Unions suing BART board over contract disagreement today, no strike yet

|
(35)
SEIU Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly: "We were never confused."
Photo by Tim Daw

Two of BART's largest unions will announce a lawsuit against the BART board of directors today on the steps of the Alameda County Superior Court at 11am, which they plan to file shortly before the press conference.

The suit will directly challenge the board's Nov. 21 decision to ratify a contract between the unions and BART management without a hotly contested provision on family leave.

In their announcement of the suit, SEIU Local 1021 and ATU Local 1555 allege the board made "illegitimate and unprecedented actions" in ratifying the contract while removing a section on family leave, which was signed off on by BART management in July. Under the provision, workers who go on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act would be paid for six of the 12 weeks the law allows them to take unpaid. 

Management has since called signing off on family leave a "mistake," and the board asked all sides to ratify a contract without the provision, hence the lawsuit.

But would a lawsuit mean a new strike?

"That's what everybody is asking," SEIU Local 1021 spokesperson Cecille Isidro told the Guardian. "The unions aren't ruling out any options, but no strike is being called or scheduled at this time."

BART spokesperson Luna Salaver told the Guardian last month that “it was a mistake that a provision rejected twice by BART management ended up in the stack of approved documents.” She noted that it was caught as the district prepared to give the contract final approval on Nov. 21, though it was already signed by the two unions.

“We were never confused as to the status of the Family and Medical Leave Act agreement,” Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly told the Guardian, in our earlier coverage, which you can read here.

Isidro said more details on the lawsuit would be available at the press conference at 11am. 

ATU Local president Antoinette Bryant responds to family leave "mistake" at a press conference.

Comments

the workers had rejected the agreement, then the unions presumably would have felt free to walk away from that agreement.

So why can't the management walk away from the same agreement?

The union appears to have a totally one-sided view of the rights of the two parties to the agreement. But until the agreement is finalized and signed, it is just a working document, and therefore subject to change.#

BART management have my full support here. The disputed concession is ridiculously generous, is open to widespread abuse, and would never have been put into an agreement in any conceivable reasonable situation.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 8:12 am

Then you're saying that the workers have a right to go back on strike. Count your blessings that they're trying a legal route instead.

It really is unprecedented for a management side to sign off on something, keep it there through repeated reviews (where they repeatedly reneged on multiple tentative agreements, but never mentioned this) and then say at the end of the whole process that they didn't mean it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 9:15 pm

But they know they would have little public support, given that none of us get paid FMLA, so they have no other option than the try this.

Unless the agreement was signed, it's not an agreement - just a work in progress. The unions could walk away as well. Same for both sides.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 7:00 am

Sorry but you're wrong.

They reached TA on all proposals. The Union ratified it. The BART Board is being sued because they're going back and trying cherry pick a portion of the contract that they don't like.

The tentative agreement, for the proposal in question, was signed by several members on each side. They showed all the signatures on the news as soon as this "problem" arose.

The BART Board paid Thomas Hoch at $400,000 to bargain this contract as their representative. He signed off on it. If the BART Board has an issue with their contracted employee, they should take it up with him. And then spread the word because he travels around the country representing transit systems and other metro areas with BART-like systems should know what they're getting into before hiring him.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:13 am

"agreement" at their ballots, then the union would have had to have agreed to it anyway?

How so?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:34 am

You may not understand the way Union negotiations work.

Both sides meet to negotiate. Each side offers proposals which are then bargained. When all the proposals have been negotiated, or TA'd (Tentative Agreement), then you reach TA on the entire contract. The Union takes it back to their members to ratify the agreement. After the Unions ratify, it goes to the Board for them to approve. It's merely a formality because they have given their Lead Negotiator the confidence (and in this case an enormous sum of money) to bargain on their behalf.

It really makes no difference how generous you feel the disputed item is. When BART's lead negotiator signed off on it, and all the other TAs, and the Union ratified it, it was pretty much a done deal. And that's what the Union's lawsuit states.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:39 am

TA if the workforce decide that?

But that BART cannot back away if the full board decide that?

In other words, a double standard that is totally unfair?

To your other point, the fact that a clause has been "signed off" should not stand if it is clearly was not intended or isn't reasonable.

Suppose, for instance, the Union had accidentally signed a TA that stated that management could execute by firing squad any worker who showed up for his shift more than 5 minutes late.

Should that stand, even though signed in error and clearly unreasonable?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:50 am

must have every single public employee union in the US pulling their hair out. These contracts are going to all become meaningless when the bill really comes due on retirement.

Posted by The Goebblin Love Child of Smaug on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

While it's legal applicability to other States is uncertain, the principle has been established that pensions and healthcare benefits to employees are just contracts like any other, and so can be renegotiated, or summarily reduced, in a bankruptcy.

This makes sense since there is no reason why a city employee should be treated any differently in this regard to a private sector worker, where such things are routine.

This decision makes it more likely that other cities and counties will enter BK when unions are being inflexible and unreasonable, and such Chapter 9 filings may become routine.

Excellent decision for anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

What's the point of rigging the political system for decades if some damned judge is going to come in and allow bankruptcy when the money runs out?

Posted by racer さ on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 4:16 pm

then they would be golden now. But instead they are reliant on an unfunded open-ended promise which can be taken away with a judge's pen.

I'd like to say I feel sorry for those workers but they refused to see the writing on the wall. Maybe they can move to Texas and grab one of the millions of new jobs being created there?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 4:21 pm
Posted by The Goebblin Love Child of Smaug on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 4:16 pm

Wait a minute, isn't Detroit a crater where nothing worth noting ever happens?

Posted by Clyde Townsend on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 12:30 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

which is, you know, the biggest music in the world right now.

Posted by marke on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

Not sure she goes back much though.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 1:29 pm

usually suck.

Time to go rock some AM gold like Terry Jacks or David Essex and watch same Baywatch reruns?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 1:39 pm

Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered "windmobile," based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

After SunWind "dried up" in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on "Virtual Photon Flux;" and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava Energy was developing water-fueled engines based on "collapsing hydrogen orbitals" (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing ambient-heat-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the make-believe pretenses of Mark Goldes.

Goldes' forty-year career of "revolutionary invention" pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience and pseudophysics - his lifelong stock-in-trade.

http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/aesop-institute/

Mark Goldes' "Aesop Institute" has engaged for many years in the very dishonest and unscrupulous practice of soliciting loans and donations under an endless series of false pretenses, that it is developing and even "prototyping" various "revolutionary breakthroughs," such as "NO FUEL ENGINES" that run on ambient heat alone - or run on "Virtual Photon Flux" - or on "Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals" - or even on the acoustic energy of sound from a horn.

Aesop Institute's make-believe strictly ambient heat engine is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has been understood by physicists for at least 180 years. There is no "new science" that has ever determined such an engine to be possible.

Aesop Institute's make-believe "Virtual Photon Flux" engine is based on the idea that accessible electric power "is everywhere present in unlimited quantities" - which we know to be false.

Aesop Institute's make-believe "Collapsing Hydrogen Orbital" engine is based on Randell Mills' theory of "hydrino" hydrogen, which every scientist knows to be false.

Aesop Institute's make-believe horn-powered engine is based on the pretense that a magnetized tuning rod could somehow "multiply energy" - a ludicrous notion, which is obviously ruled out by the law of conservation of energy.

Aesop Institute has never offered the slightest shadow of evidence that it is actually developing or "prototyping" any of these make-believe physics-defying "revolutionary breakthroughs." All it has ever offered are mere declarations that it is doing so - unsupported by any proof whatever, of any kind whatever.

Let's look at another example of Mark Goldes' wonderful offerings in "revolutionary new technology:"

The amazing "POWERGENIE!"

One of the most laughable of Mark Goldes' many pseudotypes is his "POWERGENIE" horn-powered generator. The brilliant idea of this revolutionary breakthrough is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of the horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

We're not making this up.

POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained - from the patent:

[The device incorporates] "an energy transfer and multiplier element being constructed of a ferromagnetic substance... having a natural resonance, due to a physical structure whose dimensions are directly proportional to the wavelength of the resonance frequency...

"In this resonant condition, the rod material functions as a tuned waveguide, or longitudinal resonator, for acoustic energy...

"Ferrite rod 800 is driven to acoustic resonance at the second harmonic of its fundamental resonant frequency by acoustic horn 811..."

- But the patent doesn't tell us who will volunteer to blow the horn at the rod all day. Perhaps it will come with an elephant.

Mark Goldes claimed in 2008 that this wonderful triumph of human genius would bring his company, Magnetic Power Inc, one billion dollars in annual revenue by 2012. Magnetic Power is now defunct, having never produced any "Magnetic Power Modules" - just as Goldes' company called "Room Temperature Superconductors Inc" is also now defunct, having never produced any "room temperature superconductors."

In Mark Goldes' patent application for his ludicrous "POWERGENIE" horn-powered tuning-rod engine, he described the tuning-rod as "an energy transfer and multiplier element."

But of course, for the tuning-rod to "multiply" energy, it would need to disprove the law of conservation of energy.

Goldes' use of the term "energy multiplier element" reflected his pretense that the "revolutionary breakthrough" of the amazing "POWERGENIE" could disprove the law of conservation of energy, by presenting the world with a working "energy multiplier."

Goldes even claimed in 2008 that the POWERGENIE had been demonstrated already in an electric car, driven 4800 miles by his energy-multiplying horn-powered tuning-rod.

But it seems that most people, for some reason, had difficulty accepting the notion that the law of conservation of energy could be proven false.

And Goldes no doubt noticed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics - that "the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase with time and can never decrease" - is much less clear to most people than the conservation of energy.

So now, after leaving aside the pretense that he could somehow "multiply energy" with a magnetized tuning-rod, Goldes has chosen to focus, instead, on the pretense that he can disprove the Second Law with an engine powered only by ambient heat.

There is no "new science" in any of Goldes' "revolutionary breakthroughs." There is only pseudoscience and pretense - and nothing new, at all.

The Kelvin-Planck formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as follows:

"No cyclic process driven simply by heat can accomplish the absorption of the heat from a reservoir and the conversion of such heat into work - without any other result (such as a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir)."

Now, as you will see, the Clausius formulation of the Second Law may be stated with fewer words:

"No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body."

In fact, we can show that the Kelvin-Planck formulation may be deduced from that of Clausius. In the words of Enrico Fermi:

"Suppose that Kelvin's postulate were not valid. Then we could perform a transformation whose only final result would be to transform completely into work a definite amount of heat taken from a single source at the temperature t1. By means of friction we could then transform this work into heat again and with this heat raise the temperature of a given body, regardless of what its initial temperature, t2, may have been. In particular, we could take t2 to be higher than t1. Thus, the only final result of this process would be the transfer of heat from one body (the source at temperature t1) to another body at a higher temperature, t2. This would be a violation of the Clausius postulate."

Can anyone make a teapot that boils water by absorbing heat from blocks of ice?

Why The Second Law of Thermodynamics Rules Out Strictly Ambient Heat Engines

Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice.

Both processes are ruled out by the very same law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

An ambient heat engine, with only one heat reservoir, would not merely have to "circumvent" the Second Law of Thermodynamics - it would actually have to DISPROVE the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

An engine that only uses ambient heat would need to be able to DECREASE the entropy of the universe. The Second Law tells us that we can never decrease the entropy of the universe, or of an isolated system.

As a consequence of this law:

"It is impossible for any device operating on a cycle to produce net work from a single temperature reservoir; the production of net work requires flow of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder reservoir."

In a strictly ambient heat engine there are not two heat reservoirs at different temperatures; no reservoir would be available at any temperature other than the ambient temperature. Therefore the engine would have to DECREASE the total entropy - and therefore we know for certain that the engine will disappoint us. It will never be able to do any work.

Flow of heat from a block of ice to lukewarm water would also result in a DECREASE of the total entropy.

Once again: Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice. Anyone who claims to be developing a "prototype" of such an engine is only developing a pretense, and nothing more.

Mark Goldes' proofless claims regarding his make-believe strictly ambient heat engine do not represent any new technology, or even a new pretense - they merely represent a rather old pretense.

"Before the establishment of the Second Law, many people who were interested in inventing a perpetual motion machine had tried to circumvent the restrictions of First Law of Thermodynamics by extracting the massive internal energy of the environment as the power of the machine. Such a machine is called a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind". The second law declared the impossibility of such machines."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Perpetual_moti...

"A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved... This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification

Goldes' make-believe strictly ambient heat engine would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, as defined above. Goldes is not developing any such engine; he is merely developing a pretense - as usual.

Posted by Max Planck on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

Is this lilli putting up disguised troll barriers?

Posted by racer さ on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

beyond him. He would never admit to abandoning his barriers because that would be a concession of failure. So he quietly drops them and then introduces these long screeds instead as if we wouldn't guess who is behind it.

SFGate eventually banned Lilli for trolling and SFBG will do so as well.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 4:33 pm

Actually, the SFBG was deleting the troll barriers - lilli kept tweaking the barriers to keep the SFBG from deleting them through an automated process.

I assume that if the "Aesop Institute" barriers start getting deleted, other long unrelated screeds will magically replace them...

Posted by racer さ on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

bollards or bumps or whatever.

Good to see SFBG slapping down the trolls, and the quality of debate here has improved significantly since Lilli gave up in defeat.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 5:30 pm

Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered "windmobile," based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

After SunWind "dried up" in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on "Virtual Photon Flux;" and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava Energy was developing water-fueled engines based on "collapsing hydrogen orbitals" (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing ambient-heat-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the make-believe pretenses of Mark Goldes.

Goldes' forty-year career of "revolutionary invention" pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience and pseudophysics - his lifelong stock-in-trade.

http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/aesop-institute/

Mark Goldes' "Aesop Institute" has engaged for many years in the very dishonest and unscrupulous practice of soliciting loans and donations under an endless series of false pretenses, that it is developing and even "prototyping" various "revolutionary breakthroughs," such as "NO FUEL ENGINES" that run on ambient heat alone - or run on "Virtual Photon Flux" - or on "Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals" - or even on the acoustic energy of sound from a horn.

Aesop Institute's make-believe strictly ambient heat engine is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has been understood by physicists for at least 180 years. There is no "new science" that has ever determined such an engine to be possible.

Aesop Institute's make-believe "Virtual Photon Flux" engine is based on the idea that accessible electric power "is everywhere present in unlimited quantities" - which we know to be false.

Aesop Institute's make-believe "Collapsing Hydrogen Orbital" engine is based on Randell Mills' theory of "hydrino" hydrogen, which every scientist knows to be false.

Aesop Institute's make-believe horn-powered engine is based on the pretense that a magnetized tuning rod could somehow "multiply energy" - a ludicrous notion, which is obviously ruled out by the law of conservation of energy.

Aesop Institute has never offered the slightest shadow of evidence that it is actually developing or "prototyping" any of these make-believe physics-defying "revolutionary breakthroughs." All it has ever offered are mere declarations that it is doing so - unsupported by any proof whatever, of any kind whatever.

Let's look at another example of Mark Goldes' wonderful offerings in "revolutionary new technology:"

The amazing "POWERGENIE!"

One of the most laughable of Mark Goldes' many pseudotypes is his "POWERGENIE" horn-powered generator. The brilliant idea of this revolutionary breakthrough is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of the horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

We're not making this up.

POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained - from the patent:

[The device incorporates] "an energy transfer and multiplier element being constructed of a ferromagnetic substance... having a natural resonance, due to a physical structure whose dimensions are directly proportional to the wavelength of the resonance frequency...

"In this resonant condition, the rod material functions as a tuned waveguide, or longitudinal resonator, for acoustic energy...

"Ferrite rod 800 is driven to acoustic resonance at the second harmonic of its fundamental resonant frequency by acoustic horn 811..."

- But the patent doesn't tell us who will volunteer to blow the horn at the rod all day. Perhaps it will come with an elephant.

Mark Goldes claimed in 2008 that this wonderful triumph of human genius would bring his company, Magnetic Power Inc, one billion dollars in annual revenue by 2012. Magnetic Power is now defunct, having never produced any "Magnetic Power Modules" - just as Goldes' company called "Room Temperature Superconductors Inc" is also now defunct, having never produced any "room temperature superconductors."

In Mark Goldes' patent application for his ludicrous "POWERGENIE" horn-powered tuning-rod engine, he described the tuning-rod as "an energy transfer and multiplier element."

But of course, for the tuning-rod to "multiply" energy, it would need to disprove the law of conservation of energy.

Goldes' use of the term "energy multiplier element" reflected his pretense that the "revolutionary breakthrough" of the amazing "POWERGENIE" could disprove the law of conservation of energy, by presenting the world with a working "energy multiplier."

Goldes even claimed in 2008 that the POWERGENIE had been demonstrated already in an electric car, driven 4800 miles by his energy-multiplying horn-powered tuning-rod.

But it seems that most people, for some reason, had difficulty accepting the notion that the law of conservation of energy could be proven false.

And Goldes no doubt noticed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics - that "the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase with time and can never decrease" - is much less clear to most people than the conservation of energy.

So now, after leaving aside the pretense that he could somehow "multiply energy" with a magnetized tuning-rod, Goldes has chosen to focus, instead, on the pretense that he can disprove the Second Law with an engine powered only by ambient heat.

There is no "new science" in any of Goldes' "revolutionary breakthroughs." There is only pseudoscience and pretense - and nothing new, at all.

The Kelvin-Planck formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as follows:

"No cyclic process driven simply by heat can accomplish the absorption of the heat from a reservoir and the conversion of such heat into work - without any other result (such as a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir)."

Now, as you will see, the Clausius formulation of the Second Law may be stated with fewer words:

"No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body."

In fact, we can show that the Kelvin-Planck formulation may be deduced from that of Clausius. In the words of Enrico Fermi:

"Suppose that Kelvin's postulate were not valid. Then we could perform a transformation whose only final result would be to transform completely into work a definite amount of heat taken from a single source at the temperature t1. By means of friction we could then transform this work into heat again and with this heat raise the temperature of a given body, regardless of what its initial temperature, t2, may have been. In particular, we could take t2 to be higher than t1. Thus, the only final result of this process would be the transfer of heat from one body (the source at temperature t1) to another body at a higher temperature, t2. This would be a violation of the Clausius postulate."

Can anyone make a teapot that boils water by absorbing heat from blocks of ice?

Why The Second Law of Thermodynamics Rules Out Strictly Ambient Heat Engines

Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice.

Both processes are ruled out by the very same law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

An ambient heat engine, with only one heat reservoir, would not merely have to "circumvent" the Second Law of Thermodynamics - it would actually have to DISPROVE the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

An engine that only uses ambient heat would need to be able to DECREASE the entropy of the universe. The Second Law tells us that we can never decrease the entropy of the universe, or of an isolated system.

As a consequence of this law:

"It is impossible for any device operating on a cycle to produce net work from a single temperature reservoir; the production of net work requires flow of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder reservoir."

In a strictly ambient heat engine there are not two heat reservoirs at different temperatures; no reservoir would be available at any temperature other than the ambient temperature. Therefore the engine would have to DECREASE the total entropy - and therefore we know for certain that the engine will disappoint us. It will never be able to do any work.

Flow of heat from a block of ice to lukewarm water would also result in a DECREASE of the total entropy.

Once again: Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice. Anyone who claims to be developing a "prototype" of such an engine is only developing a pretense, and nothing more.

Mark Goldes' proofless claims regarding his make-believe strictly ambient heat engine do not represent any new technology, or even a new pretense - they merely represent a rather old pretense.

"Before the establishment of the Second Law, many people who were interested in inventing a perpetual motion machine had tried to circumvent the restrictions of First Law of Thermodynamics by extracting the massive internal energy of the environment as the power of the machine. Such a machine is called a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind". The second law declared the impossibility of such machines."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Perpetual_moti...

"A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved... This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification

Goldes' make-believe strictly ambient heat engine would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, as defined above. Goldes is not developing any such engine; he is merely developing a pretense - as usual.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

And I always thought Little 'Lil was a girly-pup.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 03, 2013 @ 8:30 pm

(marcos, Eric and Greg) appear to have been neutralized as well. Maybe they got sick of losing debates?

Things are looking up here.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 9:09 am

reasonable commentary in order to achieve unanimity of misanthropic viewpoints, that's all you have done.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 9:56 am

who can stand losing a debate and then coming back another day to fight again.

And the comment above stated that it was SFBG who have banished one or more of these troublesome trolls.

What I will say is that the quality of debate has noticeably improved in the last few days. Intelligent readers interested in genuine debate should rejoice.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 10:14 am

Yippeee! Maybe the Detroit court ruling will convince SF public-sectir workers to start paying for some of their own pension/healthcare costs before the whole house of cards collapses:

"""In his ruling, Rhodes turned aside objections from unions, pension funds and retirees, which, like other creditors, could lose under any plan to solve $18 billion in long-term liabilities, including $3.5 billion in unfunded pension obligations. He also rejected arguments by unions and other opponents that the bankruptcy filing was the result of secret and unconstitutional decisions made by Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, who approved the filing in July, and others."""

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 9:43 am

Public sectors act uppity because they think their pensions and healthcare rights are gold-plated and inviolate.

This ruling undermines that by showing that, even if such agreements are freely negotiated and contractually binding, they can be repudiated in a BK as can all other debts and obligations.

And this is federal court too. They have the power to over-ride specific provisions of State constitutions, and did so in this case.

Of course, a chapter 9 bankruptcy is a big deal to enter, so this is hardly a first resort. But the specter of this hanging over any city with massive unfunded liabilities, which is almost all of them, will act as a useful lever in future contract negotiations.

IOW "accept these cuts or we will BK chapter nine your asses".

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 9:59 am

If management is allowed to ignore provisions of an agreement its lawyers presumably advised them on, then what is the point of even bothering to negotiate? I hope the court sides with the union and makes management keep the bargain they negotiated and signed.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:02 am

"agreement"?

They have been voting on it and, presumably, if it had been voted down by the membership, the union would have felt entitled to walk away.

Are you proposing one rule for the union and one rule for the management here? On what moral or legal basis?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:20 am

I can answer that very easily. If the Union had not ratified when they voted, then the two sides would have gone back to the table to negotiate. However, the Union ratified, so the point it moot. Also, whenever the Union Bargaining Team reaches TA with Management, it is illegal for the Bargaining Team to do anything other than suggest a yes vote from all Union members. To suggest that they reject the contract as TA'd by both parties would be an "Unfair Labor Practice".

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 11:54 am

The union gets a second bite at the apple but management does not?

No wonder you support an unfair agreement, because you support an unfair process.

An extra six weeks paid leave, potentially for each worker each year, is clearly not what was the intent of management.

If the clerk in a store gives you change out of a twenty when you give him a ten, do you quietly put it in your pocket and leave? Or do you do the right thing?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 12:12 pm

6 weeks paid FMLA is an unreasonable burden to place on riders and taxpayers. Who gets such a thing except banksters, corporate CEO's, politicians and City Hall execs? Asking people to pay for benefits they themselves can never even dream of having is just insane. The greedy union members should give it up.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

Zapraszamy do naszego sklepu z chemia niemiecka.
Tylko chemia z Niemiec jest skuteczna i wydajna
za nieduze pieniadze

Zapraszamy

Posted by reunbornbhms on Dec. 10, 2013 @ 9:02 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • BART approves contract as tensions with its workers continue UPDATED

  • Tragedy follows strike

    Two workers killed by BART train the district was using on a "training run," despite safety warnings from the striking unions

  • Lessons of the BART standoff

  • Also from this author

  • Poll says SF loves tech buses, doesn't ask Spanish speakers

  • Boom for whom?

    Why isn't San Francisco's hot economy creating a budget surplus to address its costly byproducts?

  • A fine dilemma

    Increased citations often hinder homeless youth from finding better life