Last week’s attachments for the January 29 FCP meeting included a report that may have gone unnoticed due to the fact that several documents were included with the agenda. It presents the Ferry Union Coalition’s response to the PVA report on WSF governance. The following message from Dan Twohig, who works for WSF, came through the FCP listserv a few days later and is posted here, along with a link to the response.
If you have not already seen this, here is the Ferry Union Coalition response to the PVA report and the WSF management response to that report. There is a definite difference of opinion on many issues. This document was just released a few days ago and given to the Governor and key legislators. However, because it came from the unions and not through “official channels,” it was not published. As a document submitted to the Governor it can be considered in the public domain and distributed accordingly. Of particular note is the blatant disconnect between the PVA, WSF management and the people who actually operate the ships. The fact is, they didn’t ask us so there was a large hole in the available data for the PVA study. This document attempts to fill those holes.
The Union Coalition response is an interesting document. There is a lot of good material in there that pertains to the discussions at hand, particularly to the bills regarding vessel maintenance, the long range plans for the fleet, building new vessels and the master’s role as a representative of management.
When I emailed Dan to ask his permission to post the message above, he graciously agreed and wrote the following…
The important thing to get out of the Union Response is that combined fleets of all the “ferry experts” on this PVA panel carries less traffic than just one of our ships (Puyallup) in a single year. The union members that run WSF’s fleet ARE the experts on how it is done yet nobody asked us…