, you know,
providing the same deal for retirees after they retire at 55 after 10
years of service they always mention. And those are the costs that
terrify me as a transit rider and somebody who's thinking about the
future of transit service. Every single year that goes by, we've got $75
million in further obligations stacking up. It's going to be a billion
dollars or so in the new audit later this year, that TriMet has
completely failed to save any money for. That's not the workers' fault
that the agency has failed to save any money to pay the workers, and the
way that it can change is either they cut those promises out of the
workers' contract, or they reduce those promises and raise taxes, or
they just raise taxes more, or they cut service. It seems like it has to
come out of one of htose three things.
RH: I would agree with you in respect that part of
trimet's problem, probably the majority of their problem is poor
management. I think that's very reflective. If you look at the last two
years, some of the stupid decisions that have come out of Neil
McFarlane's administration, it would make one think. But again, it comes
back to okay, let's say that trimet really – and I don't agree
completely that they're as bad off as they claim. I've been here a long
time. I can remember in '85, we had to take a 5% wage rollback that we
never got back. 5%. We didn't realize until the next contract that we
were in dispute, we were able to get public documents, we found that
back in 1985, all union employees got a 5% wage (de)crease, seven months
later, TriMet management gave themselves a 10% wage increase. 1992,
they were screaming poverty even more than we are today. If you
rememeber, we almost went on strike in 1992. They said they have never
been that devastated in terms of financial. Every time I've gone to the
bargaining talbe with them, I hear that same story. So next one comes
up, and I remember of course Fred Hansen was still the general manager.
And I was back in Washington at the time. And Fred called me and said he
was going to be back there and would like to get together and chat. So
of course we'd worked together, and we knew each other through work. And
he started laying the same crap on me. And I said, c'mon, Fred, get off
of this shit. You've done this every time you've come to the table.
Now, I said, if you legitimately have a problem, we can try and work
something out. But get off this idea that you're going to make all these
whole-scale changes because your people screwed up. It's not going to
happen. And I said, so if you have some reasonable things – now, I think
if Fred had stayed, we would have had this thing settled, because
that's the difference between him and McFarlane. He knows at some point
you've got to get to a deal. McFarlane doesn't understand that. I don't
think he has the capacity.
PA: But the money has to come from somewhere. People who
are watching, I think, appreciate that you've got a good point on the
history here. But the problem is that the operating budget is 300, 400
million, and the annual deficit is 75 million. And that's just to keep
up with the current obligations, right? That's just to keep up. So even
if they could, like, cut that in half. Even if they could cut the
retiree benefits so much that they cut that in half. That would still be
three size of the service cuts we're getting this year. The fare hikes.
That would be colossal.
RH: If you believe that they're as financially distraught
as they claim. Now I can tell you we just went through the four days of
hearings. And on the last day, they took full days to do their
presentation. They brought in militia, I mean it was unbelievable. But
the final witness on their side was their finance person. And they
admitted that they had a balanced budget.
PA: That doesn't include the OPEB, though.
RH: But that's because, if you look at that, they had a
responsibility to start looking at that back. So look at who's
responsible, I think TriMet. There's no question that they are having
some finanical problems. So what's the best way to resolve it? So the
employees who have worked for 30-plus years should just give it all up
because TriMet management is incompetent and they screwed things up? I
mean, let's get to the paratransit. Now here's something. This is
another example here. For years, we always said to TriMet, you're
spending too much on paratransit. You need to bring it in house. TriMet
would always say you're full of crap. We're paying a lot less, it's much
cheaper to subcontract. So in 1998, I luckily convinced Tom Walsh to
put a provision in the contract that says the parties mutually agree to
pick an independent audit firm and conduct the audit.
PA: So I read the audit. And it seemed to me that from
reading the audit, TriMet's critique of this is accurate, that the audit
was comparing apples to oranges. It was looking at the cost of a
front-line employee and comparing that to the fully-loaded cost of the
contractor which includes management and support and all that stuff.
RH: What that brought out was if you brought them all up
to speed at TriMet wages, benefits, which was never the proposal, or you
take them as they were in 2004, which was the last budget year, if you
take them how they were and just bring them over, the auditing firm
found that if you just brought it over, they would save over $3 million.
That was back on 2004 numbers.
PA: But that doesn't include any of the management cost of supporting those extra employees, right?
RH: Yes it does. And that's the dispute right now that
TriMet has come out. Instead of going back to that audit firm that was
independent – see remember in the past we'd always had the problem
TriMet would do theirs, we'd do ours – so we got them to agree, now,
remember we put that 1998 agreement, it took us almost 8 years before,
'cause we had to sue 'em to even perform the audit. Once Tom Walsh I
believe who was in charge of that agreed, his management staff went
bezerk. And then they refused to comply. So we filed unfair labor
practice, we had to go to the Employment Relations Board, and they had
to compel them to actually perform the audit. The relevant part of that
audit is that based on 2004 figures, they could save $3.2 million by
just bringing in-house. And that took into account supervision,
everything. So now we're here and what we said to TriMet when we brought
it up was we said you could probably save $7-plus million today by just
bring it in-house. Now all Neil MCFarlane keeps responding back is,
well if we bring 'em in house, they get paid, I say get off that crap.
We're not saying bring 'em in and be paid the same as TriMet. Other
places around the country where we brought in paratransit, we brought
'em in at where they're at and then slowly over time, slowly tried to
improve and bring 'em up. But our proposal, so he comes back to no, no,
'Our staff looked...' And remember that was the problem before 1988. We
could never rely on their staff figures, they could never rely on ours.
That's why we all agreed and picked and they provided the numbers. So
what we said to TriMet a few months back, all right, this study was
based on 2004 budget. Let's recommission the auditor indpendent and give
him the new numbers, through 2011. And let's come up with a report.
They refused to. You know why they refused to? Because they knew damn
well that his report would come back and find that they could save $7
million.
PA: Why wouldn't they want to save that money?
RH: Because they don't want to get out of the paratransit
subcontract business. Let me tell you, in 1994, Tom Walsh was general
manager. I actually during the contract negotiations, we got him to
agree to bring paratransit in-house and we even went as far as we came
up with the wages because we just (inaudible). And that was another
example of after we had reached that tenatitive agreement, he came back
and said, do you know how much politics is involved in that? Do you
realize how many politically powerful people in this community and we're
going to take the profits away from these private providers?
PA: Yeah, well, that's either Peter or Paul, right?
RH: That's right. But you'd think that if they were
serious instead of having their staff – and you understand that their
staff has done their own audit, and that really is worthless, because we
all agreed, in fact after we finally had to take them into court and
sue them, then the big thing was we all had to agree on the parameters.
And you can bet your life that TriMet, that their top people were
involved in every goddamn step, and only when we all agreed, that's when
the study went forward.
PA: So if you're right about the LIFT issue, and despite
management's objectives to your interpretation of it, you may well be
right. If that's the case, we're still talking about less than 10% of
this essentially the deficit we're borrowing from the future of TriMet.
And everyone's borrowing from it. The riders are borrowing from it when
they ride, the drivers are borrowing from it when they're in the seat.
Everybody's doing it. And where does the rest of that money come from?
Are there other things you can identify that are able to be solved in
the time frame? Considering this is 10% and it's taken you 10 years to
even start talking about that, how are you ever going to address the
other 90% without a massive cut to service or to workers' benefits or to
taxpayers?
RH: Well, I think this. I think if you assume that what
TriMet is telling you is true, which I don't, so if you assume, my
response is...
PA: The $75 million, that's an outside auditor. That's not TriMet either.
RH: Right, right. So they're telling the public that 2013,
they've got a 12-17 million shortfall. Well, right there I see the
paratransit as $7 million.
PA: That's a short-term issue. I'm trying to distinguish
between the short-term 12/15 – and I think there's fudge room on that –
but there's not fudge room on the $75 million a year.
RH: If you're asking me, do I agree that because TriMet's
found itself in the situation, and that the taxpayers in the system want
to continue the same level of service without the funding, should our
people take the fall? No. Absolutely not. Are we willing to try and work
with you to try and reduce some of the cost? Yes. But we're not going
to be the scapegoat. So if people think that well, you know, by god
because they want to continue the level of service that the public does
not finance, and I've seen this around the country – then what do you
do? If the public is saying to you, we're not going to give you the
money to keep funding the level of service, what should be the next
logical step?
PA: I don't know.
RH: Reduce the service. You cannot – we cannot be in a
position to be out trying to provide the same level of service if the
funding's been reduced by 50%.
PA: You're saying you'd rather have the service reduced than to convince taxpayers to increase taxes?
RH: I would say it's a combo. One is, I'd say that's one
area. I'd say two, when we talk about we could sit down and come up with
ways to reduce. I'm just saying we're not willing to take the entire
burden. So when people say, well, we're so broke today so by god the bus
drivers and maintenance people should take a 50% … we don't think
that's right. We don't think that's fair. So I'm saying there's
solutions, but it's gotta be give and take on both sides, not one.
PA: So you'd say that service should sacrifice, taxpayers should sacrifice and employees should sacrifice?
RH: Rather than the employees shouldering the entire burden.
PA: Okay. So that also implies that you wouldn't support a
status quo or something. You're not writing off the possibility of
takebacks. You're saying that they shouldn't happen in as draconian
fashion as they're proposed.
RH: Right. And I think if you look back now, I can say
that when we were in negotiations and mediation, we're willing to look
at ways to change insurance. We came up with all kinds of insurance plan
designs to change, reduce. But we never got past it, because it's like
you're talking you've got this big amount and they want it all to come
from us right now today. Despite 35 years of collective bargaining. They
want it right now.
PA: Well, it's not all going to solve the problem. This is
the last thing, I want to move on to other stuff. But even their
proposal will only cut that $75 million by you know, $20 million or
something like that. It would be a partial solution. Now, of course in
another six months they're going to come back and ask for more, I
assume.
RH: And once we get this arbitration settlement, it only
goes through November of this year. In a few more months, we're going to
be back bargaining, doing the whole thing all over again.
PA: Yeah. All right. So I should move along. I want to hit
you with a couple sort of personal questions and then move to things
your opponents say about you. Okay? What's the best and worst part of
being a union president?
RH: I think the best part is sometimes you can really see
your accomplishments and how they really affect not just the employees
but families?
PA: Was there a particular time when that was clear to you? Any story you've got?
RH: Well, I think when I've negotiated wages and benefits
that people receive today, I think a bus driver can afford to send their
kids to college. Years before that, I don't think that was true.
There's a lot of people out here working who don't earn a living wage to
be able to pay and send their kids to college. But I think what our bus
drivers have earned and through collective bargaining, I think that's
probably one of the most proudest things, is seeing they're actually
able to do things in their lives. And I think a lot of it had to do with
the union and collectively bargaining and improving upon those
standards of living.
PA: Yeah, all right. And what's the worst part?
RH: Worst part is I think if the membership right now is
up to 4300, you have 4300 individual bosses. And sometimes to try and
find a balance to where you're never going to make them all happy, but
to try and find a balance in time is tough. So that's the tough part of
this job, is you have to keep in mind that you're doing this for the
membership in general. And of course, most of us, human nature says that
we're most interested in what's going to work for me, what do I need?
So that's the balancing act.
PA: Yeah, that makes sense. So I got to talk to Tom and
Bruce so far, so I'm going to run past their critiques of your work, and
then if you have critiques of them, I'm going to hit them again. Things
I've heard include – both of these guys said your base of support in
these elections has been these outlying properties that you've added to
the union's area. And Bruce actually said that was why you had organized
them, that you saw your base of support in the local body falling down,
and you knew that if you organized the new unit that they would have
loyalty to you and your sort of – faction.
RH: Well, I think the second thing you said that because
you organized them, they'd have loyalty. Think back to what we just
talked about, about having 4300 bosses. Unless you've done a good or
respectful job in representing folks, whether they're from TriMet or
from outside, then I don't think you can really say that. I would say,
though, that I believe those comments are just as unqualified as some of
the other things that I've heard come from Bruce and who else?
PA: I talked to Tom Strader.
RH: Oh. (waves hand) I think if you look back at previous
elections, his contention that I didn't get my support from TriMet would
not hold up. Because if you look at the votes, and you can look after
the election the breakdown of where the votes would come – even if you
were to assume that the winning candidate got every vote from outside
TriMet, they could not win unless they got a substantial from here.
Also, I would say that probably the strongest voting block at TriMet:
retirees. And they vote. Both for membership and elections runner-up, 40
to 50 percent. That's all that take the time to vote. But retirees are
up to around 70%, 75%. And I would have to say this: that retirees have
always been a passion, that I believe strongly that we always have to
protect them, and that's why in this election we've got the unanimous
endorsement of the retiree chapter.
PA: I didn't know that. Okay, great. Other endrosements you'd want to note?
RH: Well, I would say that the outlying properties, the
executive board officers have endorsed us. Lane Transit, Salem Transit,
C-Tran. As far as TriMet, the executive board officers right now, I
don't know for sure, but I'd say that all but maybe two are now
supporting us. And I think that when things (inaudible) out, I've gotten
lots of phone calls which make me feel pretty good, because you know,
we were talking last year that what we need is Ron Heintzman to get back
here and take this over, and then we get your flyer and oh my god, it's
true. So whether that's going to translate into a win, but I feel
that's what I bring. Is if we're going to fight off the most anti-union
administration we've ever dealt with, we're going to have to have
somebody who can lead.
PA: When did you decide you're going to run.
RH: You know, Jon Hunt had approached me a couple months
back, and I just never gave it much thought. And my response was, Jon, I
have no intentions of...
PA: Did he approach you asking if you were going to?
RH: He approached me saying I would like you to run.
Because, he said, it's not about me, it's about a solid team. And he
realizes that TriMet – it's others as well – but he realized that we're
in a war. And so he said, I know that people will say, how come I'm
stepping down. It's not about me. I'm stepping down because it's the
best thing for the members.
PA: Did the DUI play into that?
RH: I don't know. He never brought it up. I think there's
some people out there who think it would have. I personally don't think
it's as big of a deal as people think. Because, okay, look, if you give
it back, that's what we're about, giving people second chances. If you
look at TriMet, at the number of people that's been convicted of drunken
driving, and are still doing their job at TriMet because they're good
employees, that's what we're here for. You know, we screw up. People
make mistakes in life. But if you learn from that, you're going to be
punished. So while I think some for political reasons are spouting that,
I think the majority of our membership realize that Jon has done a good
job as president and yeah, he made a mistake, but he's admitted it, and
so I don't think that's a – I think politically I think it's an issue,
but for the people spouting that –
PA: As a practical matter, it shouldn't be.
RH: Yep.
PA: You guys are running essentially on a ticket. You've
got the joint sign up, I saw in the garage. And he also hired you to
work as a consultant here. When you lost the international election.
I've heard folks say that these guys are buddies. Jon saved Ron's ass
when he got fired from the international, and now he's making big bucks
down as a consultant here, and he's just going to come in and make sure
Jon keeps his office and keep the power structure in place.
RH: Well, you know, my response is my role in the union
since I've been back is primarily to do hearings, that's what I have –
so in about 15 I have to head out to TriMet – so I've probably done 18
to 20 arbitrations, and the reason it was Jon's decision to hire me, but
the board approved it, was that my cost compared to the attorney's is a
difference of like, maybe a thousand dollars per case to $15,000. So
that's why the board, when Jon proposed – because, they again because of
the relationship with TriMet, they've got a backlog of over 100
grievances.
PA: Obviously, you're an experienced negotiator.
RH: And the union is having financial – things are tough
all over. That's why I was brought back. And the fact that I say that
some of my opponents, I think it became real clear in the hearing that
we just went through, TriMet, they probably had 15 witnesses on the
stand. The union had me. We went back. None of those people at TriMet
had the history, had the knowledge. And I was able to go back to '88,
the first contract, because I've done every one since then. I'm the one
that probably wrote the majority of it. I think history is absolutely
imperative. Management changes. If your union leadership changes on a
regular basis, you lose it all. And I think that's one of the reasons
why people should vote for me. You've got history here, you've got
experience, and I'm proud of it.
PA: I want to ask two more very important questions, then
we'll get some photos and we'll be done. So these guys describe you as a
bully who doesn't run the operation democratically. This wasn't
exactlly while I think you were in charge, but they cite the 2003
contract people had to go out to the airport, they had one day to go
out, look at it, and the packet wasn't available anywhere else, you had
to sign off yes or no on the contract, and that's not, they're saying, a
way to have a democratically approved contract. People talk about the
meetings that you've run, that you and allies shout down opponents and
criticism. Do you have any response to that?
RH: My response to that is, am I a hard-ass? Absolutely
yes. I don't believe in nonsense and I don't believe in wasting time. So
you know, if somebody has a predictive point, I certainly listen, but
if people are going to be talking crap, then I don't stand for it. So
that's one of the reasons why people say it. They also, there's a
faction that doesn't like me because one of the toughest things in this
job is to tell somebody no. And of course we have grievances filed all
the time, probably 50 a week with all properties. And a lot of those are
not grievances. And a responsible union officer is to look an employee
in the face and say, you know, I understand your concerns, but it's not a
grievance. The problem is, we have too many, like the ones who I think
are making those challenges, who take everything to the grievance
procedure. Oh yeah, by god, they're (inaudible). So I have people who
don't like me. They think I'm too hard. But I'll say this: we didn't get
to where we're at today if you're chicken. And I use that one of my
favorites you know is Humphrey, Hubert Humphrey, and that speech he gave
to labor before he died was – and I subscribe to this – I'd rather live
one year as a tiger than a hundred years as a chicken. And that's
exactly how I feel.
PA: How much is your contract worth with the union right now?
RH: I work 20 hours a month, and I get paid 50 an hour.
PA: And is this your part-time office, or is it just your –
RH: I met here because you wanted to.
PA: Great. So I read the Nick Budnick piece from
Willamette Week from '01 or '00 or something like that. Did you have
somebody forge Walsh's signature to sign a document and make a lot of
money?
RH: No. And if you read that, of course they also filed
complaints with the IRS and that has all been resolved. There was no
wrongdoing. What they tried to claim was that we forged Tom Walsh's
name. Tom Wallace was the person who signed it.
PA: Wasn't it signing on the line that Tom Walsh was supposed to sign?
RH: No. It said "TriMet," it didn't say "GM."
PA: Well, why would he be signing there?
RH: Because he was – it was just – I don't remember
exactly right now what that form was, but it was all legit. And, as I
said before Willamette Weekly filed the complaint with the IRS, if I had
done something illegal, don't think they would have done something?
No comments:
Post a Comment