Dec. 12 was the day the Federal Transit Administration released its Title VI compliance review of Metro.
Another important milestone for Metro happened that same day but in contrast received zero media coverage: The bus and rail operators ratified a new 3-year contract. The next step is for the agreement to go before the Metro Board for a final vote before the collective bargaining agreement can go into effect.
The press release by the United Transportation Union (which represents Metro’s bus and rail operators) linked to above glosses over a few key facts about this contract:
The first attempt to have a contract vote was with a mass meeting held at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium. The rank-and-file were so disgruntled at what they perceived as sub-standard sweetners (salary increases, bonuses) in the proposed agreement that they began catcalling and taunting the union leaders assembled on the stage.
The membership then voted down that contract and forced the union to seek Metro’s agreement to augment the bonus and incentive provisions to help overcome the resistance to ratification. Even then the union leadership blanched at having another mass meeting. Instead, they held the vote through the mail. While the revised version was ratified by a margin of 3 to 1, only a quarter of the membership even bothered to vote.
This is somewhat surprising. The UTU locals for Metro’s operators have a reputation of being formidable, even in an era where union clout overall has waned. When it went on strike in 2000, the UTU called a rally to give pushback against what was perceived as an antagonist majority of the then-Metro Board.
This resulted in what the L.A. Times reported was a turnout of 2,000 UTU members and sympathizers (including a large contingent from the Bus Riders Union) filling Patsaouras Plaza to hear a large number of local politicians express support. I have found online video and photos of this event.
It is a sign of the extent of these hard economic times when even a union like the UTU, used to consistently delivering the goods when contract renewal time comes around, finds itself falling far short of its past glories. And facing an unhappy membership as a consequence.
I have been unable to find any of the past UTU contracts on the Metro website (or even the Board archives database). But thankfully, the 2003 UTU Collective Bargain Agreement between Metro and the UTU has been posted by the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell. An unofficial website has posted summaries of the rejected and enacted contract proposals.
Additionally, the rank-and-file are upset at the suspension of the shakeup as part of the service change suspension. As I have explained previously, the shakeup is the twice a year process by which operators bid on driving slots that are awarded based on seniority. The suspension especially disgruntled the higher seniority drivers who had expected to start in mid-December working the new bus runs they had won. Latest word is the December Service Changes and the shakeup are to be implemented in March, per the Director’s Report presented at this month’s Metro South Bay Cities Service Council meeting (see p.21).
Most of the Metro rank-and-file have no knowledge of such arcania as Title VI or the role the Metro Board plays in setting policy (and negotiating contracts). So the employees fall back on blaming the CEO as the easiest target to vent at. This expressed itself in a rumor that started to circulate around Metro: It held that Art Leahy had made comments at a gathering of newly hired bus operations supervisors that he is unlikely to have his contract renewed by the Board, that his days are numbered. This was never more than a vague “a friend of a friend heard” sort of rumor, born out of the frustration by employees to blame someone for all they are unhappy about.
I have heard confirmation that Leahy has declared these rumors “ridiculous”. Also that his contract has well over a year left on it, that he has no intention of leaving, and the Board has given him no indication that they want him to go. This isn’t surprising. Like many large organizations, Metro is often rife with rumors, only some of which turn out to be true.
Two sidelights on the situation: The newspaper of the local outpost of the International Communist Workers’ Party Red Flag regularly publishes articles denouncing both Metro and the UTU in an apparent campaign to recruit Metro operations employees to join the party; I understand issues of Red Flag have been handed out at bus yards. Evidently some operators have even attended Communist meetings. I am extremely doubtful about the Party’s claims that a growing number of Metro’s operators “see us and communism as a viable alternative to these traitors and capitalism.”
Secondly, while the UTU has ratified a new agreement, the Amalgamated Transit Union, representing Metro’s mechanics and service attendants, is still negotiating with the agency.
In the end, I suspect they will cut a deal. More than one Metro driver has told me whatever the flaws of the new contract, they are glad a strike was avoided. After multiple strikes in 1994, 2000 and 2003, members have been leery of engaging in walkouts if they can be avoided.
A lot of folks took a heavy hit in the pocketbook during those prolonged strikes, which are memories the seasoned drivers remember more than a decade later. They share the stories of with their younger brethren.
While not happy with the contract, they are soldiering on. Tensions probably will ease when the shakeup finally occurs.
Mr. Gabbard, whose essay originally appeared in la.streetsblog.org, may be contacted at dgabbard@hotmail.com
