Spartan Daily - Serving San Jose State University since 1934

Originally posted by

Steve Sloan

While not accurate in detail on some things, I think the story caught the spirit of the issue.

This is grievance about safety, not alternative transportation. For employees, the university is a work place. Employees are entitled by law (and contract) to a safe work environment. I also think students are entitled to a safe campus. Folks with disabilities are entitled to have a university that is not made inaccessible by dangers, obstacles and trip hazards. Tax payers are entitled to have state agencies not take unnecessary risks and exposure to lawsuit.

Today was a great day for a bike ride. I rode my bike to work again today. After riding about eleven miles to SJSU I did not see any reason to ride the extra few hundred feet to my desk. I rode around SJSU on the public streets and parked my bike in one of the many bike corrals around campus and walked to my desk. This is not a large sprawling campus.

Steve Sloan, I've read your blog, I've seen your flickr stream, and I've even been following your twitter stream, but I can't bring myself to follow your arguments about campus grounds being the "factory floor for university employees", or that the elimination of non-motorized vehicles on campus will reduce accidents.
The Campus pathways were created to facilitate the movement of students, teachers, and staff from one part of campus to another, and should not be treated as an FD&O parking lot.
I have never had any problems with non motorized vehicles while walking or riding on campus. I only seem to have problems with the constant presence of motorized vehicles on campus as they travel at much higher speeds than non-motorized vehicles and often times do not slow down until they are right on top of pedestrians (figuratively). I've been forced off of pedestrian walkways numerous times by motorized vehicles on campus. It happens when I'm cycling, it happens when I'm skating, it happens when I'm walking. Motorized vehicles on campus are a true nuisance; they take up valuable space, over crowd walkways, park where they please, and obstruct our ability to reasonably and safely move about campus.
I can also honestly say that I also have more anxiety over the safety of some of the elevators on campus than any non motorized vehicles, especially in Duncan Hall where malfunctioning elevators are a common occurrence.
You also claim that you are for alternative modes of transportation, but if this repeal goes through it will ultimately stifle the alternatives. The only people who would still be willing to use alternative modes of transportation would be long distance commuters, because you can't seriously expect people to lock up or walk their scooters and skateboards. Even then, the number of long distance cycle commuters would be drastically reduced because the university(A.K.A "factory") doesn't provide enough designated areas to park bikes. If you took all the bikes parked on campus and tried to fit them into university designated parking areas, you'd end up with more bikes than you have spaces for.
My suggestion for you is to stop for a moment, take a step back from the situation and come back to it with a more progressive approach rather than simply taking the convenience out of non-motorized vehicles:

If you really are for alternative modes of transportation and the safety/well being of all people on campus, then why not promote smart, responsible, and courteous use of both non-motorized vehicles AND pedestrians. Why not take all that time and energy you're spending on essentially removing non-motorized vehicles from campus, and reallocate it towards teaching cyclists why they shouldn't park in front of egress sites, or why it's really not a good idea to skate in the rain, or blast music on your headphones when you're walking or raiding around in a crowd of mixed traffic. The list goes on, but the point is that I see no reason why we can't continue to safely have non-motorized vehicles on campus, and I think that we can do alot more by promoting safe use, rather than restricting it.

Originally posted by

Steve Sloan

The main thrust of the grievance is this, article 23.1 of our contract, "The CSU recognizes the importance of procedures and policies for the protection of health and safety of employees and shall endeavor to maintain such conditions conducive to the health and safety of the employees."
This is a contractual obligation on the part of the university. When an employee, group of employees and/or the union allegese the collective bargaining agreement has been violated they can file a grievance, "there has been a violation, misapplication, or misinterpretation of a specific term(s) of this Agreement."
What we have done is to present our best case that there is a safety hazard posed on our campus by non-motorized vehicles. The university has to prove that there is not a hazard.
The grievance process has many steps, the last is level four, "If the grievance has not been settled at Level III, the Union alone may, no later than forty (40) days after the Level III response, submit the grievance to arbitration..."
Both sides present there cases. The union has discovery rights, and the decision will be made by an arbitrator that is not affiliated with SJSU or CSU, "The standard of review for the arbitrator is whether the CSU violated, misapplied, or misinterpreted a specific term(s) of this Agreement." and "The arbitrator's award shall be final and binding on both parties."

Thanks Mr. Sloan, that one'd been eating at me for awhile now.

So long as they don't ban novehicular travel too, I'm happy.