Transit
ATU Local 689 answers your questions
A few weeks ago, we invited readers to pose questions to ATU Local 689, the union representing most Metro employees. Their political and legislative director, Lateefah Williams, was unfortunately very sick for a few weeks (but better now). Here are her answers to your questions.
A (friendly) Metrobus driver. Photo by Il Primo Uomo on Flickr.
Just one guy's experience, but when interacting with Metro operators (and other employees), I'm treated at best like a nuisance, and at worst, with outright contempt. When interacting with DC Circulator drivers, I'm treated like a customer.I am sorry that you have had an unpleasant experience when interacting with some WMATA employees. Union membership status is not the reason for any perceived customer service differences between Metro and Circulator drivers because both are unionized. Metro bus operators and other frontline WMATA employees are unionized through ATU Local 689 and Circulator bus operators are unionized through ATU Local 1764. I am not in a position to know if there are differences in the Circulator's workforce, management practices, or systems.The only difference I can discern between these two groups is the union membership status. Are there other differences in the workforces, management practices, or systems that I should be aware of?
At the specialty level, could the union do more to create a successful operation for WMATA instead of waiting for non-union WMATA officials to hand down directives? I.e. take ownership of the issues themselves and manage up?The union does take ownership of issues that directly affect the union. Union officials stay in constant contact with WMATA management and offer suggestions for improvement when the need arises. An example of this would be the recent campaign to address the issue of bus operator assaults. Local 689 brought unprecedented attention to this issue through grassroots efforts (leafleting at bus and rail stations), media interviews (television and print media), and meetings with WMATA executives to discuss the union's concerns and propose solutions. As a result, WMATA is taking new steps to ensure that bus operator and rider safety is paramount. The union is actively following up with WMATA officials to make sure the new measures are effective and properly implemented.
Who should be held accountable for poor service. The union employees, or wmata management? Why?All interested parties should be held accountable for poor service, including both individual employees and management. The union actively encourages all of its members to treat members of the public in a professional and courteous manner. The union has also asked WMATA to include customer service training to address shortcomings that some individuals may have. When new employees are hired, they are trained to perform their particular task (i.e. operate a bus), but they are not given customer service training, even though interacting with the public is as important as properly operating a bus. The union has recognized this shortcoming and has asked WMATA management to implement mandatory customer service training for new hires.
Is it appropriate for workers to sandbag when their contract demands are in limbo or not to their liking?No, it is not appropriate and I have not seen or heard of any incidents where that has occurred.
What is proper percentage share of wmata revenues (all revenues) related to salary and benefits vs. operations and infrastructure maintenance?I am not in a position to answer this question without researching the issue, but the answer should be available in the latest WMATA budget.
I want to know how they can justify defending Metro employees who commit acts of violence or simply pure stupidity and get them back on the job. Punching McGruff? There are too many stories of employees behaving badly and then getting their jobs reinstated. The union should NEVER defend such behavior.Every member is entitled to request that his or her claim be sent to arbitration. If a member requests that his/her claim be arbitrated, the union officers then review the claim and make a recommendation to the membership at the next union meeting. At that meeting, that member requesting the arbitration also has the right to state his or her case to the membership. The union membership then votes on whether or not to arbitrate the claim. If the membership votes to arbitrate a claim, the union has no choice but to arbitrate the claim.
If someone gets his or her job back after arbitration, that generally means that there was not enough proof that the alleged offense was committed, that the offense that was committed did not give rise to termination, or that WMATA did not follow proper procedures in terminating the individual. The role of the union is similar to the role of a defense attorney in this situation.
How can the union and WMATA prevent wage, pension, and healthcare costs from rising faster than regional GDP? If you believe that wage, pension, or healthcare costs should rise faster than GDP, please outline your vision of how WMATA would continue to function properly without depending on increasing federal/state subsidies or fares that grow faster than regional wages. What would justify increased subsidization or disproportionate wage increases?Our goal is to ensure that our members receive wage increases consistent with the increase in the cost of living. I don't know that we can prevent costs from rising disproportionately, but WMATA should not balance its budget on the back of its workers. When contract disputes arise, WMATA's contract with Local 689 and the WMATA Compact both state that disputes should be resolved by final and binding arbitration. In the current contract negotiations, the neutral arbitrator ruled in the Union's favor and now the Judge has affirmed the arbitrator's decision. Final and binding arbitration must be respected.
Many believe the "pick" system for maintenance decreases safety and increases maintenance costs. Do you believe that we should keep the current system? If so, why? If you do not believe we should keep the current system, how would you change the "pick" system to improve safety and reliability, particularly on escalators and elevators?The "pick" system does not decrease safety, so I do not believe that safety is a reason for abandoning the "pick" system. All of the mechanics are supposed to be sufficiently trained to perform the necessary tasks. If there is reason to believe a mechanic is not sufficiently trained, management should take steps to ensure that the individual is properly trained and proficient in his or her duties.
As an irregular visitor to DC, even I have been able to spot the pattern of WMATA subway station attendants who all but roll their eyes and say "take a hike" when customers approach the booth to ask a question about service, fares, or other normal customer information questions. Frankly, I have found these responses to be the rule, not the exception when I am in DC. This isn't a problem I experience in NYC, Boston, Chicago, or other major cities I travel to with unionized workforces.There is not a system that places individuals suited for back office work as station managers. All station managers were previously bus operators who were promoted to the position of station manager. Thus, it's possible that a station manager may be better suited to be a bus operator, but bus operators, as I'm sure you are aware, also interact with the public. People are not promoted to a station manager from a position that does not deal with the public.With bus operators, seniority-based runpicking sometimes gives the best operators the chance to pick the easiest runs, where it should be the other way around. (and I support additional pay for superior-performing bus operators to encourage them to take challenging runs)
My question to the union is this: is there some similar incentive with unintended consequences that places employees who may be better suited for back office work than customer interactions, and places them in subway booths?
If not, how can the union make more progress here?
Hm. Looks like the Union is following Dan Stessel's lead, and building its reputation by actually communicating with its critics. I welcome actual dialog, so yay!That is a decision for Metro management to make. The union has never expressly advocated for our members to work excessive overtime and in the chart that the Washington Examiner published listing the top 10 positions working overtime, only one of the positions listed covered workers represented by Local 689. Also, there are regulations in Local 689's contract that require members to have eight hours of rest.I can't think of a great way to phrase it into a concise question, but I'd love to know what the ATU's position is on overtime. Every year, WMATA's overtime costs come out to a shockingly large number, and there's an inevitable debate about safety, staffing levels, "necessary evils," and worker compensation.
Airlines and FRA-regulated railroads have rather strict policies relating to the number of consecutive hours that their workers can be on the job, along with the amount of downtime that must be taken between shifts. Should Metro be adopting stronger regulations along these lines, even if it would translate to a de-facto pay cut for many ATU members?
Does the union mandate the "senior escalator" thing as part of their contract or is this just something WMATA has practiced?Management gives out the job assignments. The contract does state that seniority applies in picking the reporting location, but that only applies if there are multiple locations available for that individual's skills. Additionally, while this is the employee's reporting location, after the employee reports to that location, a supervisor can still send the technician anywhere he or she is needed.
Everybody understands performance starts and ends with high quality management. But in between are transit workers who need to be accountable to management. Transit Authority management has deserved--and gotten!--its share of criticism. No one expects significant reforms at the Union- and workforce-level without corresponding reforms at management. That said:I don't know of any union rules that hamper good service. Good service is something that the union strives for and encourages its members to provide.Could you identify one or two existing union rules that hamper management's goal of good service? Why do those rules exist? Are there better ways to achieve the goals without compromising performance? What is the union doing to work with management to lessen the impact?
Management accountability requires the threat of consequences and, regrettably, firings. What is the best way to fairly, but quickly, fire union workers when management determines it's necessary?Union workers cannot be fired for arbitrary reasons. If there is just cause to terminate an employee, then management can terminate that employee and a just termination should be able to withstand any possible arbitration that may occur. As for whether it will occur "quickly," it depends on the circumstances of the termination and whether the employee challenges the termination and seeks to arbitrate the matter.
Will the union trade part of their deferred compensation (pension and OPEBs) for higher salaries now?No, because the union has already made concessions in the areas of pension and wages.
Can you imagine any conditions under which pay increases would be linked to measurable increases in productivity, customer satisfaction, etc.?I can envision WMATA giving bonuses to exemplary employees.
Would you join management in advocating for issues that improve the region's transit-friendliness (i.e., not just more money for capital and operations, but TOD, bus priority, pedestrian facilities, etc...)?Local 689 already advocates for these issues. While we usually do not coordinate our advocacy with WMATA management, we are very pro-transit and actively advocate for measures that are beneficial to mass transit. We testify on behalf of and push for legislation in Maryland, DC, and Virginia.
During the past Maryland Legislative Session, I testified on behalf of the union in support of Senate Bill 623, Maryland Department of Transportation- Transit Review and Evaluation. This bill requires the Maryland Department of Transportation to review and evaluate the best practices for transit priority treatments, and to identify priority treatment corridors. In other words, it is a step towards ensuring that the transit priority treatments that are eventually implemented will best serve the goal of allowing buses to travel through certain corridors more efficiently (bus lanes). The testimony also highlighted other benefits of transit priority measures, such as reducing congestion and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
We also advocate for and are part of coalitions that support and advocate for transit oriented development. We strongly support development around Metro stations and are very active in advocating for such development.
Would you invest union pension fund resources in TOD projects in the region?We do not have the authority to invest union pension fund resources in transit oriented development (TOD) projects, but we will continue to advocate for TOD. Feel free to email me if there are any TOD initiatives that you believe it will be helpful to have the union's support. While I am not promising that we will take part in every initiative that is presented to us, we will evaluate any proposal and if we support it and are able to make the time commitment to engage in the issue, then we will make every attempt to do so.
i would ask the union how they managed to make a transit system that (compared to other rapid transit systems in the US) is brand new into a laughably dysfunctional and increasingly dangerous messThe overwhelming majority of our union members are well-trained and very professional. While, unfortunately, there are a few exceptions, the majority of our members take pride in going to work and doing their job in a professional, competent manner.i would also ask the union where its mechanics received their training, as they are evidently unable to master insanely complicated and difficult tasks such as "replacing escalators" and "driving trains without killing passengers"
i would then ask the union how they can possibly countenance the idea of any sort of pay increase when they are so manifestly incompetent and incapable
What is the union's turn-over rate? How many people are fired annually? And if this number is significantly lower than it is in the private sector (which I strongly suspect it is), why is this? Is it because the union's employees are especially productive and hard workers, or is it because it's virtually impossible to fire someone, even for doing their job poorly?I am not in a position to answer this question. Even if the number of people fired annually was readily available (which it is not), I do not have information on the corresponding rate in the private sector.
With the current high number of vacancies for both bus drivers and train operators, why is it in the contract that train operators come from the ranks of bus drivers? It seems like a large waste of time and money. You fill up the bus vacancies then rob those positions to fill the train vacancies. I'm sure there must be people out who have no desire to drive a bus or operate a train and would be happier to do what it is they really want to do, drive a bus or a train. I think the two are completely different animals with the exception of customer service.The contract prioritizes the order that train vacancies must be filled. Bus operators are given first priority when vacancies arise. Metro has never had to go outside the bus operator ranks to fill train operator positions.Correct me if I'm wrong here. Two months of training for a bus operator, two months of training for a train operator. I would think that by taking this out of the contract, even if only on a temporary basis, would fill the vacancies on both sides much faster.
I have always believed that people who desire a certain job make better, stable and happier employees.
Has the seniority system proved to be the best way to promote union workers? What are ways to reform the seniority system so that it looks at merit AND tenure?Employees are not promoted solely on seniority. Seniority is one factor that is used and that may cause one qualified candidate to be promoted over another similarly qualified candidate. If two candidates are not similarly qualified, there are mechanisms in place that allow for the most senior qualified candidate to be promoted.
There are rumors that some people have cheated on the promotion exams, including some people who have been promoted to supervisor.Management has control over the promotion process and the process to become a supervisor. We do not represent people in the process of applying to become supervisors. If someone feels that they were wronged in that process, then they can file a complaint with the civil rights office or other appropriate office within WMATA.
Lateefah Williams is the political and legislative director for ATU Local 689, which represents 11,000 current and retired WMATA employees. She is also the President of DC's Gertude Stein Democratic Club and represents the Mid-Atlantic region on the Young Democrats of America Judicial Council. She lives in Ward 6 and holds a J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. degree in English from North Carolina Central University.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
by Brad on Jul 28, 2011 10:49 am • link • report
by Jay on Jul 28, 2011 10:55 am • link • report
If there is a widespread failure of proper customer service, this is something that needs to be addressed by the union in some way other than "Don't blame us, blame management."
It is right there in the union's mission -- We hold it as a sacred principle that trade union men and women, above all others, shall set a good example as good and faithful workers, performing their duties to their employer with honor to themselves as well as to their organization.
Part of setting an example as good and faithful workers is having appropriate customer service skills. When there is a failure of customer service, it looks bad on the agency as well as, apparently, on the union itself. The union should be bargaining with WMATA for mandatory customer service training, but it seems that the current personal interests of the union is incompatible with its own mission.
by Scoot on Jul 28, 2011 11:05 am • link • report
For example:
What is proper percentage share of wmata revenues (all revenues) related to salary and benefits vs. operations and infrastructure maintenance?
Well, you could just go look it up in the WMATA budget, which is easily accessible on their website.
They spent 70% of their operating budget on personnel in 2010 and budgeted for 69% in 2011. If you include the capital budget, it's around 46.3% of all the money WMATA spent.
Also weird are the constant calls for "accountability" from the union. I agree the union should make sure they are encouraging their workers to be the best they can be, but it is the union's job to represent its members. Accountability should be placed on WMATA management - they need to keep track of customer complaints and build cases, and if people aren't doing their jobs, follow the proper procedure to have them fired. The union can't fire anyone.
by MLD on Jul 28, 2011 11:06 am • link • report
You can't even begin to compare the engagement of WMATA management to the engagement of the union. One party is providing useful information, the other worthless platitudes.
by Ryan S on Jul 28, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
by Patrick on Jul 28, 2011 11:14 am • link • report
This bears repeating. Often you hear from dysfunctional public service unions, "We're the advocate for the terminated member!", or "We're like the defense attorney!"
But, no, they're actually not. There's also a mandate to protect the reputation of the union and its members. If a non-trivial percentage of WMATA workers are anti-social assholes, or incapable of doing their jobs a technical capacity, the union has a role in maintaining professional standards.
If they don't do this, you end up with the situation we're in now: even pro-transit, pro-union folks want to see them all fired, their offices knocked to the ground, and salt scattered over the spot.
Unions that don't understand that they have a public-facing role to play--aside from defending shitty members at whatever cost--are entirely to blame for the anti-union sentiment that's taken root in this country over the last 30-40 years.
It's easy to blame right-wing propaganda, or whatever, but that stuff would never get any traction if 9 out of 10 interactions with union members weren't completely toxic.
(Personal anecdote: I saw a Metro bus driver driving south on 8th street through Barracks Row at about 35-40 mph, honking at a cyclist and passing him with inches to spare. That guy should be fired. Frankly, union claims that "this is a training issue", or "you haven't got enough evidence to terminate that guy" are incredible. WTU should be fighting to add speed limiters and electronic monitoring to all buses. What do you think are the odds of that happening? Oh right, I forgot, that's the management's duty. And we wish them all the best as we fight to our last breath to prevent that from happening.)
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
Like: the question about who's accountable for poor service? Or "name two things union rules that hamper good service."
I mean come on people!
When this q/a was first mentioned, I said then that many of the questions seemed better suited for management than the union. From looking at this dicussion, that belief still rings true.
Although none of the questions gave the impression that the union served any good purpose at all, Lateefah handled herself quite well.
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 11:26 am • link • report
"Part of setting an example as good and faithful workers is having appropriate customer service skills. When there is a failure of customer service, it looks bad on the agency as well as, apparently, on the union itself. The union should be bargaining with WMATA for mandatory customer service training, but it seems that the current personal interests of the union is incompatible with its own mission."
I agree with you that good customer service skills are a necessity and that the union should ask management for mandatory customer service training. I also mentioned this in one of my responses above.
Someone posed the question: Who should be held accountable for poor service. The union employees, or wmata management? Why?
My response was: All interested parties should be held accountable for poor service, including both individual employees and management. The union actively encourages all of its members to treat members of the public in a professional and courteous manner. The union has also asked WMATA to include customer service training to address shortcomings that some individuals may have. When new employees are hired, they are trained to perform their particular task (i.e. operate a bus), but they are not given customer service training, even though interacting with the public is as important as properly operating a bus. The union has recognized this shortcoming and has asked WMATA management to implement mandatory customer service training for new hires.
by Lateefah Williams on Jul 28, 2011 11:27 am • link • report
The question is whether negotiating contracts which make it almost impossible to fire individual workers for just cause is in the best interest of the union. Given the total collapse of public sector unions' reputation over the years, I'd argue it's been a bad idea.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 11:32 am • link • report
I'm not sure how accurate that is because as I see it, anti-union sentiment has taken root in this country over the last 10 years. In fact, even moreso during the last 4-5, especially places like DC where the recent anti-teacher/union sentiment was born out of a political culture and not on facts.
I blame the bush years, republican party, tea party, business leaders, democrats and the Obama administration for the anti-union sentiment in this country. Through their own political posturing All have helped frame unions as the sole hindrance to american success when the facts don't support that.
Facts didn't support it in DC regarding the teachers and the WTU. And they didn't support it the manufacturing community either.
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 11:35 am • link • report
The union may actively encourage that, but it also fights with every fiber of its being to prevent any accountability for poor service.
WTU members have an opportunity every day to make an impression on the public. And most of what we see is drivers speeding, cutting them off, threatening cyclists and pedestrians, treating the public with disrespect, etc, etc... That's not something that can be addressed via management with "customer service training."
If the union wants to be treated as an organization of professionals, it needs to create professional standards, and make sure its members adhere to them. In other words, your standards should be *higher* than management's, not less.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 11:38 am • link • report
I'm not sure how accurate that is because as I see it, anti-union sentiment has taken root in this country over the last 10 years.
It's been WAY longer than 10 years, and if you think it started in 2000 you haven't been paying attention. Start in 1980 with the election of a certain someone and that's basically the beginning of the complete assault on unions and the rest of protections for the middle class. The focus on public-sector unions is a little more recent; they're all that's left since private-sector unions have been successfully dismantled. And on your WTU/DCPS slam, the flip side of that coin is that DCPS has given lots of teachers who are good at their jobs the opportunity to make a lot more money.
I agree with Oboe that ATU should probably do a better job of 1) making sure their members are professional/held accountable by WMATA and 2) making it publicly known that they are doing so.
by MLD on Jul 28, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
by MrTinDC on Jul 28, 2011 11:46 am • link • report
You're entitled to your beliefs, obviously. But union membership has been steadily shrinking since the 1983. Republican policies have obviously contributed to that, but you're deluding yourself if you think that the massive reservoir of animosity that almost every adult human being who is not a *member* of a union like the WTU feels towards unions like the WTU is a figment of Tea Party's imagination, you're mistaken.
An organization that cares about its long-term survival would probably take a step back and think about why it's losing the PR war so comprehensively.
From what I can see, ensuring the long-term viability of organized labor is in the interests of unions' members. Certainly more so than ensuring that individual members never face any repercussions for poor performance--up to and including punching police officers in McGruff costumes.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 11:48 am • link • report
Just one guy's experience, but when interacting with Metro operators (and other employees), I'm treated at best like a nuisance, and at worst, with outright contempt.
I am sorry that you have had an unpleasant experience when interacting with some WMATA employees. .
This is the line where I knew it would go wrong. Note the bait and switch. Questioner complains about many poor interactions, Union fellow answers for a single unpleasant experience. Smart trick. Bad answer.
Could you identify one or two existing union rules that hamper management's goal of good service...
I don't know of any union rules that hamper good service.
Seriously? From a gazillion rules, there is not one that hampers good service, and yet we have shitty service all over the place? That's just not satisfactory.
Note to Alpert/Williams: Good you tried, but DC is hot enough and we really don't need more hot air. No more union official interviews.
by Jasper on Jul 28, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
Maybe I should clarify and say "has come to a head during the last 10.."
I agree that DCPS offering teacher bonuses is a good thing. But the reason that they weren't offered such large bonuses, is that really the fault of unions? I would imagine they would want larger bonuses.
[The Union}] fights with every fiber of its being to prevent any accountability for poor service.
@Oboe, your response is likely why conversations such as this venture off to nothingland. It's so not cool and 100% unfair to assume that any employer or union supports poor service. Besides how we feel about unions or what side we're "for", can we at least not be so dishonest in our assumptions.
On average I ride at least 5-6 buses totalling about 10-12 rides per week. I've never owned a car here and although I certainly don't want a return to the days where drivers talked on cellphones, I can attest to the fact that "most" drivers don't cut people off, speed or threaten folk. Does it happen? Well sure it does. But it's not cool to use the actions of rogue drivers as an indictment on the entire workforce or the unions because that is what you have done. It's just over the top and unecessary.
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report
On another topic, why can't the union require mandatory customer service training? Is there something that forbids it? If so, is there a way to incentivize or encourage it's members to take voluntary training?
Although I have to say, most of my dealings with WMATA employees have been pleasant (though I rarely need to interact with any of them).
by Steven Yates on Jul 28, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report
@Oboe, yes the animosity is there. But like that now found against federal employees, a lot of that animosity is misplaced and only loosely based on fact.
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report
Hey, look. The problem isn't *my* perception. It's the widespread public perception. We're talking about the overwhelming number of your regional neighbors. Convincing me is not going to change things.
It's like the conversation we have regularly about cab drivers in DC. There's no doubt there are kind, thoughtful, hardworking cabbies in DC. I've met many. But on whole their behavior is much, much worse than pretty much anywhere else in the US I've been. There are institutional reasons for that. Changing those institutional reasons would be a benefit to the cabbies who aren't terrible.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 12:18 pm • link • report
But the reason that they weren't offered such large bonuses, is that really the fault of unions? I would imagine they would want larger bonuses.
The teachers' union actively fought (and is still fighting) a system that would give teachers who earned them bonuses in exchange for accountability among teachers who were not good at their jobs.
Of course the union wanted larger bonuses for their members. They just didn't want to swallow the trade-off that it might be easier to fire people who aren't good at their jobs.
@Steven Yates
The union could probably do more for training, but you really want to put MOST of the blame for a lack of training on the employees and NOT on the company that hires them to do a job?
by MLD on Jul 28, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report
But I can also understand and accept why they wouldn't. If it were the president or someone in a similar operating capacity, then I would be like WTF.
Or maybe even the PR person. Not really the legislative/political director.
And now that I think about it, why is Lateefah the one answering these question?
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report
Probably most of the blame is on WMATA, but if customer service training is something the union wants, why don't they act themselves? I think the answer is they care, but not enough to actually do anything. But I'm open to the possibility is just structurally difficult for the union to do.
by Steven Yates on Jul 28, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report
I could understand how she would not have this information off the top of her head. But she had time to research these questions. She also said that the information was not readily available, implying that no matter who you would ask, they wouldn't know the answer. But you're right, her position does seem an odd fit for this Q & A.
by Steven Yates on Jul 28, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
Along with this though there is little incentive for Metro employees to meet or exceed their performance expectations because their wages are so rigidly set, they're not subject to disciplinary measures outside of any action that isn't egregious and they don't face any pressure from potential employees because the union all but prevents any true labor flexibility within their work force.
by Fitz157 on Jul 28, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report
I wrote an earlier comment that I have yet to have a positive interaction with a Metro. After hundreds of interactions, I have yet to be treated with respect. At best, I've received a one syllable answer with all the disdain that employee could muster. At worst, an employee has tried to physically intimidate me and threatened to kill my dog ("I will kill your dog".....verbatim). Clearly there is a very real public perception that your employees are not only not good at providing customer service, but openly hostile to people that ask them simple questions.
@Oboe-I don't know if you saw my comment to you from yesterdays morning links, but I was recommending the same; "WTU should be fighting to add speed limiters and electronic monitoring to all buses."
The amount of speeding and reckless driving by Metro bus drivers is extraordinary.
by thump on Jul 28, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report
That's where I think you're wrong. Professional organizations have a duty towards their members as well. Imagine if most of what, say, the AMA did was to try to ensure that bad doctors where never held accountable. That's a hell of a lot worse--in the long run--for the organization's membership than seeing one member get canned.
Protecting individuals from legitimate accountability at the expense of the overall membership is just short-sighted.
What if the union held its members to even higher standards than management via a union "honor code"? Members found breaking the code of professional ethics could be "disbarred." It would completely change the equation.
The problem is that all the rhetoric about "professionalism and standards" is simply lip-service.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report
Yes, I saw that. I agree, and I think it would be the best move the union could ever make. If you want to be treated like professionals, professionalize your membership. That used to be one of the critical components of organized labor (e.g. guilds). Once the "quailty" issue is jettisoned, the public no longer sees the union's value as a public good.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report
Why would they? They are locked in, and have a lifetime membership. As long as unions and Metro exist, this local will exist.
GGW allowed a legislative person to answer questions. Yeah, way to waste everyones time. Why not allow Team Thomas to answer questions on proper use of District financing, you'd get as much bull poop as you did above.
When the only answers are "I don't know, not my job to know, nobody knows, we do a great job".
Punching MacGruff can't get one fired, very very little can get one fired.
The point of this union is the same as the teachers union: lifetime jobs means JOBS FOR LIFE.
My family is almost all union. I feel for them, when this is what they are compared to.
by greent on Jul 28, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report
Protecting individuals from legitimate accountability at the expense of the overall membership is just short-sighted.
-----------------------------------
Good point, and it's why union membership has continued to shrink in the private sector.
by Fitz157 on Jul 28, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report
I wonder what the CEO would say about that. Does this mean the rules don't exist or that Williams doesn't know about any?
I found this to be very useful and thank the union for doing it.
But Management should get an opportunity to comment, perhaps conditioned on their own Q&A session (after which the Union can comment).
by WRD on Jul 28, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report
I agree with you that good customer service skills are a necessity and that the union should ask management for mandatory customer service training. I also mentioned this in one of my responses above.
First, can you please elaborate on what is meant by "asked"? What steps has the ATU taken to push management implement mandatory customer service training? Would you say that proper customer service is of paramount importance to the ATU and a characterization of good and honorable service consistent with its mission?
Further, what is the logical basis for restricting customer service training only to new hires? Why not demand customer service training for every member of the ATU? Station managers are not new hires and there is clearly some concern about their customer service skills. Would you say that it is in the best interest of the ATU, and further consistent with its stated mission, to ensure that bus operators who are eligible for a promotion to station manager are able demonstrate superior customer service skills? Thank you.
by Scoot on Jul 28, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report
Depends on whether or not the union invokes some kind of work rules to force management to pay overtime to those who attend the training, or argue that such training is not listed in the contract and therefore cannot be mandatory, I think. I'm not defending WMATA Management here, but this local seems to encourage a large us vs them mentality, not only with management, but with the customers that ultimately pay their salaries. The tired old trope of "we should not balance the budget on the backs of the workers" basically equates to "we should charge you more for the poor service we provide, suckers."
Make no mistake, the Union is on the side of the rank and file workers, and cares not one whit for the WMATA rider except when their interests coincide. Perhaps *we* need to organize, because I don't think management is on our side either.
by Dave J on Jul 28, 2011 1:53 pm • link • report
It's no secret that many of my "neighbors" are led to the trough of ignorance by spinsters. For instance, Michelle Bachman is a recipient of services from the very gov't she think is corrupt. In fact, she a recipient of federal loans from Fannie Mae and she doesn't think they should exist. Yet, she runs on spin cycle and will deliver talking points to anyone willing to listen..namely here base.
So let's stop w/the "perception" for a moment and deal with reality..what is actually true. Many of the accusations/assumptions you have are not based in reality..but on hyperbolic assumptions and accusations.
@Thump, yep, Metro employees really are notorious for bad service. But as it relates to the union, what exactly should be done? Demand that metro fire employees who have poor customer service skills? Does the public submit customer service complaints to the union or to metro itself? I'm just not sure how this reflects badly on the union when during the course of a workday, the employees are managed solely by metro.
@Green, are employees in public/private businesses routinely fired for assaulting someone who's not a fellow employee?
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 2:14 pm • link • report
Oboe, we can talk about "perception" all day. As an example, we can talk about the "perception" people outside of the GGW community have about - the GGW community. But other than making hyperbolic statements and making false assumptions, where does that take us?
I doubt 99% of the people outside the GGW community have any idea the GGW community exists. If my livelihood relied on GGW's success, and public perception was widespread and incredibly negative, I'd seriously consider how to fix that.
(We've already seen posts on GGW to that effect, actually.)
@Thump, yep, Metro employees really are notorious for bad service. But as it relates to the union, what exactly should be done? Demand that metro fire employees who have poor customer service skills? Does the public submit customer service complaints to the union or to metro itself? I'm just not sure how this reflects badly on the union when during the course of a workday, the employees are managed solely by metro.
Makes sense: As a professional, I have no responsibility for my performance whatsoever. If my manager can't figure out a way to get me to do my job, that's on them. If I can't be bothered to do more than grunt in a withering fashion at customers who have the audacity to approach me, it's because management failed to train me.
@Green, are employees in public/private businesses routinely fired for assaulting someone who's not a fellow employee?
Are you really asking if--for example--a McDonald's employee attacked somebody on McDonald's property while dressed in a McDonald's uniform, they would be terminated? Have you ever worked anywhere?
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report
Metro employees really are notorious for bad service. But as it relates to the union, what exactly should be done?
------------------------------
The only meaningful thing that can be done would be to give WMATA mangement more discretion when it comes hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, training, disciplining, wages and compensation for employees.
The only problem is that's usually not in the interests of the union or it's leadership because that would require them to cede power to the employer.
by Fitz157 on Jul 28, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report
Ok, guys, listen up! See this middle finger? In some cultures, it is considered rude to display it to someone. The US is one of those cultures. Also, you should refer to the paying customers as "Sir" or "Ma'am". "Asshole" is frowned upon. When someon asks you a question, a really polite thing to do is to answer them. If you're feeling incredibly adventurous, you could try smiling!
Frankly, it reminds me of "The Wire" episode where they're trying to teach all the corner boys "customer service" skills through role-playing, but they keep cussing each other out in the most graphic terms and attacking one another.
by oboe on Jul 28, 2011 2:38 pm • link • report
But we're talking about public "perception" and how it isn't always based on an objectionable fact, rather spin. I cited Michelle Bachman as an example. I've attempted to separate fact from perception.
Makes sense: As a professional, I have no responsibility for my performance whatsoever. If my manager can't figure out a way to get me to do my job,...it's because management failed to train me.
It's unfortunate that you feel that way about job performance. But we're discussing how the union is responsible or can change the culture of metro's poor customer service record. Has metro complained that the reason why so many of their staff has such horrible customer skills is because of union roadblocks? What steps have they taken to answer this ever-increasing complaint that the union has made impossible?
Yes, I am asking if a McD's employee left his job (in uniform) and assaulted someone, whether it's standard that they would be fired. And no, as you apparently (and not surprisingly) believe, I've never worked anywhere.
The only meaningful thing that can be done would be to give WMATA mangement more discretion when it comes hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, training, disciplining, wages and compensation for employees.
All that is true, but as I asked oboe, is this the reason WMATA has cited as why they have such horrible customer service?
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Jul 28, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
That is the rub, ain't it.
DC is littered with apologists for "employees" with a total lack of work ethic, apathic attitude and horrid customer service. And this union, like the teachers union, is there to keep these "employees" employed.
by greent on Jul 28, 2011 3:25 pm • link • report
First, the bus driver who slugged the puppy was on the job at the time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031001375.html
Since you ask, yes, a McDonald's employee would also be fired. Immediately. I imagine even an employee of a company named "Shitty Customer Service 'R Us" would be fired for assaulting someone while on the job.
(Did you mean to say you've never had a job? 'Cause that's what you said. Or is my internet sarcasm meter broken again?)
by dcd on Jul 28, 2011 3:40 pm • link • report
Ok, guys, listen up! See this middle finger? In some cultures, it is considered rude to display it to someone. The US is one of those cultures. Also, you should refer to the paying customers as "Sir" or "Ma'am". "Asshole" is frowned upon. When someon asks you a question, a really polite thing to do is to answer them. If you're feeling incredibly adventurous, you could try smiling!
+1
Also, try not to bark at people.
I am kidding. I was thrown out of a train yesterday because we were stuck behind a broken train near
King StOld Town and everything went relatively well, including many understandable announcements. Sometimes, metro does well. Except for all those cars with aircocirculation.by Jasper on Jul 28, 2011 9:29 pm • link • report
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/new-metrobus-cameras-lead-20-firings-222-suspensions
WMATA has installed cameras in buses, and the union is unhappy about the fact that drivers are actually being held accountable for their actions? What happened to "All interested parties should be held accountable for poor service"?
by Ryan S on Jul 29, 2011 8:17 am • link • report
(From that Examiner article)
This statement directly contradicts the repeated "it's not our responsibility" line coming from the union. If Management has to convince the union to go along with policies, the union must also take responsibility when things go poorly.
by WRD on Jul 29, 2011 9:33 am • link • report
by oboe on Jul 29, 2011 9:38 am • link • report
But a union is different from an association. Pretty sure this union is legally required to advocate for all of its members, like a defense attorney, as Ms. Williams said.
by Arnold on Jul 29, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report
by Ryan S on Jul 29, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Jul 29, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
You may be right, though I haven't seen any evidence for that. My point was that it's this dynamic that's completely gutting support for most unions among Americans. If their hands are tied by some (what?) Federal law that says they cannot eject one of their members for failure to meet professional standards, it would be a smart move to lobby to change that law. Same thing if it's part of a negotiated contract.
by oboe on Jul 29, 2011 4:00 pm • link • report
by Arnold on Jul 30, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report
by WRD on Jul 31, 2011 11:05 pm • link • report
by Mike on Aug 1, 2011 9:58 pm • link • report
by Mike on Aug 1, 2011 10:08 pm • link • report
I'm not a union lover; I was just making the point that in this case, people here seemed to be judging based on perceptions instead of facts.
by Arnold on Aug 2, 2011 8:43 am • link • report
It amuses me that people still bring up the McGruff incident.The driver was fired initially because of a report in the Washington Examiner of the incident. The union filed a grievance over the termination because it maintained that the incident was totally distorted by the Examiner.
Obviously we're not privvy to the arbitration proceedings, but according to reporting in the Washington Post (not the examiner) the driver was fired based on an official MPD police report. So whatever the reasons for the arbitrators decision, it's not the reasons you're claiming.
Maybe you mis-remembered the incident, or maybe you're just being disingenuous. Either way, you're wrong.
From the Post:
Brim, who was charged with misdemeanor assault, got out of his bus at Spring Road and 14th Street NW about 2:30 p.m. and slugged Officer Tyrone Hardy in the face, according to police.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031001375.html
by oboe on Aug 2, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report
One other thing: a detective is a specialized case of a policeman. They both do policework, and there's considerable overlap.
On first glance, a train operator clearly has little to do with driving a bus. Maybe they're both extremely similar to the trained eye. I'd be interested in hearing such an argument.
by oboe on Aug 2, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report
Why should some transit nerd (and I'm one of them) be just as or more eligible to drive a train than someone who works for the agency and has put in hours being harassed, spat at, hassled, etc while driving a bus? Don't companies owe ANYTHING to their workers anymore?
by MLD on Aug 2, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report
by Mike on Aug 2, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report
the charges against Brim were dropped. If there was even a shred of evidence that he deliberately hit a policeman you can be sure he would have been prosecuted.
That's some swell inductive reasoning you've got there. Also, your unshakable faith in the criminal justice system is touching. I haven't seen anything like it since OJ Simpson went to the electric chair.
Glad to hear you don't stand by your previous characterization of the situation, though. Thanks for the concession.
More here:
Metro spokeswoman Candace Smith said Brim was driving the No. 52 bus, heading south to L'Enfant Plaza, when he stopped at 14th and Spring. She said Brim got out to adjust the mirrors, then allegedly punched the costumed officer.
Brim then got back on the bus and drove for a few blocks until police stopped him, Smith said.
A Metrobus supervisor who went to the scene was told by Brim that he punched the big, droopy-eared crime dog "to be funny," Smith said.
"Obviously, no one here finds it funny, and we don't tolerate that kind of behavior from our employees," Smith said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303248.html
by oboe on Aug 2, 2011 1:58 pm • link • report
@ oboe: the charges against Brim were dropped. If there was even a shred of evidence that he deliberately hit a policeman you can be sure he would have been prosecuted.
It gets better. Just came across this:
Metro fired Brim on March 6, 2009. "We . . . terminated him for violating workplace rules, as there shall be no workplace violence," Farbstein said. Brim was found guilty of simple assault in D.C. Superior Court and received a 15-day suspended sentence and six months of probation.
But Vaughn, the arbitrator, decided that Brim's actions, although illegal and inappropriate, were not undertaken with malicious intent. Vaughn based his decision on witness statements, including those of the police officer, Tyrone Hardy, Metro officials said.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/06/09/ST2010060905943.html)
Ah, DC courts! But remember, "if there was even a shred of evidence that he deliberately hit a policeman you can be sure he would have been prosecuted."
I won't assume the worst. My guess is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but merely worked backwards from the position that appealed to you.
I do appreciate your contribution here, though, I think we all learned that the situation was worse than it first appeared.
by oboe on Aug 2, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
by Arnold on Aug 2, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report
Training Instructor jobs are not posted, Quality Assurance jobs are not posted. There is not a fair process if you want to gather experience working in the office as a clerk to add Maximo on your resume. I have known women who are girlfriends of others get these positions and stack their resumes so that they have the skills to move up into other jobs after the interview. This is biased and should be more fair to all women.
by Gena on Jan 20, 2013 1:41 am • link • report
Add a Comment