The Full Story on TWU Local 250-A's Contract Battle With SFMTA

The Full Story on TWU Local 250-A's Contract Battle With SFMTA
http://www.twu.org/blog/tabid/84/vw/1/itemid/579/default.aspx

Published 04 Jun, 2014
On Monday, TWU Local 250-A members voted 1,198 to 47 to reject a tentative contract agreement with San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). The Local, headed by President Eric Williams, represents over 2,000 SFMTA employees in a range of crafts across the MUNI system.

In a press release put out by the Local on Tuesday, President Eric Williams states: “This is a great city, but a very difficult place to operate a bus, streetcar or cable car. This also is a very expensive city and while SFMTA’s ridership and revenues are rising, the agency seeks to cut wages and benefits and convert full-time positions to part time.”

Click here to read TWU Local 250-A's press release on members' overwhelming rejection of the proposed contract.

In an effort to keep all TWU brothers and sisters informed, the International is providing below a full picture of the events that led up to members’ decisive rejection of the contract on Monday and the Local's plan for moving forward in the best interest of its membership.

Negotiations With SFMTA

Back in February, Local 250-A's negotiating committee met with SFMTA to set ground rules for contract negotiations. SFMTA's contracts are negotiated under a city charter, which contains complex arbitration rules and requirements of both the employer and the union that are unique to the area.

In combination with other area laws that favor employers, these rules make contract negotiations an uphill battle for unions.

City Arbitration Rules and Prop G

Under the city’s arbitration rules, if the union and the employer cannot come to a settlement in accordance with the city's timeline, they are forced into an all-or-nothing arbitration.

In this arbitration, the union presents its case and the employer presents their case. The arbitrator is not allowed to draw up a compromise between the two parties' proposals. Instead, he or she must choose one party's proposal or the other to accept in its entirety.

In addition, negotiations are also potentially subject to a law that was voted into effect back in 2010, which is called Proposition G. Under Prop G, it is the burden of the union to prove that the employer can afford any wage/benefit increases that the union proposes in negotiations.

As other unions know well, the requirement that a local go through the employer’s finances with a fine-tooth comb to find possible sources of money for a proposed wage increase — even to keep pace with the cost of living — is nearly impossible.

That section of Prop G is still in litigation, and there are disputes as to whether it applies to current negotiations.

Local 250-A Bargaining Units

The local union has four different classifications for which it is negotiating contracts: Inspectors, Operators, Automotive Service Workers, and a multi-unit group. Since the winter, the local had literally been meeting with different sets of negotiators for different classifications every day of the week.

On April 23, the local reached a tentative agreement with SFMTA for its Automotive Service Workers — a smaller bargaining unit of approximately 100 members. And by early May, the Local had TA'd for all bargaining units with the exception of the Operators.

Negotiating a Contract for the Operators

The Operators are the largest Local 250-A bargaining unit. Throughout negotiations for the Operators' contract, SFMTA put up roadblocks, changed course repeatedly, and dragged their feet in talks.

In the middle of contract bargaining in mid-April, the negotiating team faced a surprise move by the employer — which SFMTA later went back on — to take their health care proposal completely off the table, but the Local pushed forward with the negotiations in spite of this radical setback.

The Labor Climate in San Francisco

At the time contract negotiations with SFMTA began, dozens of other bargaining units represented by 30 different union tables were all engaged in negotiations with a range of city departments and organizations. All of the city contracts were up, including SFMTA's employee contracts.

Under the city's contract negotiation and arbitration rules, all contracts must be settled or go to binding arbitration by May 15.

Local 250-A's negotiating team realized that the Local was not going to TA before May 15 due to the fact that SFMTA was refusing to offer more than a 1-2 percent lump sum total for wage increases.

Mediation and the Proposed Contract for Local 250-A Operators

Knowing that they were coming up on binding arbitration, the Local chose to go into non-binding mediation.

After spending two days in mediation, both late nights, the local achieved a mediated two-year tentative agreement with wage increases of 3% in the first year and 2.25-3.25% in the second year based on CPI calculations, including the health plan that had previously been withdrawn — and a "cost-neutral pension swap," which would entail a wage increase to compensate for increased employee contribution to the pension plan.

The union sought out an outside CPA to weigh in on SFMTA's calculations regarding the pension swap. The CPA reported that SFMTA's "equal" swap was in fact not equal at all. It was uncovered that SFMTA had presented as fact a wholly inaccurate set of financial projections during negotiations.

At the end of the day, under the proposed contract, Local 250-A Operators would be making $1.10 less an hour than they are right now under their current contract.

Voting Down the Proposed Contract

After Local leadership informed members of the CPA's analysis, the membership was up in arms and voted down the contract by a margin of more than 27:1.

On Tuesday, President Williams echoed the voices of his members in a post on Local 250-A’s website, saying that the proposed contract was an “unfair contract” and that the “city devalued our service as they proposed unreasonable take-aways.”

Later, Williams told news media: “It’s totally unfair. We’re not asking for anything special. Members don’t have a problem with paying their own pension, but it should be a fair swap similar to ones given in recent agreements with other city employee unions.”

Moving Forward

Local 250-A does not want to go to arbitration to resolve this contract dispute. “We’re ready to go back to the table,” Williams told reporters on Tuesday.

On Friday, California PERB will be making a decision as to whether to force Local 250-A and SFMTA to enter into binding arbitration. It is the strong preference of the Local to go back to the negotiating table and renegotiate at minimum the sections of the contract concerning the pension swap.