Show #145 – June 1, 2013



This week’s edition of The Outspoken Cyclist should come with a warning label: “Open with caution; contents under pressure”. It’s a packed house this week, with something for everyone.

Lance Armstrong is suddenly the social butterfly, reaching out to former rivals and media alike. Patrick Brady of Red Kite Prayer got an actual telephone call from Big Tex this week, and he’s first up to share his impressions of Lance’s latest campaign.

Tomorrow is the Gran Fondo Giro d’Italia in southern California, and whether you’ll be toeing the line in L.A. or wishing you were, Lorenzo DiSalvo is here to get us in the mood for some cycling, Italian-style.

Rounding out the first half of the hour is Samuel Swenson, who formerly worked as a mechanic for the bike share program in Washington, DC. He and other employees of bike share programs around the U.S. claim they were denied wages and benefits due them under contracts between Alta Bike Share and the various host cities. (Numerous attempts to contact officials at Alta Bicycle Share before airtime were unsuccessful.)

With an opening triple-decker like that, we needed a short break, after which we get to stretch out with one of the greats from U.S. cycling’s heyday of the 1970s and 1980s: George Mount. George is a former Olympian, former pro racer in Europe, and member of the U.S. Bicycle Hall of Fame. He doesn’t mince words nor pull any punches when it comes to cycling’s past, present, or future.

2 Replies to “Show #145 – June 1, 2013”

  1. Re the gentleman from the D.C. bike share program: I wish you had asked him whether he and his fellow employees were paid less than they had been promised when they signed up, or merely less than the federal public works wage scale. If the employees were paid the amounts they had been promised when they were hired, but later discovered the bike share company’s contract with D.C. called for higher pay,I would have somewhat less sympathy for them than if the employer had reneged on its deal with the employees. Legally the employees probably prevail either way.

    1. Hi Gary,

      I’m not certain what they were told in the beginning – my impression was that they had been told the lesser amount and did find out later it was mandated to be higher. I’m a bit less concerned about the wage than I am about the lack of forthrightness of Alta regarding the health benefits of over $3.50 per hour worked. And, just about the fact that if Alta knew they had agreed to a wage amount with the Department of Labor and then decided unilaterally to pay what they wanted to pay – I’m also less comfortable with it.

      As for the employees prevailing – they may not retroactively. I would guess that going forward, Alta will have to watch itself.

      Thanks for your comments and for listening!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.