Transit
ATU 689 responds to overtime article
Jackie Jeter, President of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, sent us this response to an article in the Washington Examiner regarding overtime pay. We reported on the Examiner's article in a breakfast link on Monday.As President of Local 689, the union representing almost 11,000 active and retired WMATA employees, it is my duty to respond to public accusations that impugn the reputation of our members or our union.
Photo by zach kowalczyk on Flickr.
According to the he Examiner's article, TOC Chairman Matt Bassett believes "the agency has not been able to successfully negotiate more time with the operators (sic) union," but it should be noted that WMATA has not proposed the extension of time off to the union.
The only mention was a proposal in the WMATA package which was never fully vetted or discussed during the last round of negotiations in 2008. That proposal has not been brought up since then.
Currently we have a required 8 hours off in a day, which comes from the FTA/DOT recommendations. The assignment of overtime is performed by management, not the union. Mr. Bassett and the union have never spoken about time off or the safety climate at WMATA, but most importantly, it is ATU Local 689 (the union) which holds WMATA's feet to the fire concerning 8 hours off in a 24 hour period as required under our contract.
In a Greater Greater Washington morning links post, it was reported that Mr. Bassett made this statement: "that you (TOC) would like to increase time off between shifts for Metro operators to allow 8 hours of sleep but has met resistance from the ATU (the union), since members are cashing in on overtime." It is important to the union that statements such as this one, made in jest or by those unfamiliar with the functioning of WMATA, be exposed either as errors or intentional misstatements for nefarious purposes.
The union has not resisted any conversation regarding an attempt to govern overtime. I think it wise, as a public official for Mr. Bassett to familiarize himself with the process for negotiating our union contract before making statements that can be construed by the public as accurate. His misstatements cast a questionable light on the intentions and good faith dealings of the union and cast a pall over its members.
Lisa Farbstein's statement, "The agency is filling vacancies and hiring more employees. But in the meantime, staffing shortfalls means extra cash and long days for some workers," is similarly problematic to me. Farbstein's statement encourages readers to assume that the agency has no structure for workers, as they "happily" make extra cash and work from sun up to sun down!
It is crucial for readers to understand that the maintenance track work being performed is hard, manual labor that shortens the work life of our members even if they are lucky enough to escape injury. And right now, Metro is trying hard to run an efficient agency and make repairs to an aging system at the same time.
Finally, it should be noted that train operators play a very small part in this type of overtime work which raises the question: Why the inquiry into overtime costs? Again, accuracy is the issue. I must put this in the proper perspective: Only 1 out of the 10 employees mentioned in the Examiner article was a union worker and none were bus operators, train operators, or station managers. The 1 union worker was from the skilled crafts.
The union cannot be accused of opposing workplace safety rules in order to boost income without speaking out. That inference is not true! Union members are guaranteed 40 hours of work a week. Anything over 40 hours a week is overtime. That overtime is scheduled by WMATA management, not the union. When union members work overtime to accommodate extraordinary demands on the public transit system for travel downtown during the 4th of July or other public events, no articles appear in the newspaper the following day alluding to misappropriate use of manpower.
Additionally, a hiring freeze that was imposed last year to prevent a higher budget gap, which would result in a reduction in service. The railroad has continued to function because it is our job to make sure every customer gets home safely.
For safe, efficient, and effective travel on our public transit system, manpower must be used. Union members take time away from their families to ensure the safety and reliability of the Metro system for Virginia, Maryland, and DC residents and their families. Overtime is often required to get the job done and to keep the system working. WMATA employees are hired to do their jobs.
Comments
@ggwash
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Last of K Street's great mansions is threatened
- McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2
- Metro tests secure parking with new "bike and ride"
- Support a growing city and join Pro-DC
by Stephen Smith on May 15, 2011 12:09 pm
I don't always particularly love the WMATA union either, but do you have a concern with their response to this issue? If not, that was sort of a meaningless attack.
by Joey on May 15, 2011 12:16 pm
by Jeff on May 15, 2011 2:40 pm
by Wade on May 15, 2011 2:43 pm
by thedofc on May 15, 2011 2:47 pm
TOC is the Tri-State Oversight Committee
by Dizzy on May 15, 2011 3:49 pm
Still, the cost savings do not justify the significantly increased danger to employees and passengers.
For anyone who is interested, I'm a retired Metro employee and I have written more about this topic on my blog:
http://washington-dc-metro.com/documents/
by sjohnson on May 15, 2011 6:20 pm
by David desJardins on May 15, 2011 7:42 pm
Management might control overtime, but it doesn't have control over a lot of the factors that lead workers to not finish their work during the regular day. In this domain union work rules are king, and they can be pretty draconian.
by Stephen Smith on May 15, 2011 9:16 pm
This has been a concern of mine for years. Eight hours off = maybe 5 hours (+/-) of sleep. If it's just one night that might be ok, but not night after night.
When I was still an active Metro employee I was reluctant to say much publicly for fear of being lynched. There are many Metro employees who have come to rely on OT just to pay their bills. Talking about limiting the shift length is tantamount to suggesting they take a cut in pay. Not a very popular position.
Actually, I would suggest that shifts be limited to say 12 hours on and 12 off which would not necessarily result in employees who work OT losing much if any money. Depending upon how it was scheduled, they could end up working the same number of hours -- for example, two 12 hour days instead one 16 hour shift.
by sjohnson on May 15, 2011 9:17 pm
by Mr. Access on May 15, 2011 10:04 pm
Although there are abuses by both management and the union, very little of the "Five union work rules that harm transit productivity" you linked to apply to Metro.
What I read that _is_ true/does apply is the following:
1) "In the case of DC’s Metro employees, pensions are calculated based on the highest four years of income, which gives workers incentives to wrack up tons of overtime in order to boost their (already very generous) pensions."
I would not describe Metro pensions as "generous" however. After working 27 years, an employee will receive about 50% (27 years x 1.85%) of the average of their "high four". Many cannot work OT, or it isn't available very often in their dept, so that means their pension will be 1/2 of their base salary. After deductions that is typically under $30K per year. Not exactly living large.
2) "Cross-utilization of labor not allowed."
True, but while it sounds more efficient to allow (say) maintenance workers to operate a train when they aren't busy, that reasoning neglects to consider what would happen if/when there are sudden failures that need to be addressed and all (or most) of the mechanics and techs are out on the line operating trains (which are now stuck because of the aforementioned problem(s). We might as well suggest that firemen be told to drive sanitation trucks when there are no fires.
Actually, in ATC we did clean the Train Control Rooms (TCRs) during our down time -- freeing up the custodians to do other work.
3) "Seniority. Unions are run on seniority, and people who have been with the union longer often get to pick what work they do."
This is true, and as it should be.
The 'comment' says, in part:
"Easier work assignments are frequently considered a “perk” of seniority. In the (nonunion) private sector one frequently observes the reverse – more experience and skill (and more pay) implies more difficult assignments."
This is not an appropriate comparison because generally, once an employee reaches the top level (above which they transition to management) their pay has topped out. IOW, 'more experience and skill' does not = more pay -- not at Metro anyway. All "Top Operators" and 'AA' mechanics get the same base pay (respectively), regardless of seniority. In fact, there are many techs and mechanics in the lower "grades" (A/B/C/D or Helper) that have more experience and/or skill than some of the 'AA' techs but are paid _less_. They have chosen to remain in a lower grade with less pay to get a better 'pick' (work location, hours/shift, and/or days off) because the Maintenance & Construct (M&C) pick is done by "seniority within grade" and not by straight seniority. This creates a perverse incentive to stay put in a lower grade.
Finally, there is this:
"The “pick” system lets the most experienced employees choose which escalators they work on (or at least the general area), and they often pick the stations whose escalators are in least need of repair, leaving the really bad escalators to the less-experienced workers."
This is simply not true. Yes, employees pick their work location according to seniority, but _management_ is responsible for job assignments. For example, an Elevator/Escalator (ELES) mechanic might pick Shady Grove (if that is an available work location) and report for duty there, but their supervisor could send them anywhere to work for the day -- as long as they are back at Shady by the end of their shift there's nothing they can say.
What simply does _not_ apply:
1) "Mandatory eight-hour workdays and no part-time hiring."
2) "Tons of time off and little-to-no advanced notice required."
When employees are first hired they have zero time off, none. No sick time, no vacation time. Sick time is earned at a rate of 12 days per year and vacation is allocated as follows:
1 week after 1 year
2 weeks after 2 years
3 weeks after 5 years
4 weeks after 10 years
5 weeks after 15 years
Oh, and a whole extra day (26 total) after 20 years.
Not bad but not exactly "tons of time off".
Vacation must be scheduled once every year during the "vacation pick" -- so it is scheduled weeks or months in advance.
by sjohnson on May 15, 2011 10:54 pm
Did you mean any union? Your writing in the past leads to believe your point-of-view is pretty virulently anti-union, regardless. Is there a situation where you would actually be happy with an employee union working for WMATA?
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 15, 2011 11:26 pm
1. $30k/year pension plus healthcare is extremely generous for an escalator/elevator repairman relative to the private sector (a.k.a., "the real world"). If you don't think this is true, then perhaps you could point me in the direction of a similar private sector job that gives similar benefits. Now, you can argue and say that $30k pension + healthcare should be the norm, but the fact is that it simply isn't.
2. The idea that ELES's deal with "sudden failures" that require them to be able to rush to the scene at any moment is, frankly, ridiculous. Anyone who's ever ridden Metro knows that escalators and elevators never get fixed that quickly.
3. As for the pick system, what's to stop someone from picking a work location that's far away from where they're needed and then getting to essentially not work for at least an hour each day while they commute to wherever they're actually needed? If they know that there's a shitty escalator at, say, Huntington, then why wouldn't they pick a location as far away as possible from that station? And also, I'm curious – how often would you say management actually calls someone away from their location? And finally – what's the point of this system in the first place? Wouldn't it be more efficient to give management complete authority to assign workers, period?
by Stephen Smith on May 15, 2011 11:35 pm
ATU-689 seems particularly bad, but in general I'd say that public sector unions have outlived their usefulness. (Note that "union" and "public sector union" are not the same thing! One can be anti-public sector unions while still supporting organized labor in the private sector!) I mean, who exactly are they protecting their members from? The taxpayers?
by Stephen Smith on May 15, 2011 11:39 pm
by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 15, 2011 11:41 pm
1. ELES's earn, on average, $80,000/year. (And it given that the max salary is only $100 more, it sounds like pretty much everyone gets $80k.) Half of $80,000 is $40,000. Maybe it's $30,000 after tax, but salaries and pensions in America are usually expressed pretax. So just to make sure everyone's on the same page, that means the post-employment benefit for someone who worked 27 years is $40,000 (pretax) plus healthcare.
2. Train operators at Metro are indeed culled from the ranks of already-employed bus drivers, just like in Portland. I've never driven a train or a bus, but – and correct me if I'm wrong – it seems that driving a train is a lot easier than driving a bus. Is this really a good system? Sounds like another inefficient work rule (whether it's de jure or de facto) to me.
by Stephen Smith on May 16, 2011 12:39 am
I agree that there are a variety of work rules at both public and private workplaces that make the agency/business less efficient. Ideally, management and union personnel could get along without having to have a zillion rules. I'd be the first to list any ridiculous _union_ work rules at Metro but the truth is there aren't very many that I can recall offhand. Most conflicts are over OT assignments. Our supervisors weren't shy about complaining, whether it was upper management or union related and I honestly can't recall them mentioning union rules causing them headaches. In fact, what caused the most problems were _management_ rules, regs, memos, etc. Lack of planning. Parts shortages. Getting access to the tracks to get work done. Those types of things.
WRT your #1: I'm not inclined to do the research to prove or disprove your statement that, "$30k/year pension plus healthcare is extremely generous...". I do know that a traditional "defined benefit" pension is becoming more rare but those that still exist typically pay about 40 to 70%+ of the employee's base pay. Sometimes OT is included in the benefit calculations, sometimes not. Pssst...I'm retired now so it wouldn't affect me but between you and I, I think it would be more fair to all employees (and potentially cost the public less) to raise the multiplier (the 1.85%/year) and eliminate the OT from the pension calculations. Or, have two options: Allow OT to be included -- subject to a cap and using the existing 1.85% multiplier, or use base pay with a higher multiplier. The majority of employees probably prefer the current system but a large minority resents it because they either cannot work OT (family obligations, etc) or they are willing and able to work OT but it simply is not available in their dept. Some of their union brothers and sisters who earned the same or less base pay will retire with a pension that's literally double what they will receive. Granted, they worked the OT, but unlimited OT isn't available to everyone.
I would argue that to the extent it isn't, a $30k (+/-) pension + healthcare should be the norm. Some people see what others have and want to take it away -- to drag them down. I would suggest that they should fight to get the same or similar benefits -- to help themselves rather than try to hurt someone else.
WRT #2: I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless it was my comment about having techs and mechanics operate trains. I was replying to the idea that employees should perform multiple jobs. I agree that the elevators and escalators continue to be a serious problem. I wasn't referring to ELES mechanics -- rather, I was thinking about my old dept, Automatic Train Control (ATC), or Car Maintenance (CMNT) road mechanics. During rush hour, many ATC techs are "standing by" -- doing data entry, cleaning, etc, they are there in case a problem occurs. Most of the time, everything is ok -- just like most of the time, there are no fires and the firemen are washing the equipment, etc. But if something does happen -- a switch, signal, or track circuit problem -- things can get ugly very quickly if there are no ATC techs nearby. For that reason it is impractical (to put it politely) to expect them to drive a bus or operate a train whenever there is nothing going on.
WRT #3: Good point. That could happen. Everyone has to make those decisions. Speaking for myself, since I live NW of Frederick, MD, given the choice I would pick Shady Grove Yard (A99) evening/PM shift regardless of how much work there was there. IMO, the yards were the most desirable locations and the next closest yards were Glenmont and West Falls -- both are significantly further from home. Of course, that's just me. I imagine there are some employees who would change from AM shift to midnights and drive 1/2 way around the Beltway every day just to avoid some extra work but I would think that most people would place proximity of work location, days off, and/or shift above the amount of work in a particular location.
Again, a supervisor can send an employee anywhere. If a supervisor thought that a particular employee had changed locations to avoid work or pass of their problems on someone else, they might very well make sure that employee was forced to travel back to their previous work location. So they might do as you said and pick somewhere else further from home, only to have to do the same work anyway.
I'm sure their are cases where techs and mechanics change their reporting location to avoid an excessive amount of work -- it did happen occasionally in ATC -- but the bottom line is that's not the reason the elevators and escalators are unreliable. Certainly not one of the primary reasons. The fact is that all mechanics and techs have (or should have) the same training. There are differences in experience, and it might take a junior tech or mechanic slightly longer to do a job but that shouldn't be a major issue.
I would venture to say that your attitude about seniority and the pick would change significantly if you worked for Metro. You asked, "Wouldn't it be more efficient to give management complete authority to assign workers, period?" It might be slightly more efficient but my guess would be that Metro would have to pay significantly more than they do now to attract qualified techs if those prospective employees knew that they would be subject to being relocated every 6 months -- from MD to VA to DC; from AM, to Mids, to PM shift; from Saturday and Sunday off to Tuesday and Wednesday off. As it is now, that's the way it often is for new hires, but they know that as they accumulate some seniority they will (usually) get a more desirable work location, shift, and/or days off. The thought of being bumped all over the D.C. area for a 27+ year career would be enough to scare most qualified mechanics away.
The fact is, staffing requirements are management's prerogative. If they want to eliminate certain reporting locations, or have everyone report to Metro Center or Branch Avenue (for example) they can do that. They could decide they want everyone to work midnight shift. IOW, while there is a bi-annual pick it's management that decides the choices the employees have. They are using the pick as a red herring.
by sjohnson on May 16, 2011 1:16 am
WRT #1) ELES mechanics have a special deal wit WMATA -- they make significantly more than everyone else in M&C.
BTW, while they do make a very good salary, Metro was _forced_ to pay them that much because they were being offered an equivalent amount in private industry. They were literally walking out the door.
It may not be intentional on your part, but referring only to ELES is a bit misleading.
WRT #2) I'm not sure what you're getting at but we're pretty far off-topic at this point.
I've never driven a bus or operated a train either. I imagine they each have their challenges.
What is the point you're trying to make? That the train operator positions should be open to other Metro employees or the public at large?
I don't particularly care either way, but I don't think giving bus drivers preference (which is an established practice) is necessarily "inefficient". At least they are familiar with Metro, the work rules, the territory, dealing with the public, etc.
by sjohnson on May 16, 2011 1:27 am
My guess is that they are putting away much less and pretending it's enough. It's basically a scam perpetuated against future taxpayers (who will be obliged to make the payments) by management and unions alike.
by David desJardins on May 16, 2011 1:28 am
Believe me, my coworkers and I became very concerned about our pension fund after the crash in 2008. I was able to get a copy of pension fund report that was given to the WMATA board of directors recently. It shows that the pension used to be significantly over-funded and is now approximately 100% funded.
As you know, this is very unusual. Many (most?) public and private pension funds are significantly under-funded.
by sjohnson on May 16, 2011 1:56 am
I hope you're right. Most pension funds use very optimistic assumptions, like 8% investment returns forever. It's easy to make pensions seem adequately funded that way, when in reality the taxpayer is on the hook for a tremendous amount of money. I'm also not clear on whether the pension fund includes healthcare for retirees.
by David desJardins on May 16, 2011 1:58 am
You're absolutely correct.
The apprx. 100% funding was based on the current value of the fund and projected liabilities.
They do assume an 8% return, which is wildly optimistic.
Total pay increases are assumed to be 3.5% per year.
Inflation and cost of living increases are assumed to be 3%.
I believe that WMATA is required by law to make up any shortfall however, so if the fund doesn't earn 8%, WMATA will make up the difference.
by sjohnson on May 16, 2011 2:26 am
It ultimately comes down to your definition of "being able to afford." If you think the status quo is acceptable, then we can afford it. If you think Metro service should be better (less breakdowns, more frequent service, later hours, etc.), then we can't afford it. Clearly the union is happy with how Metro works, but I assume that most people here think it could be better. Or at least, that's what Greater Greater Washington's slogan is...
by Stephen Smith on May 16, 2011 3:58 am
You make a good point -- "Metro service should be better (less breakdowns, more frequent service, later hours, etc.)"
The thing to remember is that the majority of the problems at Metro are not the fault of the union or the employees. It is not their fault that maintenance has been deferred for so long. It is not their fault that WMATA has failed to hire enough employees. It is not their fault that parts are not always available. It is not their fault that Metro is a two track system, necessitating 'single tracking' whenever track work must be done.
Believe me the union and rank-and-file employees are _not_ "happy with how Metro works." Remember, employees are also 'passengers'. We are also taxpayers. I probably rode more trains in 27 years than most passengers do in a lifetime. My coworkers and I have experienced our share of trains with mechanical problems, single tracking delays, "hot cars" with no A/C, PA systems that are either way too loud or too soft, obnoxious teenagers, crush loads, etc. We've had to lug hundreds of pounds of equipment and supplies up broken escalators. We've had to spend hours in TCRs and other rooms that are sauna hot (100+ degrees) because the HVAC system failed (again)).
Bottom line -- we all want Metro to work better. That is the purpose of my blog (click on my name, sajohnson, below).
Unfortunately there is no oversight of Metro -- none with any teeth. Even if there were -- what're they gonna do, fine Metro? That's just fining passengers and taxpayers.
by sjohnson on May 16, 2011 4:46 am
by charlie on May 16, 2011 7:44 am
The following is from the pension fund financial report dated Sept 7, 2010:
"The smoothing period on asset gains and losses was changed from 3 years to 5 years. Additionally, the asset losses incurred during 2008, when recognized by the smoothing technique, are to be separately amortized over a period of 30 years beginning January 1, 2009."
by sjohnson on May 16, 2011 11:53 pm
Good point. It's possible that even if they can afford it, it's still too generous. I guess the real question should be what is the market wage (including retirement and other benefits) for these positions, and how does that compare to what they pay.
by David desJardins on May 17, 2011 1:20 am
That's true. I've written about that some on my blog.
When I was hired back in 1983, Metro was paying literally _double_ what other employers were offering electronics techs to start. Over the years however, the difference has narrowed to the point where now Metro is having trouble hiring qualified mechanics and techs. With pay + benefits being about equal, most people will choose the job that offers:
1) A fixed location
2) Regular (day shift) hours
3) A standard work week with weekends off
4) All holidays off
5) Working indoors in air conditioned comfort
As opposed to Metro which demands that workers:
1) Work outside and in the tunnels
2) Work close to the third rail
3) Risk getting hit by trains
4) Potentially change work location, shift, and/or days off every 6 months ("Live in Germantown? Sorry, you're working in Alexandria now -- buh, bye!)
5) Work holidays (if they are a regularly scheduled work day)
One measure of if a job pays 'too much' is how many applicants there are. If they're lined up around the block then, yep, it might be paying too much. The hard cold fact is that Metro cannot seem to find qualified applicants for Maintenance and Construction (M&C) positions -- even in this market.
by sjohnson on May 17, 2011 1:45 am
by David Alpert on May 17, 2011 4:06 pm
Add a Comment