Muni Operators: Union Didn’t Do Enough to Inform Members About Proposal

2315997752_e1f08008b4.jpgFlickr photo: Anna L Conti

In no uncertain terms, Muni operators rejected a proposal yesterday for a package of concessions that would have saved the MTA nearly $15 million over the next two years, while reducing operator layoffs by a third. But the conclusiveness of the vote – 857 in favor, 575 against – masks a murkier truth: Many of the operators didn’t feel the union adequately informed members about the details of the proposal.

None of the drivers interviewed for this story would use their name, citing the union’s instructions to its members against doing so. But while opinions on the proposal varied, there was clear consensus about the widespread uncertainty surrounding the vote. That might explain in part why over 500 operators didn’t vote at all on the proposal.

"There was a lot of confusion among the members about the vote," said an operator on the 14-Mission, who said she’s been with Muni for two years. "I heard bus drivers saying they weren’t sure what to vote on it. They were confused by the literature."

She was off work yesterday and didn’t get a chance to vote, she said.

Documents detailing the plan are available on the Transport Workers Union Local 250A website, but some operators said the documents weren’t widely distributed and felt they weren’t clear about the details of the proposal.

A ten-year Muni veteran who was driving the 9L-San Bruno today said he studied the plan closely and thought it was a good deal, but also thought operators weren’t properly informed. "I don’t think they informed everyone about what it really was," he said.

According to this operator, some coworkers had strong opinions about the proposal without really understanding it. "They think they know, but don’t really," he said. "People might support it if they were better informed."

Even with the confusion surrounding the vote, he said some coworkers were mad at him for supporting it. For his part, the plan seemed a fair way to help balance the budget while saving younger operators from having their position cut. "Everyone has to give a little in hard times," he said. "And if they don’t give, the younger operators will get laid off."

Another operator, an eight-year veteran who was taking his break between runs on the 2-Clement line this afternoon, said he voted against the plan. His concern was that other unions across the city weren’t giving back an equal amount – especially the fire and police departments – and the pain should be spread more equally. "We felt, why should we, if other unions aren’t making concessions," he explained.

Perhaps if the union representatives had explained the plan better, it would have had more of a chance, he said. "It was very last minute," he said of the vote, which he mostly heard about through his division and from coworkers. "There were no formal meetings on it, and we didn’t see anything written down."

If the union comes back with a better deal, and explains it more clearly this time, he said he might vote for it.

On the 31-Balboa line, an operator said he agreed with what TWU President Irwin Lum said about the vote: operators wanted a hard guarantee that the plan would stave off layoffs, service cuts, and fare increases. He wouldn’t comment further on the matter, but strongly agreed that there was plentiful confusion among the members about what was proposed.

"The union should have been sweeping through the barns" with the details, he said.

Several of the operators said they and their colleagues were worried the concessions might not be as temporary as the agreement stated.

"In terms of each benefit, if they give it up this year, is it coming back?" asked the 14-Mission operator who missed the vote on her day off.

She’s only been at Muni for two years, so her position could be among the 170 operators eliminated under the MTA’s current plan, but she’s not certain the vote will ultimately make a difference one way or another. "I don’t believe the vote will stop MTA management from doing what they want."

The 9L-San Bruno operator who said he supported the measure was worried the vote would have serious consequencies, and would be a bad deal for young operators in risk of losing their job. "I really think that was a big mistake," he said.

"We are clearly disappointed by the outcome of last night’s vote," said MTA Executive Director Nat Ford in a statement. "But we must continue working to find a way forward that reduces the pain that the budget deficit is causing our customers."

Less than a day after the vote was tallied, it’s had an unmistakable political impact, with Mayor Newsom now supporting a November ballot initiative that would potentially reduce operator salaries and benefits – and that will likely serve as a bargaining chip in bringing the union back to the table.

  • Nick

    Was the MTA board meeting on fare increases that was set for this week rescheduled to accomodate the union’s vote? Was there a possibility that wage concessions would not fully stave off a fare increase for seniors and the disabled (as the union pointed out there was no written agreement on this point).

    Sounds like the MTA is playing a not-so-complicated game of chess. They should be more direct. If $5 to ride the F-line was just a ruse…. well our public officials shouldn’t be acting in a manner of misdirection and deception.

  • Sue

    I’ve heard there is going to be another vote next week. That is merely fourth or fifth hand. First hand: be guaranteed that the mayor and his partisans are going to blame the drivers and the TWU for Muni’s woes. Sound like union busting anyone?

  • It’s informative to read the perspective of the TWU workers. This article is a great example of why I read streetsblog.

  • soylatte

    What goes around, comes around. I guess SF voters will be similarly “underinformed” when they will vote to strip Muni employees of their salary provisions in the city charter.

  • It really is unfortunate that one group of employees is being singled out for every financial woe at muni, thanks to politicians who claim to be a friend of the Muni owners (us) but who were in fact the one who supported the looting of Muni via “work orders”.

    These same politicians always vote for raises for the police and fire department workers without fail, and without debate. So while it’s too bad TWU’s extremely poor leadership once again bungled the job, I think it’s unrealistic to expect muni’s problems to vanish because one employee group gives back some wages and concessions. I don’t see Mr. Ford giving back part of that huge salary of his, nor do I see the mayor returning Muni funds he stole to pay for political aides in Room 200.

  • @Greg, for the sake of humor – Nat Ford gave back 2% I believe. Oh, the horror!

  • @soylatte – I know you were trying to be sarcastic but what you’re saying is true. If this measure ever goes to a ballot than voters will likely be under-informed when they make their choice.

    Which hammers in the point that this whole debacle is a massive failure of leadership – a failure on the part of the MTA, the TWU, and most significantly, a failure on the part of city hall.

    It’s easy to blame the bus drivers and it might make you feel good to get self-righteous about “lazy civil service employees” but their inflexibility is only one very small piece of the MTA budget FUBAR.

  • Alex

    Greg: Nat Ford did give back some of his salary recently. ‘Course $6,000 out of $300,000+ hardly seems like much of a concession.

  • Some wouldn’t be happy until Ford was working for free, but it doesn’t really matter because givebacks are not a long term solution and just delay the inevitable changes that will need to be made to SFMTA.

  • Jared

    Wait a second, you mean cops aren’t taking salary hits this year to help out the city of San Francisco?

  • Resident

    Under that same charter operators have held off on salary increases for two years now. How can you blame 2200+/- operators for screwing up a 750+ million dollar budget. That’s 3/4’s of a billion dollars, and people want to blame the operators? Take a look at the Feb. 14 article by Will Reisman in the examiner—67.7 million dollars of the MTA budget spent on non-transportation work orders! Spending money on departments who are legal there to protect us anyway!


Muni Operators Vote to Reject Concessions Proposal

Muni drivers rejected a concessions proposal today that would have saved dozens of operator jobs while reducing Muni service cuts and fare increases. Members of the Transport Workers Union Local 250A voted down the proposal negotiated between TWU President Irwin Lum, MTA management, and the Mayor. Had the operators accepted the proposal, it would have […]

Muni Operators Reject Concessions Proposal

Muni drivers rejected a concessions proposal today that would have saved the SFMTA $18.7 million over the next two years and allowed the agency to fully restore service by next July. Echoing a vote earlier this year, members of the Transport Workers Union Local 250-A voted down the proposal negotiated between TWU leadership, San Francisco […]

Proposition G and the Fix Muni Syndrome

As the November election draws near and the bunkers are dug on either side of San Francisco’s Proposition G, the Fix Muni Now ballot measure spearheaded by Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the rhetoric is escalating, with Mayor Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Editorial Board and Elsbernd on one side decrying Muni operators for taking raises […]