Um, I'd like to Request a Stop: Ending automatic pay for Muni operators

Those of you who rode Muni two weeks ago may have noticed fliers distributed by the Transit Workers Union Local 250-A, which represents operators. In the handouts, the union took issue with Supervisor Sean Elsbernd’s proposed City Charter amendment that would eliminate the guaranteed wages and benefits of Muni operators. Instead, operators would have to bargain for their compensation. (PDF here: Download Muni Charter Amendment.)

The Rules Committee will consider Elsbernd’s proposal today. I, for one, am hoping that the committee and full Board of Supervisors approve the measure so we can endorse it on June’s ballot. Here’s why:

Since 2007, Muni operators’ wages have been based on this calculation: Look at all the comparable transit systems in the nation (in cities with populations of more than 500,000 that employ more than 400 operators) and pick the two that pay the highest wages, average those two wages, and that’s the least our operators can be paid. Presently, that’s about $29 per hour.

This little arrangement was supposed to avoid strikes. However, in 1976, voters enacted a law that basically prohibits public employees from striking, making the wage provision unnecessary.

As for benefits, the reason more than 60 percent of operators received checks for $3,000 at the end of last year is based on this calculation: Examine those same two high-paying transit systems and calculate the average value of their benefits (let’s say $20); take that figure and subtract the total amount we pay operators in benefits (let’s say $14); and the difference is the amount The City has to put in a pot for operators. In our hypothetical, it’s $6. (Charter Sec. A8.428.)

But it was $6 million in 2009.

At the end of each year, that pot of money is divided up among operators based on the number of hours worked. This year, regular full-time employees netted about $3,000 each.

In the flier that was distributed, the union argued that the $3,000 is not a “bonus” but a payment to make up for the fact that operators with dependents don’t get the same amount of health care benefits as other city employees with dependents. But the pot of money isn’t limited to employees who claim dependents. Even a single operator with fully paid health insurance and no dependents was given $3,000 if they worked enough hours, so the union’s rationale doesn’t fly.

In fact, the charter was amended to allow the “pot of benefits money” for operators in the November 1967 election. According to that voter guide, The City needed to beef up operator benefits because we were having a hard time retaining and recruiting operators. But in this economy, I’m sure there are plenty of people who would view simply having a job as a “bonus.”

To recap: Muni operators enjoy an automatic wage calculation and they get a benefits payout that was created to attract applicants when people are presently desperate for work.

As the public braces for yet another round of Muni fare hikes, meter increases and service cuts, it will take a lot more than a flier to explain why operators’ salaries and benefits should not be negotiable.

Comments

[njudah]

There's no reason one couldn't keep a formula, but simply amend it to tie it to performance and to budget realities, so that we don't end up being penny wise and pound foolish (i.e. cut the guys who fix the trains, then wonder why so many trains aren't working).

I have spoken with many Muni drivers, and there is a genuine frustration amongst those who really do like serving the public, because they see ones that cause most of the problems (it's actually a small number out of the total) who make life bad for them AND get paid no matter what. TWUs leadership has been notorious for going to bat for the baddies, but never once supporting something that would highlight the GOOD people and give them a bonus or SOMETHING to show that their hard work is appreciated.

Also, one of the biggest problems out there is unplanned absenteeism. When someone decides not to show up to work and doesn't let the management know until the last minute, it creates a domino effect of delays and overtime costs. And yet, dare to punish someone and suddenly you're Satan Incarnate. Do more to fix that and you fix a LOT of the hassles of Muni.

Also, it's a bit unfortunate no one seems to look at any employees BESIDES drivers. Just because you see them the most doesn't mean they're the only ones that need their salaries in check. We have a huge management cost at Muni, and yet they hire millions of dollars worth of "Consultants" to do their work for them. If the consultants are so great, why do we need to pay them AND the employees and end up with being double charged for management.

[Melissa Griffin]

Greg,

Excellent comment - o transit guru!

Actually, you point to a VERY good reason why we can't have a formula and it is this: with the "power of the purse" to use in negotiations, it is damn near impossible to force the union to agree to strict work rules. The city has NO leverage when it comes to absenteeism, misconduct, etc.

I don't think the operators are being singled out because they are visible. TWU 250A is simply the only transit union that has this formula arrangement.

There are lots of people whose salaries need to be cut at Muni. NO question there, but I was simply writing about the amendment that has been proposed. Propose one to cut Nate Ford's salary and I'll be on board with that, too.

[njudah]

I think when times are tough, and most of us DON'T have a union or the protections public employees get, it's a tough sell for any of these things. I mean, I sure would love to be able to goof off or get paid sick days, but I don't as an independent contractor, and most folks out there are just happy to have a job of any sort, benefits or no.

There is a limit to how much Muni can save via salaries, though - there are some things you have to have a certain number of people do. If we need x numbers of drivers out on the streets to serve the public, that's how many we need. Even if we cut their salaries and stuff, you can't eliminate it completely.

Fun Fact: When BART was having its strike, I asked Dorothy Duggan, the director of BART point blank how much of their cost overruns were caused by health care, and if BART was not forced to be in the business of providing health care (i.e. if we had single payer), how much they would save. Literally 90% of their cost overruns would vanish. I would guess a similar savings would happen at Muni if the agency (like most any employer) didn't have to be put in the business of buying very expensive health care policies, and instead could leave that to (insert solution here).

[Michael Smith]

Actually, the proposition for paying Muni workers at least the average of the wages of the top two paying agencies was prop A from just a couple of years ago.

[Melissa Griffin]

Michael,

You are right. Before Prop A, it was ceiling and after Prop A, it was a floor.

-Melissa

[Michael Smith]

As clarification to my previous comment, the 1956 set the UPPER limit to their salaries. This meant that the union was always bargaining to get to that limit. The city often wouldn't agree to that pay level so through in lots of other goodies like those (lenient and very problematic) work rules. The current law, prop A, sets the LOWER limit to their pay (yes, this is a very different concept). The theory behind prop A from a couple of years ago was to simply give Muni works a high salary so that they couldn't demand other compensation. But it means that now they get things like $3000 bonuses.

So the blog post is actually confusing two very different issues, the 1956 proposition that established an UPPER limit to pay and prop A that established a LOWER limit.

[Melissa Griffin]

Michael,

Yep, I agreed that the 1956 set an upper limit, and prop A set the lower. (Thank you for bringing that to my attention.) However, the $3000 bonuses are pursuant to a scheme that has been in place since 1967. (Prop G - I doublechecked that)

Still, the way it is now, they get that amount as a base.

I hadn't yet heard your argument about work rules being exchanged for refusing to pay the maximum. I'd also be interested to see how many years we didn't pay the maximum.

[Seven]

Is Muni switching around drivers? On my commute home tonight, we had an unfamiliar 71L driver who clearly didn't know it's a 2-way stop at 23rd and Lawton. As the bus flew in front of through traffic, alert auto drivers slammed their brakes on wet asphalt, barely avoiding a collision.

Somehow, knowing this driver just got a $3k bonus irks me.

[EH]

Why doesn't the city have any leverage?

[Melissa Griffin]

@EH - Excellent question. Let's consider a hypothetical conversation at bargaining time:

City: We'd like to be able to fire an employee who doesn't show up to work 15 times in one month.

Union: Nope.

City: Seriously. We think that would be good.

Union: Nope.

Now, under normal circumstances, the employer would say "we won't give you more than x amount unless you agree to let us fire absentee employees."

The power to comtrol the amount of employee pay is the main power an employer has in any labor negotiation. But here, we have a "floor" of $29 per hour that is more than what operators in L.A. or NYC get paid. Of course, the City could offer to pay more than $29 in an effort to extract work rule concessions, but with such a high base rate, there's no real incentive for the union to go for a higher amount unless the proposed increase was huge - which is not gonna happen any time soon, that's for sure.

In other words, the City can't afford a big, expensive carrot over and above $29.
And with a high mandatory floor on wages, they don't have a stick either.

I hope that answers your question.

-Melissa

[EH]

Well no, actually it doesn't. I understand that the base pay has been set by a combination of voter-approved propositions, but that doesn't speak to the other stuff that goes on. Unless I'm completely insane, the propositions don't say "You get paid $X, plus you can do whatever you want."

[Alex JB]

I'm also intrigued by the issue that EH raises. Unions exist for collective bargaining, right? Negotiating things like salary-per-job-grade, health benefits and pensions. But moving those levers affects the high performers as well as the low. What's not clear is why the city can't fire people who are not performing their jobs. Does this fall under 'benefits' like lots of sick days or lax rules on disability leave?

[Dave Snyder]

Melissa,

There are good public policy reasons for returning to collective bargaining to set wages for transit operators in this city. Those same reasons apply to the firefighters and the nurses, the only other classes of San Francisco workers whose wages are set by formula in the charter. (Retirement and benefits are set in the charter for most, which is absurd, but that's another topic.)

Right now it looks like Elsbernd is blaming the drivers for Muni's problems, which means he loses support from people like me for an otherwise good public policy reform. I wish he would make this broader by including all the classes of workers. I haven't heard a cogent reason why he shouldn't.

[Melissa Griffin]

Dave,

Actually, far as I know, firefighters and nurse salaries aren't set by the charter. We have a required number of police in the charter and state regulations mandate a nurse to patient ratio, but I don't know of any other class whose wages are set by formula. I'd be interested to see that, though.

I don't think Sean is blaming the drivers for Muni's woes, but their salaries are untouchable at a time when everything needs to be on the table. $6 million is what the recent SEIU layoffs saved the city. That same amount went to operator bonuses.

[Dave Snyder]

City Charter Appendix A

A8.403 - COMPENSATION FOR REGISTERED NURSE CLASSIFICATIONS
A8.404 - SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF CARMEN
A8.404-1 - FY 2009-2010 INTERIM ECONOMIC PROVISIONS
A8.405 - SALARIES OF UNIFORMED FORCES IN THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS

[Melissa Griffin]

Dave,

A8.403 - Nurses - sets a prevailing wage rate based on surrounding bay area counties and says nurses can't be paid or get benefits in excess of that.

A8.404 and 404.1 - "Carmen" is the old timey term for operators. That's what this post is about.

A8.405 - Police and Fire - this says that each year the controller has to survey all California cities with a population of 350,000 or more and come up with an average wage rate - that's what our safety employees get.

So, the nurse situation is clearly different but I'll be they'd like to get back to negotiating wages, too. As for safety employees, it's also different because (a) we're setting an overall average of big CA cities, not using the top 2 most generous pay scales in the nation, and (b) the average is what the safety employees get - it is neither a ceiling nor a floor. For Muni drivers, the rate is a floor.

Having said all that, I'm on board with making all classifications negotiate. That is not what has been proposed. And I don't think it's a good idea to pass up a fiscally sound idea just because it doesn't deal with every single instance of nonsense.

-Melissa

[Hope Johnson]

Oooooo, mildly misleading semantics. Fun!

I can't resist weighing in.

Technically, it's misleading to imply no wage negotiations occur for nurses and operators. The classifications do negotiate wages but must do so from a pre-determined set of numbers, whether that is a ceiling or a floor.

A8.403 for nurses and A8.404 for muni operators used to BOTH set wage ceilings until 2007's Prop A, a measure Supervisor Elsbernd went out of his way to ask voters to support in the Voter Guide Book. Prop A specifically changed the Muni operator pre-determined negotiating number from the maximum they could be paid to the minimum they could be paid. Elsbernd signed his name to a statement stating "Prop A is "a comprehensive reform plan" and "brings employees back to the bargaining table." Elsbernd shares direct responsibility for increasing muni operator wages and should be held accordingly accountable.

Also, whether you agree or disagree with dollar amounts, referring to a union's funding for a health system as simply "benefits” or, worse yet, Elsbernd’s use of "bonuses," is deplorable. A8.428 is the Health Service System Trust Fund - it has been codified as health benefits, like it or not. Whether or not you support changing the amount of money involved, the public should know this amendment is about funding health benefits, a distinction from “bonus” obviously changing the tenor of discussions.

[Melissa Griffin]

Hi Hope! Glad you could join!

I'm sorry to imply that no negotiations go on - obviously they do. I was just answering in terms of Dave's implication that other employees get the same floor and formula as Muni operators, when they don't.

I agree with you about Elsbernd. I seriously wish there was a "one subject" rule for charter amendments like there is for ordinances.

Muni operators get $225 a month to pay for health insurance. For a single employee with no dependents, that is enough to cover participation in one of (three, I think) health plans that the city offers. So, $3000 on top of that is something else.

[Hope Johnson]

Stating that other wages are set "by formula" in no way implies each is set by the exact same formula.

A better example of implication is the hypothetical to EH lacking representation the City itself created its negotiation limitations by deliberately changing the ceiling to a floor, leaving an impression the union has done something wrong or drivers are greedy.

Similarly, your choice to state drivers "get" $225 and Elsbernd's choice to state they receive "Christmas bonuses" create a negative impression of drivers when these are policies the City chose to set in place.

When Muni has $4 million bills for 311 calls, $300,000 bills for the SFPD to park free in North Beach, and work orders expanding to exceed the $26 million voters provided Muni via Prop A, all decisions not made by drivers, there is no reason to portray the drivers as villains in addition to eliminating what the union claims offset holes in health benefits (again, not always $3000).

[Alek Felstiner]

The other folks have identified some important nuances, here. I would add a couple of things. I agree, without looking into it too deeply, that wages should be part of the collective bargaining process for MUNI operators. That would certainly go some of the distance to bringing MUNI compensation into line with the realities of our current economic climate.

That said, I think you make too little of the removal of the right to strike. It's a crucial tool in the collective bargaining relationship. Your piece seems to contend that MUNI operators should have to battle it out like every other union, and I think many of us agree, but without the right to strike the people in lower-paid service occupations (i.e. not firemen) are at a significant disadvantage. I'd be a lot happier about this proposal if the right to strike was reinstated for city employees, including MUNI operators. Without that, perhaps a prevailing wage calculation could replace this (seemingly high) wage floor.

I'd also add that just because people are desperate for jobs doesn't mean we should consider those people our ideal labor pool for our public transit system. We ought to be attracting the most experienced and qualified people, which means we should be paying something comparable to other major cities. And in general, the "appeal to the unemployed" (as I call it) is, I think, a weak argument for cutting wages and benefits. It's essentially saying that because many people have lost jobs and benefits, those with the power to prevent such losses should accept them anyway because it's someone selfish not to. It didn't work in the Depression and it won't work now, either.

Finally, you suggest that pay cuts are the primary (or only?) leverage the City has to effectively discipline absentee drivers. Does the MUNI agreement not contain arbitration provisions? Does it have some kind of absentee safe harbor where the City is prevented from disciplining absentee workers? Or are you just saying that the union is doing it's job (which because of DFR it's legally obligated to do) by representing disciplined workers, and it happens to be unusually effective? I'm not seeing how individual discipline cases become connected to wage proposals. Can you clear that up?

[kwk]

[same old story]:
Board rejects appeal for more time to negotiate
Rachel Gordon, THE EXAMINER, Tuesday, August 22, 1995
Snubbing Mayor Jordan to his face, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has decided to keep work rules for Muni drivers that the mayor says cost taxpayers $10 million a year and make for bad bus service. Making a rare public appearance in the supervisors' chambers, Jordan asked the board Monday to extend negotiations between The City and the Transport Workers Union over the issue of work rules for 30 days past Friday's deadline to make changes this year.
But the board - in a move orchestrated by Supervisor Tom Ammiano and backed by the TWU - referred the matter to committee for a public hearing at a later date, effectively killing any chance to extend negotiations. Ammiano's maneuver also allowed the board to avoid voting on the issue.
There was never any pretense of decorum between the supervisors and Jordan. The minute the mayor walked into the board chambers, Ammiano tried to cut off debate and refer the matter straight to committee.
Even some of the mayor's opponents jumped in and said Jordan should be allowed to speak, and Ammiano relented. But supervisors - the majority of whom are at odds with the more conservative mayor - took the opportunity to knock Jordan for failing to work with them on a host of issues, and he used the chance to rap the board for bucking his policies.
"Why are the supervisors holding back?" Jordan asked after the stormy session. "They are elected to serve the public of San Francisco, but instead they've decided to waste millions of dollars and prevent us from taking these important steps to improve Muni."
Supervisor Terence Hallinan expressed skepticism at Jordan's calculations, saying, "How do we know this is going to save $10 million?" The mayor replied that Muni management had produced that figure. Jordan wants to reduce the number of unexcused absences that drivers are allowed before they're disciplined, and give management more leeway in reassigning drivers to different routes.

[True Religion Jeans Outlet]

Cheerfulness is the best promoter of health.