Report a Comment

@Alex B: Metro has pretty much one option, and it seems like a long shot. The union contract just came out of arbitration, with a three percent raise per year for the next three years, and a three percent flat payment for this past year.

Arbitration requires Metro and the union to each choose an arbitrator, then the two of them choose a third, neutral arbitrator. The three of them get to decide between them what the next contract looks like. The union puts forth its wish list, Metro puts forth its wish list, and the three of them decide what's fair.

According to Metro's lawsuit, the contract awarded does not meet federal guidelines. The federal guidelines limit the ability of arbitration to award contracts that exceed the authority's funding ability, especially if the raises impact the public welfare.

I would argue that the raises awarded do affect the public welfare, in that we're discussing 15% fare increases and service cuts in a recession, and that's only if we can convince strapped governments to increase their support to Metro by about 8%.

Not all of Metro's funding problem is based on union compensation, there's other things like paratransit costs too, but the fact is that most of Metro's costs are personnel costs (70%), and most of Metro's personnel are union (no figure available, it's above 80%).

Cue Kreeggo's response, right here.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 31, 2010 2:01 pm • link • report