Food service is returning to (some) of the state's government-run ferries after a year-and-a-half absence.
The article fails to mention the reason why there was such a long gap in onboard food service -- an extortion mafia called the Inlandboatmen's Union somehow managed to convince the state legislature to prohibit passengers from purchasing food on board the ferries unless the IBU got a skim of the revenue.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 11, 2005 04:02 PM | Email ThisAnd there ought to be more large private car Ferry companies as well.
The prices are high, and the service and number of routes and runs are low. Sounds like a state monopoly.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 11, 2005 04:19 PMThere you go making sense again.
Posted by: Amused by l,iberals on July 11, 2005 04:21 PMThat phrase seems like more than an exaggeration, Stefan, when your links refer to a union representing its members in wage and working condition negotiations -- and nothing more.
Posted by: Northern Coho on July 11, 2005 04:30 PMIsn't the dog in the manger story another example of this tactic?
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 11, 2005 04:41 PMBTW, don't know if anyone's heard but, the cost of living allowance the Department of Labor and Industries was suppose to get starting July 1st has been delayed because someone filed an unfair labor practice suit against the State Union. They named two people they say are responsible for the delay because they filed the suit which I believe should fall under the Whistle Blower Act or at least the Public Disclosure Act. All of the blame was placed on these two people. So, until the issue is resolved, no COLA for the workerbees. However, the Managers and Supervisors, who they say fall into a different catagory, are getting their raises. All of this after they required everyone to join the union as a basis of employment.
The suit was filed because members of the Union prevented people from having access to the petitions that would require a fair vote on the new contract. They physically blocked access to the petition.
Posted by: Doober on July 11, 2005 04:44 PMThe original ferry service was provided privately, ala the Mosquito Fleet, and could be again, even with some overlap of service with the state.
The main problem that I see, is that everytime the state gets into a business, one of the first acts is to pass a law which makes it illegal to compete against their state run enterprise.
Back on to the original topic, it's shameful that food service was held hostage for 18 months because the union claimed that baristas making your coffee on the ferry had to be classified as mariners and covered under the union contract. It should be an open bid system. The union can offer their package deal, and if it's superior then it will win the bid.
Posted by: chunkstyle on July 11, 2005 04:48 PMI'd leave the ferry system alone, but concentrate on privatizing KC Metro, which would be a money maker.
(besides, you wouldn't have to worry about union goons pushing lousy "food" on the buses ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 04:50 PMJeff B.: I, too, long for the days of the skeeter fleet!
Posted by: starboardhelm on July 11, 2005 05:14 PMhttp://www.kpbj.com/headlines/articles/2004-08-06-HED-02.html
Posted by: starboardhelm on July 11, 2005 06:04 PMhttp://www.marineempcom.org/New_Folder/52-03%20IBU%20DEC%20392.pdf
Posted by: RobS on July 11, 2005 06:05 PMhttp://www.lni.wa.gov/prevailingwage/jwages/20051/03032005Trades/DRED.pdf
A
Posted by: RobS on July 11, 2005 06:21 PMI was not amused to find out that the 1000 employees that Queen Christine let go was a union favor.
Dino said the unions approached him and requested him to cut the budget there many times (ie lay people off).
Posted by: Andy on July 11, 2005 07:34 PMWhat is a resposne? A new liberal term for suppository?
Posted by: Amused by liberals who take themselves seriously on July 11, 2005 08:48 PMresposne. resposne. resposne!
It's a Portuguese seafood dish, featuring roasted whale testicles and baby squid eyeballs, except with a Bernaisse sauce.....Vurry Nice!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 09:43 PMI think Coho had to go adjust/consume his resposne.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 12, 2005 06:50 AMPlease show me how the IBU was 'representing its members' when the baristas they targeted weren't members in the first place? And why shouldn't their dog-in-the-manger tactics of denying the PUBLIC coffee as a coercive measure be recognized and properly denounced as naked thuggery?
If their intent was to increase their membership by forcing the ferry system to enlist baristas as IBU members (hand, reef and steer an espresso machine? Please...), then the intent of the tactic is effectively the same as skimming a percentage of the coffee.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 12, 2005 08:37 AM