BART's ATU Local 1555 Rejects Contract
Christopher Jerry
This does sound a little like what happened here a few years back, where the union leadership had agreed on a contract, only for the rank and file to vote no. Unlike us, at least this union can legally strike instead of binding arbitration.
One BART union rejects contract - talks resume
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
(08-11) 20:24 PDT -- BART management will resume negotiations today with the union representing station agents and train operators who soundly rejected a contract offer and renewed the possibility of a strike.
"We'll see if we can settle our differences," said Jesse Hunt, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555.
The BART Board of Directors, meanwhile, scheduled a special meeting behind closed doors Thursday to discuss its options. However, it is unclear if management is willing to make any further concessions.
Thomas Blalock, BART board president, said the directors may unilaterally impose terms and conditions of employment until a new labor agreement is reached.
Hunt said that action would prompt his union to strike. If that were to occur, he said, the union would try to give the public "reasonable notice" to prepare for life without BART service.
But Hunt said that's jumping the gun. "It's not a concern that we're looking at right now. The next step for us now is to get back to the bargaining table."
2-to-1 vote
The transit union's 900-member BART chapter rejected the contract proposal by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 Monday. The negotiated cost-saving proposal called for freezing wages, reducing overtime, capping health benefits and changing work rules to give bosses more flexibility in employee assignments.
By contrast, two other BART unions, including the largest with 1,400 members, ratified similar contract proposals with overwhelming support.
Hunt, whose push for ratification was rebuffed by the rank-and-file in secret balloting, said a chief concern among members was locking in a four-year contract.
Hunt said a two-year deal would be more palatable, giving the union the freedom to negotiate a new deal if the economy rebounded.
Members also objected to losing paid days off, paying more for premium health insurance and changing compensation policy for union representatives.
Top-scale station agents and train operators earn about $63,000 a year in salary and average about $44,000 a year in benefits, according to information provided by management.
Really disappointing'
Blalock called the transit union's defeat "really disappointing," given that Local 1555 negotiators gave tentative approval to the contract offer July 31 after a 27-hour bargaining session that capped negotiations that began in April. Union workers at BART have been working without a contract since June 30.
Blalock said the board has been largely unified in seeking employee givebacks to reduce deficit spending.
BART's largest union, Service Employees International Union Local 1021, representing clerical and maintenance workers, approved a similar contract with 75 percent in favor and 25 percent against.
Lisa Isler, president of Local 1021, said the contract ratified Monday isn't ideal, but that her members understand that concessions are needed in this bleak economic climate.
Members of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3993, which represents about 200 middle managers, supervisors and planners at BART, approved its contract offer Tuesday with the backing of 86 percent of its voting members, said chapter president Jean Hamilton.
Honoring picket line
Leaders of both unions voting for contract ratification said they would honor the picket line should the train operators and station agents strike.
The regional rail operation has about 340,000 boardings a day, with service in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco and San Mateo counties.
BART management entered negotiations with its five employees' unions with the aim of reducing labor costs by $100 million over the next four years. Two smaller unions representing police personnel have not yet voted on a contract.
However, they are prohibited from striking.
ballooning deficit
The transit agency, saddled with falling sales tax and fare revenue and state funding cuts, faces a ballooning deficit, now projected at $310 million over four years.
"Obviously our goal of coming up with $100 million in labor savings isn't going to change," Blalock said.
E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgo...@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/12/MN101973SH.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Christopher Jerry
Fairlawn, Washington, DC
202-270-9353
"Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck."
- Dalai Lama
Sherman
Transit Workers Win Big in Arbitration
http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-transiit-workers-win,0,2957407.story
BY ARTHUR CHI'EN and STEPHANIE BARISH| wpix.com
August 11, 2009
NEW YORK (WPIX) - An arbitration panel has awarded transit workers
with a generous 3 year contract that includes wage increases of more
than 11 percent. And in a significant development, the panel also
rolled back a portion of the employee health care contribution that
the MTA won following the 2005 Transport Workers Union strike.
MTA officials say the new contract will blow a hole through its
finances. Acting Executive Director of the MTA, Helena Williams,
issued a statement saying,
"This award is extremely disappointing and fails to recognize the
economic recession in the region and the impact of this downturn on
the MTA. There will be a significant impact on the MTA's bottom line."
Over the next three years the contract will cost the MTA $350
million
dollars more than the state agency has budgeted. Experts speculate
the money will have to come out of the already under funded Capital
Plan. A fare hike in 2009/2010 is unlikely as Governor David
Paterson
is running to keep his post.
The MTA and the TWU representing more than 30-thousand subway and
bus
workers reached an agreement last year in talks but Sources tell PIX
News the deal was sunk by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The result was
arbitration. The MTA argued in the midst of a recession and in lieu
of fare hikes it was forced to levy on the riding public it would
not
be able to afford a significant wage increase for the Transport
Workers Union. In many inside circles, the arbitration panels
decision is seen as a defeat for Mayor Bloomberg.
*****
Transit workers' raise may lead MTA to raise fares
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/transit-workers-raise-may-
lead-mta-to-raise-fares-1.1366226
August 12, 2009 By ALFONSO A. CASTILLO alfonso....@newsday.com
Two months after the href="/topics/
Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority">Metropolitan Transportation
Authority raised fares 10 percent, officials now say they cannot
rule
out another increase next year to fund an arbitrator's ruling
granting transit workers a hefty raise.
The ruling grants members of Transit Workers Union Local 100 wage
hikes of 11 percent from this year through 2011, including 4 percent
this year, 4 percent next year and 3 percent in 2011.
The MTA had budgeted for only a 1.5 percent increase next year. MTA
officials say the contract will cost the agency $350 million more
over the next three years.
"This award is extremely disappointing and fails to recognize the
economic recession in the region and the impact of this downturn on
the MTA," Helena Williams, the agency's interim chief executive
director, said in a statement. "There will be a significant impact
on
the MTA's bottom line."
The MTA, which state lawmakers rescued from an unprecedented $1.8-
billion budget deficit, enacted 10 percent fare hikes in June. It
had
not planned for another increase until 2011, when fares are slated
to
rise 7.5 percent.
With the arbitrator's ruling, Williams said MTA staff members will
provide the board with recommendations on balancing its budget "with
the least possible impact on MTA customers." Fares will not be
raised
again this year, she said.
MTA board member Mitchell Pally of Stony Brook said the agency
"can't
take anything off the table" for next year, including another hike.
*****
NYC transit workers win costly wage hike: MTA
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57A6E020090811
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:16pm EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City transit workers were granted wage
hikes of more than 11 percent over three years on Tuesday, the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority said, warning that as a result
it could only rule out more fare hikes for this year.
The cash-strapped state agency, which runs the city's buses, subways
and commuter railroads, raised fares in June about 10 percent.
At the time, the MTA said it planned no further hikes for these
fares
and bridge and tunnel tolls until 2011.
The MTA called the arbitrator's decision on Tuesday "extremely
disappointing," and said the decision failed "to recognize the
economic recession in the region and the impact of the downturn on
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority."
The nation's biggest mass transit agency, whose chairman previously
said its budget was balanced on the head of a pin, also faulted the
arbitrator for recommending that it "raid its underfunded capital
program" and the federal economic stimulus plan to pay for the wage
hikes.
Transit workers also will no longer have to pay for part of the cost
of their health insurance, an expense they had accepted in their
2005
contract, the MTA said. That contract was reached after their strike
in the bitter winter of 2005.
The union, TWU Local 100, has criticized Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
who
said on Monday the MTA could not afford to match the increases he
granted city workers and urged the arbitrator to have them pay for
part of their health benefits.
The MTA had only budgeted for a 1.5 percent salary hike and the
agency said the new contract would cost it $350 million more than
the
extra $10 million it estimated having to pay in 2009.
The additional cost will be $100 million in 2010 and $240 million in
2011.
"The MTA staff will provide the MTA Board with recommendations for
balancing the financial plan with the least possible impact on MTA
customers," the agency said in a statement. "No additional fare
increase will be recommended in 2009," it added.
(Reporting by Joan Gralla)
*****
Was The Fix In?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08132009/postopinion/editorials/
was_the_fix_in__184308.htm
Last updated: 3:33 am
August 13, 2009
Posted: 2:34 am
August 13, 2009
If the arbitrated wage hikes for transit workers that were announced
Tues day -- and the $350 million hole they bored into the MTA's
budget -- don't outrage New Yorkers, maybe this will:
It appears that the whole deal was a set-up from the start.
Back in October, the MTA -- with the full knowledge of Gov. Paterson
and everyone else -- appeared close to granting workers an 11-plus
percent raise over the next three years.
Even as the economy was falling apart.
Even as former MTA boss Richard Ravitch was firming up a plan to
hike
fares, taxes and tolls to gin up new cash as the agency's revenues
dropped.
But how would suburban lawmakers justify new taxes to their
constituents -- when labor was being asked for no sacrifices at all?
Then, inexplicably, the MTA let contract talks go to binding
arbitration.
Ravitch's plan, albeit with a lot of legislative drama, became law.
The MTA got its cash -- and, Tuesday, the Transport Workers Union
got
almost everything it wanted: an 11-plus percent raise and workers
will pay less for their health insurance.
Paterson, who nominally controls the MTA, can claim total ignorance,
while winking to the union.
Basil Paterson, the governor's dad, a long-time TWU lawyer/lobbyist
and its representative on an earlier arbitration panel, must be
smiling.
Ravitch is now David Paterson's designated lieutenant governor. What
he knew about all this, and when he knew it, is anybody's guess.
Ours is that he is not surprised by the outcome. Certainly he showed
no appetite -- none -- for tangling with the TWU, and if anybody
knew
the consequences of that, it would be Ravitch.
Meanwhile, Manhattan Institute analyst Nicole Gelinas notes that
some
30 percent of the Ravitch tax hit effectively will go to fund the
wage hikes.
And how do the arbitrators who backed the raises propose to pay for
them?
By using one-time federal stimulus funds meant for other purposes.
And by cobbling cash from the MTA's capital budget -- a foolproof
recipe for long-term disaster.
But, again, most galling is that everyone had to know how it would
all go down.
"Having it go to arbitration was a total set-up by the MTA and the
administration," Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos fumed yesterday.
He said Senate Republicans are reviewing their options and that "it
would be a good idea" to have a "bipartisan" probe of the process.
That seems fair. Paterson, Ravitch, the MTA brass and the
arbitrators
effectively hung taxpayers and riders out to dry.
This deal needs a healthy dose of sunlight.
*****
$12M TWU GREAT TRAIN 'ROBBERY'
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08132009/news/regionalnews/
12m_twu_great_train_robbery_184345.htm
By TOM NAMAKO, TRANSIT REPORTER
Last updated: 3:02 am
August 13, 2009
Posted: 2:55 am
August 13, 2009
Transit-union officials demanded a slew of outrageous perks to
strong-
arm the MTA into killing a plan that would have saved the cash-
strapped agency $12 million, The Post has learned.
The TWU chieftains were furious over the MTA's bid to have only one
person operate high-tech lines like the L and 7 and eliminate the
conductors.
They instead demanded the lone operators get $2-an-hour pay hikes
and
that the conductors whose positions were eliminated simply get
shifted to other lines.
On top of that, they insisted the agency hire an additional 40
conductors.
The demands would not only have wiped out the $12 million savings,
but would have actually cost the MTA $5 million, said Ben Fernandez,
the MTA's director of labor relations.
So the MTA instead took the plan off the table, and will continue to
have two operators on all lines.
"The way the rules were written wasn't going to let us realize any
savings, especially securing savings of about $12 million in wages,"
Fernandez said.
The arbitrator's decision was part of a pay-raise and health-care
cost rollback package awarded this week to the 35,000 rank-and-file
union members.
Union officials insisted there were also safety risks in running a
subway without a conductor -- and asked for broad veto power.
But the MTA said that could be a backdoor way for the TWU to make
sure one-operator trains never happen, even when they pass safety
tests.
The union believes the agency is exaggerating potential financial
losses -- and in testimony during the contract talks, an MTA
attorney
admitted the agency would still see cost savings from the plan,
sources said.
"This is plainly not true, and they know it," said outgoing union
chief Roger Toussaint. "This was an exercise of incompetence at the
highest level by Ben Fernandez and [interim MTA CEO] Helena
Williams,
which they are now trying to cover up."
Union officials also left the bargaining table believing that an
independent arbitrator would make the final calls on safety, not the
TWU.
Any lost conductor jobs would have come through attrition.
tom.n...@nypost.com
*****
On Aug 13, 11:21 am, Christopher Jerry <cjerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> *This does sound a little like what happened here a few years back, where
> vote no. Unlike us, at least this union can legally strike instead of
>
> Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer <rgor...@sfchronicle.com>
>
> Wednesday, August 12, 2009
> ***
>
> *(08-11) 20:24 PDT *-- BART management will resume negotiations today with
>
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/12/MN101973SH.DTL
>
> This article appeared on page *A - 1* of the San Francisco Chronicle
Jackie L. Jeter
Hi All & Chris
Every now and then I hear members talk about striking. Sometimes I think that it’s only about not having the ability to do so, not that anyone would really use it, if they had it. I believe that in order for members to strike there must be an issue that affects everyone, not just the few. They would have to commit to being out of work for a period of time and possibly losing their job depending on what the issue is or is not about. Just look at the history of the Greyhound Strike, it ended after a long process and they downsized, which means not every person came back to work. I know several of the officers in 1700 and they are still not up to their old membership numbers and that was 1994. I attended a conference a while ago and Toussaint with TWU Local 100 in New York talked about the decision and the education process that should occur prior to going on strike. The results of that strike in New York were traumatic on their Union. Congress took away our right to strike when Metro was created, it was probably part of the deal. I order to have an effective strike it must be unanimous and have a clear issue that is understood with the membership through education of the issue. But that’s my opinion, I’m waiting for the membership to rally for an issue as a whole! The plus for binding Arbitration is that you can turn down the contract and your people continue to be employed even through the arbitration process. If we’d gone on strike last year, can you imagine the devastation that would have occurred to our members in this current economic climate.
Jackie Jeter
Christopher Jerry
Christopher Jerry
Fairlawn, Washington, DC
202-270-9353
"Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck."
- Dalai Lama
Sherman
You bring up a very important issue. I have also heard the same
concerns. Personally, I don't work OT, but I do feel sorry for those
who really need the extra money but simply do not have the same amount
of OT available to them as their union brothers and sisters in other
departments do. As you mentioned, it is a double hit since our
pensions are calculated using our 'high four' including OT. Because
of this there are retired Local 689 members who are making more than
active members who do not have the option to work OT.
You might consider starting a new thread or topic so this issue will
get more attention.
Sherman
On Aug 17, 6:25 pm, Christopher Jerry <cjerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[SNIP]