by Steve Smith, California Labor Federation

After months of negotiating in bad faith, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) management last night left BART workers no other option but to go on strike. What a shame. It didn’t have to come to this.

With all the misinformation swirling about on the BART strike, there are a few things to clear up.

Here are the three things you need to know about the BART strike (h/t to Pete Castelli of SEIU 1021):

1) The strike is NOT about wages or benefits. BART workers made concession after concession on the economic proposals with the goal of averting a strike. BART workers and management agreed to a deal yesterday on wages, health care and pensions.

2) BART management pulled the rug out from under workers at the last minute by insisting on new workplace rules that infringed on the rights of workers. These new rules included changing the 8-hour workday and curtailing overtime pay and removing protections for workers from punishment and retribution when they report favoritism, sexual harassment and other problems in the workplace.

3) The new rules are NOT needed. BART became the top-rated transit system in America with its current work rules. BART increased ridership from 270,000 riders to 400,000 riders per day with its current work rules. BART management never focused on performance or efficiency issues during bargaining and repeatedly acknowledged that productivity in the system had increased. The fact is that the system is carrying more passengers than ever with fewer frontline workers than ever.

As unfair as the proposals were, the unions didn’t reject them out of hand. They asked for a neutral arbitrator to make the final decision on these new rules. Management flatly rejected that offer. As last night turned into this morning, there was no other option left for workers but to go off the job and onto the picket line.

This is BART management’s strike. They own it. And they can put a stop to it at any point in time by simply being reasonable. If management pulls its unreasonable demands on workplace rules or even agrees to let a neutral party decide on them, the strike is over. It’s that simple.

California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski:

Today’s strike was not an outcome workers wanted. But it was the only outcome management would allow. The California labor movement will continue to support BART workers in their fight for a fair contract. We urge BART management to quickly negotiate a fair settlement that allows workers to get back to doing what they’ve done for years — serving the Bay Area community with professionalism, dedication and commitment.

by Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation

Whether BART closes down this week will come down to one issue and one issue only: whether the BART Board of Directors shows leadership or continues to act to hold Bay Area transit riders hostage by using the same playbook a small minority of elected officials in Washington, DC have used to close down our federal government.

No one in the Bay Area-whether they ride BART or not-wants to see a BART strike. This is especially true of BART workers, who live in one of the most expensive regions in the world and do not receive a paycheck while they are on strike.

To demonstrate their commitment to reaching a deal before cooling-off period expires tonight, BART workers have put a proposal on the table that is fair and affordable and incentivizes BART workers to keep the system one of the nation’s best.



But while BART workers have made three new public proposals in the past 10 days, management has offered zero.  In fact, they haven’t put out a new wage proposal publicly for more than 50 days.  Here’s where negotiations stand:

Just last week, BART workers agreed to cut their wage demands in half and pick up additional costs for their pensions and health care coverage. BART workers reached a deal with management that would have workers contribute an escalating share of their pensions over the next four years. They also have offered to increase their monthly payments for health coverage by 15 percent.

BART workers also proposed linking future additional pay raises to increased ridership. Workers proposed an innovative plan to link future additional pay increases to projected increases in ridership. Daily BART ridership has increased from 270,000 riders in 1999 to nearly 400,000 riders today. At the same time, there are fewer BART workers in vital frontline positions serving more passengers. Under the new proposal, BART workers would receive a small fraction of a percent raise for increases in ridership over budget projections.



Finally, BART workers have proposed real-world improvements to key safety and service issues, like safer procedures for working on the third rail, better lighting on tracks and in tunnels and open restrooms in stations.

This issue is not a smokescreen. BART’s actions have put workers and riders at risk, and workers are justifiably angry.  For example, over the past 10 years, state safety regulators repeatedly fined BART for directing district workers without electrician training or certification to work near the electrified third rail. Instead of reforming its procedures, BART management responded by authorizing more than $300,000 for attorneys to fight state safety regulators.

This deal is smart, fair and will result in better BART service and BART directors should tell district management and negotiators to accept it.

At this point, the burden of leadership is on BART management to strike a deal that puts riders and workers first.

Those ultimately accountable for the situation-BART’s elected Board of Directors-must step in and act responsibly before it’s too late. The Directors can no longer remain silent as BART management and its negotiators dismiss fair and reasonable proposals because of their opposition to labor unions. It’s time that the Board of Directors lead as they were elected to do and to help bring a resolution to these drawn-out negotiations.

Take action to support the hard-working men and women at BART — sign the petition to the BART Board of Directors today!

by Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation

Negotiating a fair contract is a complex process that involves hard work and commitment from both labor and management. When both sides bargain in good faith and share a goal of securing a deal, a deal eventually gets done. I’ve personally been involved in many tough negotiations that ended with a fair deal that both parties could live with. It takes patience and willingness from both sides to compromise.

In the BART negotiations, unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. BART management paid Thomas Hock, an out-of-state lawyer with a history of driving disputes to a strike, nearly $400,000 to lead negotiations. Hock and his company have been responsible for seven strikes, 47 unfair labor practice charges and nine discrimination lawsuits. Not exactly a history of committing to compromise in order to secure a deal.

True to form, Hock hasn’t been serious about negotiating a resolution at BART that would spare the Bay Area a strike. Instead, he’s taken several vacations since he’s been on board. When he has bothered to show up at the negotiating table, he’s stonewalled. And now Hock and BART management have stopped negotiating altogether and are preparing for a strike.

Even worse, BART is saying that it will run a number of trains during a strike operated by managers who lack the minimum requirements to safely get BART riders to and from their destinations. In essence, BART is willing to sacrifice the safety of riders by pushing this dispute to a strike so that they ultimately get their way. There’s no regard for workers. No regard for riders impacted by a strike. It’s BART management’s way or — literally — the clogged highway.

The BART unions have made significant compromises in recent days with the goal of averting a strike, including last week’s concession on wages. The unions have come to the table seeking honest, good-faith negotiations to broker a deal before the 60-day cooling off period ends. They’ve proposed a modest 4.5 percent wage increase over three years after a five-year wage freeze, while offering to contribute more to their health care and retirement. It’s a fair proposal given BART’s relatively strong financial position. The unions have also sought important safety protections for riders and workers including opening more restrooms and providing for more secure stations at night, only to be rebuffed time and time again by Hock and the BART management team.

There’s still time to come to a deal that would avert a strike and ensure the safety of BART riders isn’t jeopardized. But the unions can’t negotiate by themselves. It’s going to take a commitment from both sides to negotiate non-stop, if necessary, to get that done. If Hock and the BART management team continue to refuse to negotiate, there’s only one option: a strike. Elected officials and BART directors must demand that management joins the unions at the negotiating table for round-the-clock, good-faith negotiations until a fair settlement is reached.

There’s a lot at stake for BART workers and their families as well as the hundreds of thousands of riders that count on BART to get to work, school and other destinations. Workers want to continue doing the job they’ve done exceedingly well for years. Riders want the trains to keep running. The only thing preventing a deal from getting done is BART management’s unwillingness to compromise. To avert a strike, that needs to change.

by Steve Smith

I’ve seen some pretty outrageous anti-worker opinion pieces written about the contract negotiations at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) over the last two months. But nothing I’ve read is as infuriating as today’s San Francisco Chronicle op-ed from Chuck and Barbara McFadden.

In short, the McFaddens assert that workers like those at BART are not deserving of the middle-class wage their unions negotiate.  To make their point, they use an argument that’s all too common today — private sector workers are suffering so public sector workers should too. What’s so absurd about this logic is that the very reason so many private sector workers are struggling is because most don’t have the ability to bargain with their employer for a decent wage in return for a hard day’s work.

Workers should be able to negotiate with their employers over wages and benefits like health care and retirement security. In BART’s case, workers are coming off a four-year wage freeze. No question, our state has been through some hard times over the last four years so a wage freeze may have been reasonable at the time the last contract was negotiated.

But now, ridership is up and so is revenue. BART is running a surplus. Yet, BART’s proposal this year is to make workers pay more on the benefits side while only giving a minuscule wage increase. End result? Workers take home less to their families. BART also refuses to negotiate over rider and worker safety, critical issues for the unions.

That’s not a fair proposal given the situation. So workers are standing up to management with their union. And while a strike is an absolute last resort, it remains possible if management continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith.

Now let’s take another example. A worker at Walmart makes poverty wages and can’t afford health insurance. There’s no negotiation on these issues. It’s a “take it or you’re fired” kind of offer. It doesn’t matter that Walmart is the most profitable company in the U.S. It doesn’t matter that Walmart could easily afford a modest wage increase or affordable health care. It doesn’t matter because workers have no leverage. They are not able to stand together to bargain for a middle-class wage, so they won’t ever get it. And many private sector workers today find themselves in that same sinking boat.

So, there are two ways to go from here. We could, as the McFaddens suggest, lower standards and cut take-home pay for those workers who are still able to earn a middle-class wage for a hard day’s work. Or we could chart a new course. How about, instead, we stand together as public- and private-sector workers to demand that corporate America, whose profits have soared while the rest of us suffered, start doing right by their employees?

Big corporations and the politicians they bankroll like the first option. They want to turn workers against each other. “Let them fight for the crumbs while we enjoy the pie,” they say. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had it with that. Those at the top have had it too good for too long at our expense. It’s time workers shared in America’s prosperity again.

It’s no coincidence that the zenith of the American middle class coincided with the peak in union density. Workers were able by homes and cars with the wages they earned. Families thrived. The economy hummed. That was a result of workers being able to bargain for a share of the pie, just like BART workers are trying to do today.

The problem with America’s economy isn’t that there are too many workers – like those at BART – who have the ability to stand together to bargain with employers for better wages and benefits.  The problem is far too few workers have that opportunity today.

And until we recognize that, we’re doomed to a future of increasing income inequality and a shriveling middle class. I doubt that’s what the McFaddens are angling for.  

by John Logan, San Francisco State University

For several weeks, BART management has run a sophisticated media campaign telling the public that the lack of real progress in negotiations is solely the fault of the unions’ unreasonable and uncompromising economic demands.

When it comes to wages and benefits, however, management has presented a highly misleading picture: it has failed to mention the enormous concessions that BART workers accepted in 2009 at the depth of the economic recession. BART President Thomas Blalock stated that he was “extremely pleased” with that cost-cutting agreement. BART employees were much less pleased, of course, but they recognized the need for significant sacrifice in the dismal economy.

Under the guidance of their highly paid, out-of-state chief negotiator, Thomas Hock, BART management is misrepresenting key economic and safety issues. Hock has an outstanding reputation for driving down employees’ wages and benefits, but a dismal one for resolving disputes without disruptive strikes. By characterizing its bargaining position as fair and generous, BART management has failed to explain that, under its most recent written offer, most BART employees would barely stay in place, while many on the lowest incomes would likely fall even further behind. Nor has management explained how top management, not frontline workers, enjoy some of the system’s most expensive and wasteful job perks.

BART management has also consistently misrepresented several key safety issues that are at the heart of the dispute.  BART management has, for the most part, failed to resolve the unions’ concerns on worker and rider safety.  Indeed, State Controller John Chiang, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones wrote to management recommending that they “treat frontline employees-many of whom have raised numerous valid concerns about worker and rider safety-as partners in creating a safer system.” Thus far, BART management has failed to heed their wise advice.

The figures on safety for BART employees speak for themselves. Since 2009, BART management has cut the system’s operations staff by 8 percent. During the same 4-year period injuries that BART reported to Cal-OSHA have increased by a whopping 43 percent. Hundred of BART workers are now injured on the job every year. And as a result of BART’s dysfunctional and inefficient workers’ comp system, many injured workers are involuntarily forced out of their jobs for weeks or even months at a time.

BART workers also face the threat of physical violence on a regular basis. 30 BART station agents were assaulted at work in 2009, while the same number were assaulted during the first four months of 2013. Recent incidents have involved an agent being attacked with a knife, an agent being punched in the face, an agent being thrown down stairs, and an agent being attacked by a group of five teenagers. As a result, several BART station agents have ended up in hospital with serious injuries. Other BART agents have had to deal with fatal shootings or horrific suicides in or around their stations. Yet BART management has thus far refused to do what is necessary to ensure worker and rider safety throughout the system.

BART management needs to spend more time engaging in real discussions at the bargaining table and less time trying to win the battle of public opinion through its sophisticated media campaign. Negotiating through the media may be easier than doing it face-to-face, but it won’t resolve this dispute.

And neither will management’s misrepresentation of the key economic and safety issues at the heart of the negotiations.

 

Negotiations will resume with 30-day contract extension

by Brian Leubitz

It isn’t the deal that either side wanted, but the BART workers and management agreed to a 30 day contract extension that will put the system back in service by 3pm today:

Shortly before 11 p.m. Thursday, representatives from BART and the two unions that went on strike Monday announced that workers will go back to their jobs and trains will begin rolling by 3 p.m. Friday. BART will continue to run its bus service Friday morning.

The decision came at the request of state Labor Secretary Marty Morgenstern and state mediators.

Regular train service to 400,000 daily riders in the Bay Area will operate during the monthlong extension, officials said. But the contract dispute is far from over. When asked how many contract issues remain to be resolved, Morgenstern could only chuckle.

“I don’t have that much time,” he said.(SF Chronicle)

The state could have imposed a 60 day cooling off period, but the net result would have been a strike around Labor Day week. What the four and a half day strike will mean for the negotiation is still unclear, as it seems that no side really won a great PR victory.

Early this morning, there was a fire in West Oakland that spread to the West Oakland BART station.  The fire was reported to be hot enough to melt streetlights and signs.  As a result, the West Oakland BART station was closed this morning, effectively closing the Transbay tube connecting Oakland and San Francisco — stranding East Bay BART commuters.

This resulted in an increased demand for AC Transit and carpooling.  The busses were packed during rush hour, and  auto traffic across the Bay Bridge increased.  When there was an accident on the upper (westbound) span, traffic delays increased to over two hours.

One canceled rush hour on one leg of public transportation resulted in massive gridlock and tremendous costs to business (not to mention the stress on the commuters themselves.)  As we continue to make cuts in the subsidies to public transport, we’re going to shift traffic to overburdened bridges and roads.  

Today’s fire should be taken as a warning of an ominous future if we keep shifting people away from public transit.  

(Cross-Posted from The Alternative D.C., http://thealternativedc.com)

It was 5:30 AM.  I was at the Concord BART station.  With me were two friends sporting

“Garamendi for Congress” shirts. Also with me was the Lieutenant Governor of California, John Garamendi.  How did I get here?!?

I’ve always been active in politics, even though I’m only a freshman high school student. For me, this campaign started in June.  My friend, Jeremy Wolff, invited me to volunteer with the Garamendi for Congress campaign, where he was working.  I was already more-than-familiar with the congressional race and John Garamendi. Unable to refuse anything related to politics, I accepted without hesitating, and on the same day, met John for the first time at the Campaign Headquarters.

Since then, I’ve been volunteering regularly, phone banking every other day, and canvassing on weekends. I’ve spent a good deal of my summer with this campaign.  Not only am I a campaign enthusiast, I am also a blogger, and am the editor-in-chief of The Alternative DC, a national bipartisan youth political blog. It was under this position that I agreed to interview John for the blog at the crack of dawn.

Back to 5:30 this morning: I joined John and some volunteers at the Concord BART station and we reviewed the plan: we would take the BART all around the district, talking to and addressing constituent’s concerns, and distributing campaign information. After all, tomorrow is the election.

Several minutes into our southwestern BART ride, John sat down and promptly pulled out the Contra Costa Times, reading every article. As we heard a Ping!, the doors opened and John put the Times away to socialize with the new passengers.

It’s interesting to watch John Garamendi and his methods of dealing with people. He starts off saying “My name is John Garamendi. Tomorrow’s election day, and I’d like to be your congressman,” to each person. Some people shrug him off. Others seem honored and astonished to meet the Lieutenant Governor. The most interesting people are the ones who begin conversations with John, who always is happy to engage in conversations with constituents ranging from tomorrow’s election to tax issues.

After a few conversations, we left the BART to distribute literature to new voters, and then to board the BART going north. During this ride, the seats are mostly empty, so we were able to begin our interview.

I launched the interview with a question that I know is on the minds of many in the district: “After your years of experience in state-level office, why are you running for federal?”

John explained how he also, “has experience in the federal level, under Bill Clinton [as Deputy Secretary of the Interior]. [The] issues I’ve worked on my entire career, they’re all in Washington right now- Healthcare issues, transportation issues, the issues of climate change policy- all of those things I’ve spent my career on- are in Washington.” John then elaborated on his role in climate change negotiations as Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and concluded with:

“… So, my Washington experience prepares me for what’s going on back there.”

I asked my next question: “If elected to congress in November, what would your first actions be?”

Garamendi thought for a moment, then answered. “A lot of it depends on where congress is on policy; if healthcare [reform] is still going on; I’ll be very involved in that. [There’s] the energy policy… Then, there are issues specific to the district: transportation issues… education issues, all of those things are in process… research issues… so there’s this series of things we have to do, on all of these district issues…  I’m going to hit the ground running.”

I asked him a different type of question next- one that dealt with the campaign: “In what ways do you differ most from the other democrats in this race?”

“Well, first of all- vast experience on critical issues… [then] there’s detailed knowledge of government working…” John expanded that he knows Insurance reform (he served as California Insurance Commissioner in the 90’s), and will be able to assist committees on the subject. He also touched on his detailed knowledge of climate protection, and how he:

“…Helped develop the American climate change conference in June of 1998. So, again, detailed knowledge… and those are the things I’d bring to Congress.”

As a follow up, I then asked in what ways he most differed from David Harmer, the presumptive Republican nominee.

“Harmer is inexperienced, and very, very, conservative. Thus far, the only thing he talks about is balancing the budget. In fact, it’s the republicans who fail to balance the budget… In the Clinton administration, we cut the Department of the Interior by 15,000 people, and we balanced the budget, and created a surplus. Republicans talk about it but they don’t do it. In fact, George [W.] Bush and the Republicans created the biggest deficit EVER. Now, the stimulus package… was necessary to keep the economy from total collapse… so I think the basic difference is, I have walked the walk, he [Harmer] is just talking the talk.”

Moving on, I asked him, “You’ve spent decades building up considerable influence here in California. How would you continue this as a freshman congressman?”

“I’ve got relationships… I know the committee chairmen. They’re personal friends of mine… these are people I’ve worked with years and years… Nancy Pelosi, too. So, relationships are useful… we will work together.” He continued, talking about how the committees will, as they have in the past, consult him on issues that he has proved himself knowledgeable in. He also mentioned that he’s worked closely with many Senators, campaigning with many of them, including Majority Leader Harry Reid. He went on: “I have a very significant advantage, not only knowing the issues, [but] knowing this district. I’ve represented this district for seven years. I’ve been on the ballot nine times!”

I now went for a question that I knew would be one of the most important: “What are your specific goals for District 10?”

“Well, as I covered some of it, transportation issues are very, very important. The research issues- this district has in it and adjacent to it, three of the greatest research institutes in the entire country… I’m very involved with research issues… [we’ve got] the Lawrence Livermore Labs, and the Travis Air Force Base is the economic force of Fairfield. Next, agriculture. I’m a farmer-rancher. Water- I’m a 35-year-veteran of California water issues. I know the issues of the Delta. I’ll be the only congressman EVER to live in the Delta. I’ve lived on the Sacramento River for 32 years. So I know the Delta… Healthcare is a big, big issue in this district… again I know the Chairman of the Health Committee… I’ll be able to bring that knowledge to Washington, D.C.-Small things, like regulations, to big things like Medicare, Medicaid, I have a record for these things… The welfare program in California is one that I basically designed in 1980, and that Bill Clinton modeled his Arkansas and National program on.”

PING!

The BART halted, and we were at El Cerrito. We decided to continue the interview later on, as Team Garamendi exited BART.

In El Cerrito, Garamendi courted a large crowd of voters, with great reception. And again, he used “My name is John Garamendi. Tomorrow’s election day; I’d like to be your congressman.” He talked to still more voters- young and old and in-between.

Eventually, it was time to head back to Concord and wrap up the round trip. I managed to ask one last question before it was over. I mentioned that, if he wins, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to appoint a replacement, and asked his thought on that selection. On this he was very straightforward. He explained that the Legislature (controlled by Democrats) has a bigger say in the appointment. Because of this, Schwarzenegger cannot push through whomever he wants for the position. Basically, Schwarzenegger will either appoint a place holder or leave the seat vacant.

PING! We had arrived at Garamendi’s stop.

“Mr. Garamendi, thank you so much for your time.”

“No, thank you.”