News

BART board approves early five-year contract with employees

Deal gives workers 10.5% raise over term, prevents strikes until 2021

A five-year labor contract with BART's major unions was approved Thursday, a year before the current contract expires, in an effort to avoid another round of acrimonious negotiations at a time when BART officials are looking to rebuild the system infrastructure and planning to ask voters to approve a $3.5 billion bond.

BART made the surprising announcement last month that it had reached tentative agreements with its biggest labor unions, granting its 3,300 workers a 10.5% raise over the next five years.

The contract is similar to one reached in 2013 after BART workers staged two strikes that crippled Bay Area transportation. BART's board of directors and union leaders today hailed the early agreement as evidence that BART had moved beyond the toxic state of its relationship with its employees to a far more productive one.

"It was not a contract that the unions thought was great, but it is a contract that is great for all of us in healing," Service Employees International Union Local 1021 BART chapter president John Arantes said.

Neither side got exactly what it wanted.

BART director Gail Murray pointed out the wage increases may not even cover the skyrocketing cost of living in the area, and not everyone on the board agreed with all of the contract provisions. Two board members, Zakhary Mallett and Joel Keller, voted against it.

Mallett said his feeling was that the public was opposed to the agreement. While he thinks the wage increases are reasonable, he said the contract leaves in place wasteful spending in benefit packages that he estimates will cost $50 million over the life of the contract.

"This is just extending a bad contract," Mallett said. "I wish that we have done a more thorough negotiation."

Keller said he was conflicted and wasn't sure how he would vote just a few minutes prior to casting it.

He said he agreed with many things about the contract but has concerns about whether the economy, and BART's revenue, will be able to sustain its costs. Ridership may dip after years of growth, sales tax revenue has shown signs of declining, and the Bay Area economy might not maintain its current level of prosperity.

But board President Tom Radulovich called the 2013 contract "a pretty robust agreement" that he said has worked well over the past few years.

Radulovich said BART's budget concerns go far beyond the cost of the labor contract, and cuts to wages and benefits would do little to contribute to the billions it will cost to rebuild BART's aging infrastructure.

The agency is still hurting from cuts to state and federal assistance that came during the recent economic downturn. Meanwhile, Radulovich said BART's system, with many components built in the 1970s, is "beyond its useful life."

Several projects are already in place to reconstruct the BART system, including an order of new train cars that have already begun arriving and are expected to enter service by the end of the year.

But BART is also looking to replace miles of track and upgrade its train control systems to a much more modern system that will allow it to run trains more frequently and efficiently. For that massive capital investment, the board is planning on placing a $3.5 billion bond measure on November's ballot.

Radulovich and other board members characterized the early labor agreement as an effort to avoid a labor dispute so workers and the board alike can focus on the necessary capital improvements.

To questions that the agreement was a "gimmick" designed to create public goodwill ahead of the bond measure's introduction, Radulovich said the infrastructure improvements need to happen regardless.

"Whether the bond passes or not, we're going to have a lot to think about in 2017," he said.

The contract guarantees there will be no strikes at least until 2021, but Murray said she has received criticism for not fighting for a no-strike clause in the labor agreement. To negotiate for such a clause could have created months of strikes itself, she said.

"Having the ability to strike is one of the most powerful tools that unions have and they are not going to give that up without a long, hard struggle," Murray said.

The state legislature would have to intervene to take away that right.

— Bay City News Service

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

10 people like this
Posted by Long Term Resident
a resident of Danville
on May 13, 2016 at 8:37 am

The BART board should be ashamed of themselves. They continue to let the unions hold them hostage with no real resolution in sight. The fear of public outcry if there was another strike was the prime factor that drove this deal, not sound fiscal policy. First, the figure of a 10.5% raise is not really accurate. The raises are 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.75%, and 2.75% over 4 years. Since they occur sequentially on top of one another, the real figure is more than 10.9%. Secondly, that doesn't include other benefits which scale with increased salaries.

BART employees are already amongst the highest paid transit workers in the world. As we learned during the last strike, many of the employees already make over $100,000 per year in jobs that require only a high school degree or GED. I would be willing to bet we could easily replace them with workers who would be willing to "drive" the automated trains for even $50,000 per year. Other transit unions hold up the BART deal as the gold standard for what other unions aspire to (not a good thing if you are a tax payer).

There is no way I will vote in favor of a bond to bail the board out for their lack of fiscal discipline. They claim that none of the $3.5 Billion will be used for salaries. However, they fail to mention that they wouldn't need so much for capital projects if they had been paying BART employees more reasonable wages all along. Also, don't forget we are all already paying increased sales tax to supplement BART whether we use the system or not.

I'm glad we have BART. I would hate to imagine the traffic problems if we didn't. However, I have traveled all over the world and the system is one of the worst as far as convenience, reliability, cleanliness, cost, etc. If you doubt my word, go to Singapore, Japan, Moscow, Bangkok, London, Shanghai, Rotterdam, Paris, etc. In fact, when my friends from other countries arrive at SFO and get on BART, they have a hard time believing we have such a poor system. It may be acceptable if we were not paying so much for it. And don't get me started on the $90 Billion we are spending on a high speed train when we can't even get BART right!


5 people like this
Posted by Dave
a resident of San Ramon
on May 13, 2016 at 11:20 am

I agree with your reasoning long term resident. The fact remains that if I were a union member I would not give up the "no strike" clause this year. The more important issue to me is that BART responded to our Assembly woman and our Senator. If they weren't there??? I am not looking to start a discussion. I would like people to step back and think about that in contrast to where we were in the year of the strikes. Most people I talk to want a cleaner more efficient BART. They do not want to get ripped off. We will weigh this at the ballot box in November.


6 people like this
Posted by Anne
a resident of Alamo
on May 13, 2016 at 1:50 pm

What a shame that the board sold out.BUT,you have to remember,any raises/benfit increases that the union members receive are also given to the BART mgmt.In others words:those who are responsible for the negotiations.Therefore,there isn't a great impetus to fine tune these contracts.
The other part of those contracts that irritates me is the eligibility of ALL workers for annual bonuses!!! A bonus to actually do your job????


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Lots of media coverage as Swalwell calls it quits for 2020 presidential bid
By Tim Hunt | 20 comments | 1,090 views

"Better" Dads and "Re-invigorated" Moms: Happier Couples
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,086 views