Effort to End MTA Strike Halted Negotiations Instead

LOS ANGELES -- One of the propositions state representatives put on the table shortly before talks between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its drivers collapsed this week was 10 hours' pay for 10 hours work-a common-sensical concept just about everywhere but in the complex world of big city transit, the Los Angeles Times reported

In the transit world, particularly in Los Angeles, the proposal is fairly radical, for current rules applying to workers on split shifts do just the opposite, requiring bus and rail operators to put in 10- or 11-hour days, with only 8 of those hours paid.

Thus, on that particular issue, two powerful state officials who have been trying to end the 14-day-old strike against the MTA, took the side of the United Transportation Union, which represents 4,400 striking bus and rail operators.

But on other issues, the state officials--Assemblyman Herb Wesson (D-Culver City) and Stephen Smith, director of the state Department of Industrial Relations--came down on the side of management's goal of adding more part-time drivers and reducing overtime.

Under the non-binding plan put together by Wesson and Smith, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, the MTA would be allowed to add as many as 200 more part-time drivers, to enable some part-time drivers to work weekend relief and to expand the number of hours part-time employees can work each week. All are important departures from the drivers' most recent contract.

The proposals were among the 12 specific suggestions offered by the two state officials in an effort to break an impasse between the MTA and the bus and rail operators' union. But rather than initiating progress, the proposals triggered the abrupt collapse of the talks when transit agency negotiators rejected them, infuriating drivers' union officials.

There have been no bargaining talks since the negotiations broke down Tuesday, leaving no end in sight for a strike that has left 450,000 weekday MTA bus riders with few transportation alternatives. With nearly all the MTA's buses idle, along with a shutdown of the Red Line subway and Blue Line light-rail line, the impact of the strike is being seen in high absentee rates at some businesses, clinics, public schools and community colleges. Motorists in the Greater Los Angeles area are also complaining about longer commutes and more traffic on freeways.

Efforts to get the two sides together failed once again Thursday, when James A. Williams, leader of the United Transportation Union, was given a letter from Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, the MTA board chairwoman, with three conditions that she said she wanted the union to meet. Williams told aides he was called to a meeting with Brenda L. Diederichs, with the intent of agreeing on a way to resume talks, but instead was given the letter.

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, Burke asks Williams for "a comprehensive proposal outlining what the union leaders require to end this strike."

Burke also asked the union to agree to call in a federal mediator.

Apparently not satisfied with Wesson, Smith and two state mediators who have been participating in the talks, Burke said: "We believe a seasoned expert in mediation, with a background in the transit industry, can help move these negotiations along before we reach an impasse."

The third condition was that striking drivers, along with mechanics, clerical workers and supervisors who are honoring picket lines, return to work while the negotiations continue.

"Mr. Williams indicated he would work on a comprehensive proposal," said Goldy Norton, a spokesman for the United Transportation Union. "He absolutely refused the idea of a federal mediator, and he absolutely refused the idea of having employees come back to work during this period."

Attempts to obtain comment from Burke were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, plans continued for a labor rally outside City Hall today at 11 a.m., designed to pressure Mayor Richard Riordan to intervene in the negotiations and try to end the strike.

Riordan, who controls four of 13 seats on the MTA governing board, has so far maintained a strong bargaining position with other board members.

Burke's call for a federal mediator came after the blowup over the state negotiators' proposals.

The negotiators' proposals, printed on a single sheet of paper, were rejected, according to Burke, because the rail and bus operators union didn't sign off on it.

Union negotiators said they were willing to use the document as a basis for contract talks, although they are opposed to several of its recommendations.

Some of the bargaining points are specific and detailed, down to the number of minutes drivers will get for inspections before their runs.

The MTA would not respond to the specific proposals, although officials clearly felt the plan was weighted toward the unions.

Some of the state representatives' proposals:

Smith, a Cabinet level member of the Davis administration, was not available for comment Thursday.

Dean Fryer, a spokesman for the state Department of Industrial Relations, said that state mediators are standing by ready and available for a resumption of talks.

MTA: Think Long-Term

LOS ANGELES -- Mayor Richard Riordan and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors need to understand the basics of how strikes are settled: Negotiate, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times said.

Political cynics no doubt look at the constituency for mass transit--largely poor, working class and elderly riders. Their dependence on buses minimizes the possibility of large, long-term ridership losses for the MTA no matter how long the strike lasts or how it ends. Fare box losses from the strike amount to a fraction of the savings that the MTA has gained from not running trains or many buses. And Wall Street doesn't have any current plans for reducing bond ratings because of the strike.

But this is all short-term "winning the battle but not the war" thinking.

First, and contrary to the MTA's public war of words, the agency's bus operating costs are not dramatically out of line with those of other large, urban mass transit systems with which they should be rightfully compared. Again, it's a weak and short-term public argument to compare MTA bus operating costs with those of much smaller transit systems that, in part because of the difference in the population served, can operate more efficiently.

The MTA has a projected operating deficit of $438 million over the next 10 years, and its bargaining position on reducing overtime costs and changing work rules wouldn't bring the agency nearly to where it needs to be. There are reasonable cost savings to be achieved here, but blaming the unions for the MTA's woes is simplistic.

The MTA--its board includes the five Los Angeles County supervisors and four seats controlled by the mayor--is in this position because its 60 miles of rail lines were enormously expensive to build and maintaining them now will eat up an increasing share of funds. The agency also faces even great costs in the future when it has to take on operating the Pasadena Blue Line, not to mention even more grand rail and bus expansion plans in the San Fernando Valley and on the Eastside and the Westside. This at a time when the MTA can barely afford to operate the lines and routes it has.

Finely balanced political leadership is called for now. In public comments Wednesday Mayor Riordan launched another call for breaking up the MTA and again attacked the power of the unions. Certainly the MTA looks like an agency trying to work itself into extinction. But that kind of public baiting of the unions with which the MTA must negotiate won't get the buses running again.

The transit strike has been a great hardship on those most dependent on public transportation. Its effects on local businesses in terms of lost customers and employee time are growing. Solving it is crucial, but the MTA apparently has even more daunting tasks ahead: learning how to run a transit system that serves Los Angeles' needs and, more immediately, finding constructive political leadership.

In L.A., Striking Similarities on Picket Lines

LOS ANGELES -- Is half the world on strike, about to strike or coming off a strike? In Los Angeles, where janitors, librarians, teachers, bus drivers and actors have appeared downright eager to carry picket signs, it sure feels that way, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Labor strife is becoming the great unifier, cutting across lines of class, race and ethnicity, drawing equal passions from workers in the public and private sectors, from professionals and unskilled laborers alike. That trend was underscored at a downtown rally Thursday, where county doctors stood shoulder-to-shoulder with telephone operators who earn one-fifth their salaries, all cheering for striking bus drivers and strike-ready teachers.

"We see our struggles as very similar," said Joe Bader of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which represents about 800 county doctors who are planning job actions next week. "There's plenty of money out there to give people a fair contract. These are not outrageous demands."

Not for at least a generation have so many strikes and potential strikes converged in Los Angeles in one season. Part of the reason is pure coincidence: Labor contracts covering a quarter-million union members just happened to come up for negotiation within a six-month period.

But the intense activity also reflects an increasingly powerful labor movement in Los Angeles, which is leading the nation in membership growth and political activism. With so many contracts coming up simultaneously, that movement is flexing its muscles and demanding a bigger piece of the prosperous economy.

Mirroring a national trend, local labor also has gotten smarter about using its ultimate weapon. Labor leaders have built alliances with religious and community groups, called in political debts and made sure that all unions cooperate by honoring each others' picket lines and turning out for rallies.

"We've been planning for this summer for two years," said Jon Barton, organizing director for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which represents 800,000 union members. "There's been a strategic plan around building unity among the unions and working together. That sends a message to employers that when labor is at your door, you're not just dealing with one lonely union, you're dealing with the power of a movement."

A generation ago, in 1981, then-President Ronald Reagan replaced striking air traffic controllers and set in motion a sea change in employer-worker relationships that led to predictions of the death of the strike.

It may be too soon to declare the strike is back. Although activity has significantly increased across the nation in the last several years, the number of workers on strike is still nowhere near the levels of the 1940s and '50s. What's more interesting, said Ron Blackwell, director of corporate affairs for the national AFL-CIO, is that recent strikes have been more successful than they have been in decades.

"Unions are certainly striking smarter and being more effective," Blackwell said, mentioning a range of recent large strikes--at Verizon Communications, Earthgrains Co. and Boeing Co.--that ended successfully for workers.

"In the past, we had a lot of losing strikes," he said. "These are winning strikes."

Although it's unclear how several of the strikes in Los Angeles will be resolved, the wave of unrest has brought with it a new sense of unity and common purpose. Teamsters have refused to cover for striking Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus drivers, and union electricians walked off a job on the MTA's Blue Line. African American ministers are pressing for a meeting with Mayor Richard Riordan on the MTA strike, a dispute that disproportionately hits African American workers and bus riders.

That sort of cooperation has given credibility and weight to much of the summer's unrest, which began in April with a high-profile and ultimately successful janitors' strike. The strike put thousands of low-wage immigrants in the streets for three weeks and helped raise awareness of growing income inequalities in the region.

Labor leaders note with irony that Mayor Riordan and county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky--painted as villains in the public-sector strikes--were among the janitors' most vocal champions. Thousands of public-sector workers who are on strike, or preparing to walk out Monday, have taken inspiration from those same janitors.

"What we're saying is the status quo is no longer acceptable," said Darla Alexander, a clerk in the Department of Children and Family Services, who earns about $2,000 a month. "In the recession, we took a lot of hits. Now we want to have a piece of these good times everybody is talking about."

Business leaders said labor unrest often accompanies a period of strong economic growth. "In a reasonably good economy, you're going to have this," said Ezunial Burts, president of the Greater Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

Union members want to lock in good long-term contracts before the economy dips again, Burts said, adding that many business owners find that prospect frightening. "You are seeing some anxiety on the part of workers," he said, "but also on the part of employers. And they are willing to be tough about it."

Thus, the showdown between the county's offer of a 9% raise over three years, and the union's demand for a 15% raise over the same period.

Rather than reflecting a stronger labor movement, the current spate of disputes is simply a predictable response to an improved economy, said Marta Fernandez, an attorney who represents employers in labor disputes. "I don't think unions are getting smarter," Fernandez said. "I think that they're riding the tide of good times."

Whether this renewed strike activity, with Los Angeles at its epicenter, is the start of a new dynamic between workers and employers, or a summer season fluke, remains to be seen. "This is one of the great dramas, and one of the great unknowns, of our time," Blackwell said.

For those in Los Angeles who are on strike or about to strike, there is only one acceptable answer. "What this boils down to is a big power play," said Ralph Miller, president of the probation officers union, which is preparing for a strike next week. "We stuck with the county through the bad times. Now we want to get our fair share."

Turn to Arbitration, Get the Buses Going Immediately

LOS ANGELES -- The breakdown in negotiations to end the strike by the United Transit Union against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority requires a dramatic change in the way the dispute is being handled, writes labor lawyer Joseph E. Herman in a commentary in the L.A. Times.

Traditional negotiations and mediation have not worked. The cost to the community and damage to our economy are too great to let the current impasse continue.

The parties should submit their contract dispute to an arbitration board that would choose between each party's final proposals. The arbitrators' authority would be limited to selecting either the MTA's or the union's final proposal.

The drivers would return to work immediately. Any increase in pay or benefits under the new contract would be paid to them retroactively, while any reduction would not take effect until the arbitrators issued their decision. The advantage of this type of arbitration is that it would put the maximum pressure on each side to compromise in formulating their final proposals because being unreasonable would risk the arbitrators' picking the other side's final proposal.

The pressure to compromise produced by this kind of arbitration often results in an agreement by the parties themselves, making a decision by the arbitrators unnecessary. The threat of a total loss changes the internal politics for both sides, forcing hardliners to rethink their intransigence when confronted with the possibility of a victory for the other side.

To guard against both parties submitting unreasonable final proposals, the arbitrators would have the authority to remand the dispute for the parties to submit new final proposals. Continued intransigence would increase the risk of a defeat.

The criteria the arbitrators would use in picking between the parties' final proposals should be spelled out before the final contract proposals were submitted to the arbitrators and should include: the provisions of other transit labor contracts; the financial condition of the MTA; and the impact of the new contract on riders and the public in general. If possible, the parties themselves would establish the standards to be used by the arbitrators in resolving the dispute, but if they could not reach agreement even on that preliminary matter, the arbitrators would use the final-offer selection process to determine what criteria to apply.

Who would the arbitrators be? One possibility would be for each side to pick one arbitrator and for those two to pick a third, neutral arbitrator. That way both sides would participate directly in the arbitration process. The disadvantage is that having only one neutral in a three-member arbitration board almost always results in a dissenting opinion from the losing side.

If the parties were able to reach an agreement, a better alternative would be to use a three-member panel made up of neutrals. Given the magnitude of the dispute, the members should be people of national stature and experience in labor-management disputes, such as former secretaries of Labor Robert Reich and Lynn Martin, former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, or retired UCLA law professor Benjamin Aaron.

While not common, this kind of arbitration has been used to resolve other intractable labor disputes, most notably in professional baseball.

This dispute is critically important to everyone involved: the drivers who have to support their families, the riders who will have to pay the higher fares that could come from a new contract and the taxpayers who help pay the costs of operating the MTA. But the issues in dispute cannot possibly justify the cost to the community of a continued strike when a fair alternative is readily at hand.

UTU Main Page

Copyright © 1999 United Transportation Union
Last modified: September 29, 2000