How the Imposed MUNI Contract Would Hurt Drivers And the Public

Collective Bargaining:  According to Prop G, if drivers reject a contract, it goes to binding arbitration.

• Proposition G specifies the arbitrator must consider the good of the system but says nothing about the good of the drivers or the public.    For example, MUNI drivers rejected the recent contract by a 2-1 vote, yet within days the Arbitrator imposed the very same contract on the drivers.  This is negotiating with a gun at your back.

• Prop G is San Francisco’s version of Wisconsin, effectively eliminating collective bargaining.  Prop G was paid for by the same business interests that cause MUNI’s ongoing financial crisis by avoiding paying taxes or fees to support MUNI operations.

 

Part Timers: 7.5% of MUNI’s 2,200 full-time drivers can be replaced with part-time drivers.

• This would give MUNI the flexibility to cut 3,300 driving hours each week in mid-day, night, and weekend runs, while still supplying downtown business’s demand for peak-hour downtown corridor service. 80% of MUNI operations already serve downtown business’ interests, bringing in customers and workers.

• The loss of mid-day, night and weekend service would affect seniors, people with disabilities, school kids, and low-wage service workers.  Many are minority and immigrant.   Seniors, people with disabilities, and kids need this service to shop, go to doctor appointments, go to senior centers, and visit family and friends.  Workers in hotels and restaurants typically start or end work early in the morning or late in the evening.  They cannot afford taxis.

Health and Safety:

• Drivers would have no more say in how MUNI runs on health and safety issues.  Drivers would loose their right to protest overly stressful schedules on health and safety grounds, a right they had for 40 years.   This is in spite of years of world-recognized research by SF General doctors showing stress causes high blood pressure in MUNI drivers. Drivers could also no longer protest use of unsafe equipment.  This puts the public, especially seniors, in danger, particularly in cases of unreliable or grabby brakes, or malfunctioning chair lifts or fatigued drivers.  MUNI is trying to fire drivers who complain about unsafe equipment, showing MUNI’s determination to continue using it.

• Drivers would no longer have input into investigation of accidents. Instead of fixing unsafe schedules or equipment, MUNI can just blame the driver, and go on as before.  The decision of the management-appointed “Transit Safety Professional” cannot be appealed or reviewed, and drivers can be fired after a second accident judged preventable.

• Drivers could no longer take health or safety issues to an outside arbitrator.

Make Downtown Business Pay:

Despite MUNI’s decades-long financial crisis, downtown businesses pays nothing to MUNI for having their customers and workers brought to them.

• They pay no annual tax or fee to help support MUNI.

• Newly constructed commercial buildings are supposed to be charged a one-time Transit Impact Development Fee, but this fee is limited to downtown buildings, the fee has not been raised in years, it applies only to certain kinds of buildings, and there a frequent waivers.

shortlink to this post:  http://wp.me/p3xLR-rO

SF Gray Panthers support MUNI drivers voting for no concessions

SF Gray Panthers support MUNI drivers voting for no concessions

On Friday, June 11, San Francisco MUNI drivers rejected the City’s demands for concessions for the second time. (See below.)  SF Gray Panthers made the following statement of support:

The SF Gray Panthers salutes the MUNI drivers who resisted the pressures of downtown business, the Mayor’s office, the Chronicle and Examiner, and some Supervisors, in rejecting the concessions the City is trying to force down their throats. MUNI’s service cuts, fare increases, and financial problems are not caused by drivers’ greed or the riders’ fare evasion; they are caused by downtown business refusing to pay for the service MUNI provides in bringing them their customers and workers.

We recognize that the same forces that attack MUNI drivers and riders are also attacking the City services we need to survive; health, human services, housing, and nutrition. Thoughtful City workers in other unions should support the drivers, because the drivers’ refusal to make concessions and their crucial position in the City’s economy could make the City think twice demanding even more concessions from other unions. This could save both jobs and services.

We demand: No service cuts or fare increases for SF’s poor, seniors, minorities, and immigrants. Make downtown business pay for the services they receive. Drivers and riders should unite to demand more public transit, not less.

(See this letter in June 15 SF Chronicle.)

###

San Francisco Chronicle, June 12, 2010

S.F. Muni operators reject proposed givebacks

(06-11) 21:02 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — Muni operators rejected a proposed package of labor concessions Friday that city officials said was needed to help San Francisco’s financially pinched transit agency partially roll back the deep service cuts imposed last month.

Members of Transport Workers Local 250-A, which represents about 2,000 Muni operators, voted 747 against and 538 in favor of the proposed pact, according to union official Walter Scott.

The reductions, which went into effect five weeks ago, amounted to 300,000 service hours a year, or about 10 percent. They have led to more crowded buses and streetcars, fewer transit options late at night and longer waits between runs.

Mayor Gavin Newsom called the rejection “a slap in the face to everyone who rides Muni and to every other public employee union member,” who already agreed to givebacks. “Once again, I call upon the membership of the TWU to reconsider and revote.”

The leadership of Transport Workers Union Local 250-A forged a tentative agreement with Muni management two weeks ago that city officials say would cut costs by about $19 million over two years.

Union membership has been split bitterly over the proposal.

Bucking union officials, the rank and file resoundingly rejected a different set of proposed givebacks in February.

The new proposal called for lifting the de facto prohibition on the use of part-time operators, tightening overtime rules and changing dependent health care coverage.

It also would have extended the operators’ contract for another year, through June 30, 2012. That would have given operators an extra year to benefit from a guarantee enshrined in the city charter that they are paid at least the second-highest wage among U.S. transit operators.

That operator-friendly provision could be in jeopardy. Two separate charter amendments proposed for the November election seek to undo the automatic pay guarantee, though neither has qualified for the ballot.

The proposed ballot measures seek to set operator salaries through collective bargaining with the aim of giving management more flexibility in getting rid of inefficient work rules.

Municipal Transportation Agency chief Nathaniel Ford said that a favorable ratification vote would have benefited riders by restoring half the service cuts by early September.

short link to this posting:  http://wp.me/p3xLR-oh’