BART board approves contract with unions

BART board approves contract with unions
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-board-approves-contract-with-...
By John Wildermuth
Updated 6:26 pm, Thursday, January 2, 2014

BART directors finally approved a contract with the transit agency's largest unions Thursday, signaling the end to a months-long labor dispute that included a pair of strikes, a potential $44 million misstep by district negotiators, and plenty of posturing and finger-pointing on both sides.

"It was a tough negotiation, but we're here," board President Joel Keller said at the special meeting at BART's Oakland headquarters.

The revised agreement still has to be ratified by members of Service Employees International Union 1021 and Amalgamated Transit Union 1555, but leaders of both unions are recommending approval.

The ATU vote is set for Friday, with the SEIU ratification vote on Jan. 13.

"It's an agreement we're pleased with," said Pete Castelli, executive director of the SEIU local. "But it's going to take a long time to heal after the campaign BART ran against its unions."

A lone dissenter
Thursday's 8-1 vote didn't spackle over all the concerns, complaints and problems brought by the contentious contract talks. Director Zakhary Mallett, the lone dissenter, argued that the agreement was too expensive and wasn't in the district's long-term best interests.

"We accepted a strike and rewarded bad behavior," he said. The unions "went out on strike and we sweetened the deal."

Director Gail Murray said she had received hundreds of e-mails, many of them urging the district to accept a long strike rather than approve the contract.

Important to sign
But even though the cost of the ultimate agreement was more than Murray and many of the directors wanted to pay, it was important to sign the contract, she said.

"There are a lot of people who have no (transportation) alternative," she said. "And the Bay Area economy couldn't take a long strike."

Union officials weren't bubbling over with goodwill, charging that transit district officials, in concert with Bay Area business interests, brought on the strikes in an attempt to turn public opinion against the unions.

"This is something that should have been settled six months ago," said Chris Finn, an ATU negotiator.

The new agreement features a few changes from the contract both unions ratified in early November. Days later, BART management sought to revise that agreement, arguing that its negotiators had mistakenly signed off on a provision that granted workers up to six weeks of paid family leave, a change they said could cost the district as much as $44 million over the four-year life of the contract.

The board rejected that part of the contract on Nov. 21, leading to a hurried round of new talks.

The union finally agreed to drop the controversial provision in exchange for minor improvements in working conditions, bereavement leave eligibility and other contract changes that Castelli described as "not earthshaking."

Unchanged are the key provisions hammered out during the talks that ended the four-day October strike, including a 15.4 percent pay increase over the length of the contract, new worker contributions to their pension plans, an increase in the fixed payment for medical benefits and a variety of work rule changes, including new restrictions on overtime pay.

"There's a little bit of discomfort on both sides of the agreement," Keller said. But "if both sides are uncomfortable with what was approved, it's probably a good contract."

Fight isn't over
While both sides stressed the need for healing after the rough-and-tumble of the labor negotiations, the signatures on the contract aren't going to end the fight.

Keller already has said he wants to ban strikes by the unions to avoid a repeat of this year's troubles when a new contract comes up in four years. He plans to bring that proposal up at the board's first meeting in February.

"Strikes are terribly disruptive," he said. "We have to find a way in the future to better resolve these problems."

But union officials argued that strikes are an unwelcome but necessary part of collective bargaining and said that Keller's effort, which would need to be approved by the state Legislature or by voters, would go nowhere.

John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail:jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com