Just curious, which three Metro stations do you propose closing on weekends? (I completely agree that some stations could be closed completely on weekends, BTW, just wanted your thoughts on which three you're thinking about.)

by MetroRider on Mar 3, 2010 10:51 am • link • report

I represent ATU Local 689 in political and legislative affairs. That's the union that represents most WMATA employees.

Ah, that explains why personnel issues and cost were never discussed. I was waiting for part on that with an objective view. I guess that won't come.

Now, let me be clear: I am not part of the mob that calls for slashed salaries. In general, I support the employees right to unionize. But oddly, unions do not always lead to objectively good deals. For employees, employers and customers.

I am interested in figuring out what kind of changes can be made to deal with personnel issues and cost. It strikes me as very odd that WMATA bus drivers get a multiple of what ART drivers get. It's not like Arlington is a backwards conservative county where employee rights are null and void. Obviously, I applaud WMATA's union for getting their members a good deal. The difference is striking though.

However, some union deals are bad and should be taken out in the interest greater (greater) good of the company as a whole. Nobody wants a company to become uncompetitive due to a couple of bad union deals from years past. The car companies have suffered a great deal from union deals that ended up bankrupting the companies. Another example is the New York school system where teachers simply can not be fired even after terrible behavior. And so there are hundred of paid teachers playing cards all day in places far away from schools. Clearly, that is unionization gone amok.

I realize that it is very hard to let go of acquired rights, but I am wondering if you are courageous enough to put some ideas on the table that could safe money or organize personnel better without costing much.

by Jasper on Mar 3, 2010 10:57 am • link • report

Many private employers have laid off people, or forced cuts in salaries, overtime, and benefits. People are being expected to work harder for the same, or less, to keep operations going. Other businesses have closed their doors. Explain why WMATA employees should be exempt.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 11:13 am • link • report

How about cutting the $340 million budget, or $31,700 per WMATA employee, for fringe benefits this year?

by Kyle on Mar 3, 2010 11:15 am • link • report

$31,700 are the fringe benefits!!! Craig, is this true? How does ATU justify this? You could employ another person for each current employee's fringe benefits. Just for comparison, that is roughly the starting salary for working in Congress: including those with law degrees from elite universities. I know because I was trying to help out a friend who was laid off from a major law firm.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

Independent of the question of whether WMATA's overall compensation is too high, I think there is a strong case that WMATA should offer a compensation package weighted heavily toward benefits rather than cash salary. A bus driver or a rail or bus mechanic has many lives in their hands. The personality type you want to attract to work at Metro is the stable family person who thinks long-term and worries about their children's future. You want them to worry about their bus passengers in the same way. You want the person who will choose the job with the best family health plan and the best retirement package, not the person who wants a high salary that they can spend Saturday night.

by Ben Ross on Mar 3, 2010 11:42 am • link • report

SJE: I don't disagree with your fundamental point, but Congressional staffers are not a good comparison. It's not a sustainable career path. People even work for free for a while in many cases to get the jobs. Then they work nonstop for a few years, burn out, and become lobbyists. It creates a bad system where many staffers want to ingratiate themselves to future employers.

If WMATA bus drivers could become high-paid lobbyists after a few years then I'm sure the salaries could be really low.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2010 11:43 am • link • report

@ Jasper: I didn't go in depth, but addressed the issue in part 8. The union has asked WMATA to sit down and discuss cost saving measures and did so publicly at the Prince George's budget forum back in the fall. WMATA has not responded that I am aware of. I'm not sure why, but I'll speculate that they are relying on their court appeal of the arbitration award which is scheduled for March 15-16. I don't negotiate for the union and can't speculate either on the outcome of any potential discussions but I think its a mistake when the two sides aren't talking.

The purpose of the series was to look at cost saving/revenue features that could be contained in a General Manager's budget proposal. If you can't quantify it, you can't really include it.

That doesn't mean there won't be changes in the budget assumptions and things included that aren't there now, but right now--you can only include something that's tangible.

@Kyle: those figures include fica taxes and workers compensation as "fringe benefits."

Health Insurance is still the biggest component. Costs have shifted to employees in fairly signficant percentages in recent years and the arbitration (when implemented) will go further. Employees will pay about 15% of HMO costs and about 20% of PPO costs and the employee share will increase over the term of the contract if and when the arbitration award is implemented. The 689 plan has overall done a much better job of containing costs than the other WMATA plans (actual WMATA cost increases for the 689 plan has been about 4% per year--much lower than health inflation) but because its the biggest plan it still generates big numbers.

The biggest immediate driver of cost is the 2008 losses in the pension plan due to the market drop. It causes an immediate problem in an area where WMATA was required to make no payments from 1999-2006. The average cost of the benefit over time is actually less than many defined contribution plans (about 4% of payroll over the last 20 years) but for this year it's close to a whopping 15%. Without the restructuring of payments, it would have been much higher. The market recovery should help and that something that can be quantified and was included in my budget estimates. WMATA's error in my opinion (hindsight is 20-20) is not establishing a pension stabilization fund when they were contributing zero. Everyone knows markets go up and down and you have to prepare for the down times as well as the up. As late as 2 years ago the plan was 104% funded.

Hope this sheds some light

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

Ouch. I wish the union affiliation was disclosed before, or each post came with that disclaimer.

It would be nice to see an alternative proposal would be in terms of trimming MetroAccess more, firing people, and reducing benefits.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2010 11:55 am • link • report

Charlie, I think it's a bit erroneous to claim that Craig's day job got in the way of his thorough quantitative analysis. The numbers are all there. The solution is not just to pick on employees. It requires many small things that add up, and to make small decisions that have the most impact. If you just screw the employees, you lose them and then lose more money having to recruit and train new staff.

by Cavan on Mar 3, 2010 12:05 pm • link • report

When we talk about Local 689 wages and benefits here's a few comparisons:

When I looked back at the last four ATU 689 agreements (1997-2010), it produces some interesting wage/salary comparisons:

Increases 1997-2010 cumulative total:

Social Security: 39%
Federal Civilian Retirement: 39%
Federal Civil Service: 57%
Congressional Pay: 30%
U.S. Average Wage/Salary: 57%
U.S. Consumer Prince Index: 35%
ATU Local 689: 39%

When I looked at compensation per hour of work (includes everything (can't bring up to date only 1997 through 2008): wages, benefits, fica, etc:

ATU Local 689: 38%
All Private Industry: 47%
All Union workers: 46%

From the point of view of workers, their wages and benefits have declined relative to others. From the point of view of WMATA (relative to funding levels), they have increased and that's part of the disconnect and problem.

I know--theres lies, damned lies and statistics, but I think its useful to look at all POVs in a discussion.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report

Charlie: Craig's affiliation was noted in his first post and is on his author page. All of us have a point of view affected by our backgrounds, not just Craig. I also don't think anything he suggested is biased in any way toward the union. He's looking at budget proposals from the point of view of what the GM and Board can do. Reducing staffing is possible and he suggested that. Cutting salaries is not something the GM or Board can legally do now, so they're going to have to come up with a budget that uses other means.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2010 12:08 pm • link • report

Lay off all station managers and go to 100% unstaffed stations. There is simply no reason at all to pay people to sit in those booths (or this morning, to stand chatting with a friend a few hundred feet from the booth).

Every function currently "performed" by a station manager can be done remotely:

-Opening and closing the station: have a roving crew handle this.

-Monitoring security cameras: should be done remotely from police HQ.

-Answering questions from tourists etc: Put a direct line phone at each booth and handel it all from a central point.

-Addressing fare card issues: Dedicate one machine, on the concourse for this purpose and hook it up to central customer service via a video phone system.

by urbaner on Mar 3, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

@Charlie: His name's right there. Click on it and you get his bio. Also, I interviewed Craig as a union representative in a live chat last year.

No offense to Craig, but I know that what he writes is usually from a certain perspective.

To the unions, their compensation was the subject of years of arbitration, in which both sides had the chance to make their case heard, and the arbiter decided on what the wage increase should be. Metro had the chance to make their case and the arbiter decided.

I agree with Metro's side of the story, though. The arbiter is required to approve something that is in the public interest, and wage increases that lead to 15-20% fare increases and service cuts aren't in the public interest. I don't know what went wrong at the arbitration but it doesn't seem logical. Other local unions have had to accept wage freezes. Most of Metro's operating cost is unionized employee compensation, it's hard to address how much the system costs to operate without at least acknowledging the role union compensation plays.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 3, 2010 12:12 pm • link • report

There was no attempt to hide my day/night job--if you click on my name it discloses present and past affiliations. I've also done a live chat on GGW as a representative of the union.

Also understand that when I put the GM hat on and propose $6.5 million in bus and rail service reductions thats about 50-60 union jobs being eliminated.

When 20-25 lower and middle level supervisors get eliminated, they bump back into 689 positions and displace current 689 members.

There are a number of other measures that cause pain and there will probably be more.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report

On the issue of closing the current budget gaps, union compensation is really too large and too ingrained of an issue to address.

As Michael Perkins notes, however, it is simply too large of a portion of Metro's budget to just ignore. What is clear is that Metro is facing a systemic funding problem. Once we get past the year to year patchwork, addressing the systemic issues must include a hard look at Metro's labor costs.

Given both Vancouver's recent success in hosting the Olympic Games with a completely automated transit system, as well as Metro's likely need to make significant upgrades to the ATC system in the wake of the June 2009 crash, this is something I'd love to see studied as a long term solution.

Likewise, it's clear that Metro's labor cost issues are not limited to just public transit, as anyone who has paid attention to the current debates about health care or the state of the economy can attest.

Furthermore, amongst Metro's many issues, customer service is a crucial one. I think people would be far more willing to support Metro's labor force if those workers were more open, communicative, and helpful.

Anyway, those are all big picture issues that really are beyond the scope of what's possible to close the next budget gap. That's not to say these issues don't need to be discussed, but I can't fault Craig's analysis here.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report

Wow, this is a major lapse in editorial judgment to allow Mr. Craig Simpson to post about WMATA issues without identifying his union affiliation. Mr. Simpson, while he appears to be even handed in his WMATA budget solution approaches, is nonetheless biased toward protecting the compensation and benefits of union members. He should never have been permitted to post on GGW without a disclaimer.

It is incumbent on GGW (yes, Mr. Alpert, I mean you), to either retroactively post disclaimers on each and every post by Mr. Simpson, or to remove them post haste. Moreover, an effusive apology issued by GGW to its readers for this outrageous editorial lapse is absolutely required.

by Anon on Mar 3, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report

@ SJE: $31k in fringe actually isn't a whole lot some someone who gets a decent pay. Retirement matching, health care and disability costs aren't cheap. The reason why you *think* it's a lot, is because as an employee, you rarely get so see those costs. Why do you think that in academia and industry the "overhead" cost per employee is 50-100% of salary? Remember that overhead is nothing else than fringe + housing + administration.

I second David that your comparison with Congressional staffers is nonsense. You can't compare a career tech with a 25 year old law graduate. And while we're on that subject matter: Those staffers are free to reject the (non existing) pay and go work at a real law firm. Secondly, I am sure they are too competitive and egocentric to unionize. Does anyone know if they could?

Finally, WMATA is not a private enterprise. I've argued before that hence it should/can not be operated as such, and this is again a clear reason why. Also, if WMATA were a private business, they would not be in the financial situation they are. They would be doing well and growing. After all, their product is highly popular under it's users. Also, I do assume that the proposed service cuts do yield reduced employment.

@ Craig: Sorry, your answer is union talk, not an open approach to what's right and wrong about the union contract. I don't blame you though. David, Michael, can we find someone else that could give us objective insight?

@ charlie: Randomly firing people doesn't help. The work needs to get done.

by Jasper on Mar 3, 2010 12:25 pm • link • report

@Craig Simpson, FICA is $54.7 million, or less than 20% of the $340 million benefits budget. So non-FICA benefits per employee are still $26,600.

Average base pay (excluding all benefits) is scheduled to increase 4% to nearly $70,000. This is odd in light of the WMATA press release from December 3rd which stated that "Metro proposes limiting salaries and wages to an increase of only 1 percent and is proposing no salary increases for its non-union employees in FY2011." (http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=4172)

by Kyle on Mar 3, 2010 12:27 pm • link • report

Wow, conflict of interest!

"In my day (and often night) job I represent ATU Local 689 in political and legislative affairs."

by Dave on Mar 3, 2010 12:28 pm • link • report

Richard Layman: most congressional staffers don't become highly paid lobbyists. Even if a lot became lobbyists, the majority of lobbyist positions are not highly paid.

Craig: in any comparison with private employers you must also take into account improved productivity, layoffs, and should include recent data.

For example, mass layoffs started at the end of 2008 in the private sector, reflecting an unsustainable growth in salaries in the previous years.

The numbers also do not reflect a series of layoffs and productivity improvements over the 1997-2008 period. The increase in private sector salaries overall includes large components of a better educated workforce, and salary and staff reductions among the less skilled employees.

For example, if you fired 3 train drivers and replaced them with one employee sitting in booth who can drive them remotely, and you pay her twice as much, you have increased salaries 100% per person, even tho your total costs are down 30%. Anecdotally, the quality of WMATA staff, at least in terms of dealing with the public, seems to have FALLEN, not risen in the period you cite.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 12:29 pm • link • report

@Kyle: WMATA updated their original FY 11 proposed budget to include the full 3% wage increase provided for in the arbitration award for budget purposes and did so after that Dec. date. That doesn't mean they agree to pay it, but have added the potential cost to the FY 11 budget.

Without knowing for sure, I'm assuming the other 1% increase is coming from wage progression for operators and promotional testing for mechanics in which they move from D level to AA over time.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

@dave, mperkins, craig; my bad for not clicking the author bio; to be honest I've never done that for any author here. My loss. I've read what I thought was all this series and never noticed his daytime affiliation.

Very much enjoyed the series -- but I was wondering in the back of my head when do we talk about labor costs -- which is the real source of WMATA's problems right now.

Thanks again to Craig for putting it together.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2010 12:37 pm • link • report

I concur with some of the others that this disclaimer should have run throughout the whole series - especially on part 8, which specifically talked about the union without reference to Craig's day job. Surely that does not disqualify him, but why not be up-front from the beginning? Not saying GGW hid it, just think that should be made clearer in the future. It certainly changed some of my thinking about what has been written.

by timfry on Mar 3, 2010 12:47 pm • link • report

@SJE

I am courious what your fringe benifits are in comparason to the 31,000 each metro enployee gets. I would bet there the same if not more. Insurance is expensive, as are other costs which are included in that number. Why do you think companies like Walmart try to get around this by only hireing part time workers, and MD even passed laws to prevent them from doing so.

by Matt R on Mar 3, 2010 12:52 pm • link • report

I remember at my first job (tech company) they said that on average the total cost per employee was 2x the actual salary. That might have included facilities costs for offices, but the FICA, health care, disability insurance, etc. was at least 50% of the salary.

I'll go and put a note at the bottom of the previous posts. However, I'm surprised that so many people feel like their view of the past posts has changed in light of Craig's affiliation. Except for a tiny bit of part 8 where he *advocated for measures to reduce union costs*, he's been presenting proposals to balance the budget that help riders within the context of what's there.

I can't help but wonder how many people had a preexisting belief that you'll disagree with everything any union person thinks, then read these very thoughtful, intelligent posts by some guy and agreed with them, and now are experiencing some cognitive dissonance that some articles you liked and agreed with came from a point of view you might not have expected.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

David: you raise a good point. Craig's postings should be examined on their merits.

This series does have a lot of good ideas. However, it is telling that in a 9 part series on WMATA, there is almost nothing about labor costs, although that is far and away the largest component of WMATA's budget.

As to the question of my fringe benefits: from my last look, they are substantially below $30,000. My salary etc is not particularly relevant, however, since is one that my employer's customers are willing to pay and do not affect the readers of this blog. The readers of this blog, in contrast, ARE being asked to pay for WMATA salaries and benefits. As a result, we taxpayers and rider do get to ask whether we are getting value for money. From my reading of this blog over the past 1.5 years or so, I think that there are many who think the answer is "No."

Asking these questions does not make us union bashers. Failing to even look into labor costs, the biggest cost of WMATA, and rejecting those who ask such questions, seems to be a huge hole in the credibility of the series.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

@David Alpert, I'm a financial analyst and can tell you that private sector benefits, including FICA, are way under 43% of base pay as they are for Metro, largely because there are no fluctuating defined-benefit pension costs as Craig alluded to, and because private sector workers pay a much higher share of health ins premiums than Metro workers currently do. Additionally, most private sector workers make well below the $69,688 average base pay of WMATA workers.

I don't care if Craig is the man on the moon or Jimmy Hoffa. We haven't discussed how dangerous being a bus driver can be as many are assaulted by unruly passengers. I have no problem compensating them fairly whether they belong to a union or not.

Nonetheless, as taxpayers, we are already responsible for 42% of Metro's budget through state and local taxes (not even counting Federal) before the first fare is collected. If Craig wants to come here and ask us for more money while his members are getting pay hikes, then you should expect we will recommend alternatives to his cost cutting proposals with our elected officials, regardless of whether he's a union boss, or just an innocent transit geek who doesn't mind empty buses and trains.

by Kyle on Mar 3, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

Assuming 2000 hrs, the average WMATA employee is just under $35/hr. For comparison with the first officer on an airline, average hourly salary can be $30/hr.
http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,62/Itemid,85.html

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report

@ SJE: Poor comparison again. Seriously, you think you wanna run WMATA like an airline? The airline industry is only alive because (in a sense) many people have no alternative way of transportation (good luck going to Hawaii, Asia or Europe without a plane). Customers and employees are maximally frustrated by an industry that simply does not want to innovate and refuses to listen to its customers.

You wanna run WMATA like an airline? Expect the following changes:
* An escalator access fee
* Turn-style convenience fee
* Metal detection for every customer, including a safety fee
* Different operators for the different lines, with different rates and no connecting stations.

But in all seriousness. Morale under airline personnel is lower than ever. If you want to treat metro personnel the same, expect nothing less than hell underground.

@ Craig: I am sorry that your union role is seen as negative. That was not my intention. I enjoyed your analysis of the budget and would like to see more. The fact that you are involved in the union, probably makes you more aware of the budgetary issues within WMATA more than most readers here. That is an advantage, not something to be bashed for.

by Jasper on Mar 3, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

Jasper: I agree that comparisons are difficult, and it is very difficult to determine appropriate pay and benefits for government employees since there are not many private sector equivalents.

I am not expecting WMATA people to work for peanuts. I do not, however, appreciate the entitlement attitude.
This is the attittue that assumes ATU employee should be completely free from market forces, and that any shortfall in the budget should be made up entirely by riders and governments. The same ATU fights for its right to a 3% raise even during huge deficits, and makes it hard for WMATA to get rid of people like Carla Proctor, whose driving habits have now exposed WMATA to a $30 million lawsuit.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 2:25 pm • link • report

@craig; second to what jaspar said. This was very enjoyable and thank you for putting it together. I think several good ideas surfaced.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report

Jasper: my comparison is apt, if imperfect, and you cloud the comparison with irrelevant issues. I am comparing the salary of a co-pilot of a 747 to the WMATA average, which includes a lot of bus and train drivers.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report

@SJE: An old cliche: there are two sides to every story. No WMATA & ATU Local 689 couldn't reach a mutual agreement and that's unfortunate--its almost always better to solve your own problems than put them in someone else's lap. Perhaps that's a lesson for both parties.

My opinion:

The arbitration award was hardly one-sided. There was no increase for year 2008 when inflation was 4.1%, there was a 3% increase for 2009 when inflation was -.07%.

Over term, the increases are 2.2% per year. About 1% per year each year of health insurance costs over term of the agreement will shift to the employees through increased co-pays, prescription drug costs, an increase in HMO cost sharing and a 75% wmata, 25% union split on health cost increases. Inflation will pretty much wipe out the remainder.

You can argue like Michael P. and WMATA that these changes should be greater and that's fine--I'm just saying there is another POV.

As to getting rid of employees. Unions are required by law to fairly represent each employee. That doesn't mean every case goes to arbitration, but if the union finds merit in some form--a management error, disparate discipline, evidence that clears the employee or other issues--it is required by law to pursue those issues or the union becomes liable. The union is also a democratic organization with the attending blessings and faults. The union membership votes on whether to send a grievance to arbitration and sometimes overturns recommendations by the leadership. Regardless, WMATA has an obligation to make sure it imposes discipline based on facts, the punishment fits the crime and the discipline is administered evenly.

Are there underperforming employees? Of course, and WMATA has an obligation and right to establish standards and enforce them. The union's obligation is to ensure that workers are treated fairly--that's all.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

@SJE: Sorry, not trying to make anything personal just trying to get some facts out. The starting wage of WMATA bus ops, stations managers & train ops is $15.62 ($32,500/yr based on 2080 hours). The flight officer starts at about $24.00 ($50,000/yr), depending somewhat on the airline. At present,there are no bus ops, train ops or station managers that make hourly wages of $30/hour even with 40 years seniority even including a projected 3% increase.

I'm not sure of your methodology but you may be including high skilled mechanics, salaried personnel and overtime and other factors and then dividing it by 2000 (don't you mean 2080--52*40)?

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report

@SJE:

Jasper isn't clouding the issue at all. He's exactly right. The airlines have slashed pay for pilots and every other employee - is the service you get while flying something that other industries should aspire to?

Seems to me if you drive a bus or a train, you're in a job where you have people's lives in your hands, and you put your own life at risk in some situations too. If you do that for a decade you probably deserve to be compensated for that with a real salary.

Yes, people probably shouldn't be getting 3% raises during the recession, but Craig says he's coming at this from the GM's perspective, and guess what? The GM can't just wave his wand and make that go away - it's in a contract. If you want to go further into negotiations and take that away from union members, then you can say that, but it's not like the pay raise can just be crossed out from the budget because you want it to be.

by MLD on Mar 3, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

Bus drivers make on average about 20-25 an hour. But they make double on Sunday, and time and a half for overtime, which kicks in on a daily basis after 8 hours. And in FY 2009, Metro spent $62 million on overtime.

Additionally, pension benefits accrue on overtime hours.

If we cut Sunday service dramatically, we can make a big dent in this, and also ensure drivers are well rested. Airline pilot hours are limited by the FAA, so WMATA drivers typically make less per hour, but often make a lot more in total because overtime.

In FY 2006, 125 metrobus and metrorail drivers made over $100,000 base pay, a level no airline pilot reaches without significant experience. But just as pilots hours are limited for safety, so should drivers' hours.

by Kyle on Mar 3, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

@ SJE: it is very difficult to determine appropriate pay and benefits for government employees since there are not many private sector equivalents

Then why make the comparison? Thank you for making my point.

Transit is no private enterprise. It should not be treated as such. Transit is part of transpiration infrastructure. Roads are not subject to the whims of the economy. Has any DOT proposed to close a major interstate, or delay maintenance? that fourth lane on I-95 is still being built. Snow removal is not delayed because DOTs are out of money. Money is found. Without transportation, life (including the economy and private enterprise) comes to a complete stop. We've just seen that happen with our own eyes.

So, why exactly would you cut transit when the economy is down?

by Jasper on Mar 3, 2010 3:48 pm • link • report

@Kyle:

You are correct on overtime costs but not correct on Sunday work and Sunday work is on the whole no more or less productive than other work.

Some overtime costs are unavoidable in transit--runs can't be cut into nice neat 8 hour chunks, traffic and other delays can't be avoided, there is some peak service needed to maintain headways that is scheduled as overtime work because its too short to be coupled with other work into a full assignment. You can't get around overtime in an emergency situation where you'll need maintenance personnel to remove snow, for example or bus operators for a bus bridge during a rail service stoppage.

However, most of WMATA's past overtime problems centered on failing to project and fill vacancies. This would be avoidable overtime. WMATA did a better job following public disclosure of the overtime issue several years ago. I'm not sure how much overtime of the amount you cite could be avoided through better forecasting and filling vacancies but that would be an area to look at to reduce costs.

You are not correct on the Sunday service. Operators who are regularly scheduled to work on Sundays are paid straight time rates. There is no premium pay for WMATA workers on Saturdays and Sundays and only a very small premium payment for mainteance employees only for 2nd (2%) & 3rd shifts(3%).

WMATA workers do earn overtime if they work on their scheduled days off, providing they completed all other assignments during the work week. If they work a 7th day in any work week they are entitled to double time--maybe that's what you were thinking of. A provision like this comes up during snow emergencies like we just had when workers put in ten straight days clearing snow.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report

@Craig Simpson,

Airline pilot pay is based on hours in the air not hours on duty making that $50,000/yr figure a complete fiction. In fact, starting pay for a first officer at a regional airline (the only kind of airline that has been hiring in recent years) is typically under $25,000 and often as low as $19,000 and the average pay is about $33,000 for first officers and $73,000 captains. Add to that the fact that they have to pay for their own training (which can easily top $100,000) before being hired and those numbers look even worse.

by Jacob on Mar 3, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report

Jacob: Thanks, I had heard that regionals had really cut pay even for captains but didn't really know how badly.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 4:18 pm • link • report

Craig, thank you for suggesting overtime can be cut. I remember Jackie Jeter scolding everyone in the Washington Post for daring to suggest it.

In the past, I know you had to be a Metrobus operator in order to apply for a train spot, and had to work part-time for a year on the bus to get a full-time driver spot. This had the effect of limiting the supply of workers, forcing wages (and fares and taxes) up. NATCA does the same thing with air traffic controllers, by not allowing anyone over 31 to enter that profession.

I'd rather drive a metro train than fly a regional jet. Don't have to live on the road and better pay. And there are tons of RJ pilots based in Dulles. Also have plenty of truck drivers who might be interested in driving a train.
Understanding that driving buses and trains is a skilled and important profession, what do you suggest can be done to increase the pool of available workers?

by Kyle on Mar 3, 2010 4:45 pm • link • report

Craig, thanks for taking the time to write this series. It's been very interesting, with lots of substantive suggestions. I appreciate it.

by jcm on Mar 3, 2010 5:23 pm • link • report

Just some history first. In the 1997 labor agreement, the union agreed to lower starting pay rates and extend the wage progression period after much insistance by WMATA that this was necessary. The problem was three-fold:

1. the starting wage rate quickly became lower than some surrounding jurisdictions for bus operator. The working conditions in those areas were perceived to be better by some applicants regardless of the long term wage/benefits at WMATA.

2. WMATA required applicants to start part-time--meaning that you had a relatively low wage and were only getting 25 hours week spread over two rush hours with 5-6 hours off in between--not a real attractive job.

3. WMATA paid minimum wage for a training period that lasted 4-8 weeks--another disincentive.

In the process, WMATA had to lower their hiring standards in order to fill positions.

In recent years, WMATA and the union have adjusted the starting wage rate upward and WMATA unilaterally increased the training wage (it is not subject to collective bargaining) and WMATA unilaterally ended the requirement that operators had to be part time before becoming full time.

This made it easier to recruit.

The seniority provisions of the labor agreement haven't changed. That means that if an internal applicant meets the qualifications for train operator, they will be hired before someone on the street. It used to be years as a bus operator before you could accumulate enough seniority to become a train operator or station manager but that's changed dramatically now. There are bus operators transfering to train operator with 1 1/2 years seniority. If the trend continues (after the recession when hiring picks up), you may see train operators and station managers hired directly off the street.

by Craig Simpson on Mar 3, 2010 5:27 pm • link • report

I'm confused by this overtime racket the union seems to be running. It sounds like there are way too many ways for them to get overtime that frankly just sound like regular work to me.

If they have a job, and their job is to do work, then they work, it doesn't matter when or how long (up to legislated rest periods). None of that should qualify for 'overtime'.

When you have a job you work until your work is done. It doesn't matter if it's past 5pm or gets to be 9pm in the evening, if the project or analysis is due and it's not done, you keep working. If people need help or there's an emergency at midnight or 5am, you make yourself available and respond and do your best to be as helpful as possible.

I don't get 'overtime' and I complete my responsibilities and projects on time, however that needs to happen. I.e. I work my job.

I hate to sound like a 'company man' but I like my work, view it as important, and do what is necessary.

What's wrong with these union people?

by James on Mar 3, 2010 6:01 pm • link • report

@ James: Unless you have a job in which you can hire or fire, your company is probably in violation of federal labor law which requires any employer (non-union, union-makes no difference)to pay overtime after 40 hours in any one work week. It makes no difference if you're willing to do it at no pay--they are required by law to pay you at the rate of time-and-a-half. I pass no judgment on you--more power to you if you enjoy your work.

by kreeggo on Mar 3, 2010 7:08 pm • link • report

Wow, I'm taking a beating here. Where to start?

OK, first kreeggo, you don't have to be able to hire or fire to be non-hourly, merely have sufficient discretion in your own hours, or have a system that rewards you by production.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 8:44 pm • link • report

OK, now in more detail.

1. Comparisons. The difficulty of comparing jobs does not mean that no comparison is possible: people do apples to oranges comparisons all the time.

2. Relevant statistics. According to salary.com, the mediam salary for a bus driver is 18K, total compensation of 34K. Customer service is a little higher. If you adjust for Washington DC, the numbers get higher, but still well short of the average WMATA 69K. Go ahead, do the numbers if you like.

3. The fact that WMATA negotiated a certain deal with the Union, or that inflation rose, etc. should not be determinative of the present issue. WMATA did stupid things in the past that lead to accidents and fatalities, and we want to change things. Everyone realizes that there is a problem, and we all need to sit down and discuss things. All I have been trying to say in all these posts is that you cannot seriously address WMATA's budget problems if you ignore 75% of the costs, which is labor.

4. According to a Feb 23 Pew research poll, labor unions are now more unfavorable than favorable, in part because of percieved unaccountability etc. The GOP smells blood and is attacking union entitlement. Obama and centrist Democrats are criticizing the teachers unions, prehaps sensing the political mood. Whatever the reason, there is a fiscal problem. I suggest it would be better for the ATU to be flexible and come up with some clever ways to reduce costs, including labor costs, than have reforms forced on them by a Republican Congress.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 9:04 pm • link • report

There's alot of non-hourly covered by FSLA--I agree I provided a simplified definition--but nearly all employees are covered--very few are exempt. If you're doing work in excess of 40 hours in a work week, you're probably due overtime--there's many more people who think they're not covered but are than think they are but are not. ha--see if you can figure that last sentence.

by kreeggo on Mar 3, 2010 10:51 pm • link • report

True: but a lot of employers have found ways around that. e.g. define what constitutes hours of work
working only 40 hours but at unpopular times
making people private contractors
classifying the job as "exempt"

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 11:00 pm • link • report

You know, I don't begrudge WMATA employees their salary increases so much as I begrudge WMATA employees their salary increases considering how rude, unhelpful, nasty and downright asinine they are. You want a salary increase? Absolutely, but do what we do eveyerwhere else: earn it. Be helpful. Be courteous. For frak's sake learn to frakking drive a train - or if you're going to drive like you're suffering an epileptic fit, WARN your passengers you're about to move jerkily. If all else fails, at least don't be rude. (I've had to call cops on a WMATA station manager and her "friend" because I was assaulted by the station manager and her friend promptly lied to save the station manager - lucky me there was quite a nice crowd of bystanders to tell the cops the story as it happened. Of course, both still working for WMATA.)

PS: Admins - how do you block authors?

by varun on Mar 4, 2010 11:48 am • link • report

All of this money being spent. Money should be spent having metro police on busses making citizens pay their fare. There should not be any free rides. There should also be a back up machine in-case the main one is inoperable for smart trip in-case it is inoperable. Also, employees can donate one week per year. No over-time for one week per year would not kill anyone. WMATA can use the extra cash and employees can spend more time at home

by Future employee on Jul 19, 2010 2:01 pm • link • report