Bookmark and Share
Labor's Edge: Views from the California Labor Movement

End This BART Dispute Now

A sixty-day cooling off period would simply reward BART management for its bad behavior and regular absenteeism at the bargaining table

by John Logan, San Francisco State University

How did the BART dispute ever reach this point?

For several weeks now, BART management has mounted a sophisticated PR campaign, stating that its workers are overpaid and unreasonable. But its evidence on employee pay and benefits has been misleading at best; its estimates of average pay include many highly paid managers, thus exaggerating significantly the pay of frontline employees. Likewise, management’s statements on employee contributions to health benefits have failed to account for the significant out-of-pocket expenses incurred by many BART employees.

Denigrating your workers in the media may be a winning strategy in the battle for public opinion, but it’s a foolhardy one for senior management running an organization whose success depends so heavily on employee commitment and flexibility.

This week’s public hearing in Oakland before Governor Brown’s three-member investigative panel provided an entirely different version of events from BART’s media campaign. During several hours of testimony, union witnesses described in great detail BART management’s "Comedy of Errors" bargaining style. If their account is accurate -- and BART did not dispute the specific allegations, though it did add a couple of its own -- this behavior provides almost a textbook example of 'surface bargaining,' i.e., going through the motions of negotiating with no intention of reaching an agreement. Without exception, moreover, union officials stated that this year’s BART negotiations were not only the worst ever at BART, but the worst they had ever seen in several decades in the labor movement.

Rather than make a legitimate effort to negotiate a settlement, management has repeatedly employed delaying tactics; it started negotiations in mid-May, rather than in April, as the union had requested; it has engaged in the arbitrary scheduling of meetings; its chief negotiator Tom Hock was, incredibly, unavailable for one-third of the 30-day contract extension period after the July strike; and over the last weekend, management took almost 12 hours to respond to unions’ pay and benefit proposal. During those critical final hours, management was, unbeknown to the unions, writing to the Governor to request a 60-day cooling off period, rather than attempting to reach a settlement.  

While accusing the unions of excessive contract demands, BART management has made unreasonable and unrealistic bargaining demands of its own: its initial pay and benefits proposal would have meant a 12% cut in real terms for employees who have not had a raise for the past 4 years. At the tail end of bargaining over the weekend, the unions reported that management’s last offer was worse than its previous one. Moreover, management has repeatedly negotiated through the media -- even continuing to do so during an agreed-upon gag order -- rather than bargain face-to-face with its unions.

But it doesn't need to be this way. It is instructive to compare the train wreck of contract negotiations at BART with the successful negotiations that just concluded at AC Transit, which involved similar pay and benefits challenges. Despite facing contentious issues, AC Transit management and its union reached an agreement without strikes, contract extensions or cooling-off periods. They sat down together, negotiated in good faith, and got the job done.

Contract negotiations are rarely easy -- especially in an environment of fiscal austerity -- but the AC Transit experience demonstrates that when management and workers are committed to an equitable and sustainable outcome, disparate interests can reach agreement through commonsense compromise. The fundamental obstacle to a similar outcome at BART is that management has neither negotiated in good faith nor shown a genuine desire to avoid a strike. Under the guidance of its chief negotiator Tom Hock -- who is notorious for driving down wages and benefits, as well as driving labor disputes to strikes -- management has steered negotiations almost unstoppably towards the current stalemate.

It’s certainly possible that Governor Brown will seek a sixty-day cooling off period come Monday, but it should not have come to this. Settling this dispute will require flexibility and compromise on both sides. In order for that to happen, however, BART management must first end its media campaign, sit down with its unions, and negotiate in good faith. 

Posted on 08/09/2013Permalink

More posts by John Logan

Reader Discussion

Management always uses the brainless exaggerations of employees earning too much when they themselves earn so much more, and that gets down to deliberately ignoring what it would be like if the managers themselves were in the employees’ places.  To equate the amount of pay to the “bottom line” of minimum wage—without acknowledging that minimum wage is the MINIMUM LEGAL SUBSTANDARD WAGE that is 40% BELOW THE CEILING FOR POVERTY is the same as saying “You employees are not looking at the bottom line… if you all would cut your toes off your feet you would not need to eat as much and then you would not need as much paycheck for groceries!”

at 11:07 am on Fri, Aug 9, 2013Posted by Libris Fidelis (my real name)

This is the same kind of surface bargaining going on right now between SEUI 1021 members and the County of Mendocino. They took 10% from us 18 months ago, used it to improve their reserves from $7 million in the red to $7million in the black and still insist they are in unstable financial straights. Ha!

at 4:11 pm on Fri, Aug 9, 2013Posted by Helen Michael

I have dealt with Tom Hock in the past. He has not changed. He aims for strikes and arbitration.  His association with a private transit contractor seems like a conflict of interest to me.

at 5:36 pm on Fri, Aug 9, 2013Posted by Donald Delis

Professor Logan gives us a far different account of the process     to date. It is clear that some of the major media have fallen for the Bart management distortions. It’s probable that the chief Bart negotiator is counting on the national smear campaign against unions that has been conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and similar big business and right wing extremist organizations for at least the last twenty years. But the truth is that smearing unions hurts business that depend on the U.S. consumer marketplace. Hammering the worker hammers the consumer, because the worker is a consumer.

at 7:45 pm on Fri, Aug 9, 2013Posted by Chatham H. Forbes Sr.

Interestingly, BART is not facing fiscal austerity. On the contrary BART projects a surplus to the tune of millions of dollars over the the next several years. A major contrast with most employers in the Bay Area.

at 10:26 pm on Fri, Aug 9, 2013Posted by J Morales

I’m a Train Operator for BART who has been following Mr. John Logan’s. comments since I saw his interview on KRON. I have W-2’s that go back several years & I’ve been a TO for 17 years. You can see for yourself what we make. Just one of the many things floating around the break room….Is BART for sale….the Koch Brothers trying to buy the Oakland Tribune? What’s next their own electric train set BART?

at 6:41 am on Sat, Aug 10, 2013Posted by Leroy Myers

Selling off Bart would not be an unbelievable aspect.  What the Repugnant Partizans call “privatization” is really “commercialization” of our government and society.  If the people are not smart… and I would say 80% of our US population is STUPID… we will be subscribing to commercial fire departments, commercial police departments, and if we do not pay our “dues” the fire department will suggest using a garden hose; the commercial police department will suggest calling on friends.  But if BART is commercialized, expect the same thing as with our U.S. Post Office which has been run by a commercial corporation for well over a decade now ... fares will increase not to cover COSTS but to cover privileged shareholder demands!  And those shareholder shares will not be listed by any stock exchange… just like with our U.S. Post Office !!!

at 4:14 pm on Thu, Aug 15, 2013Posted by Libris Fidelis (my real name)

Post a Comment

We welcome your comments on this article. Please complete the form below to add to the conversation.

Please Note: California Labor Federation reserves the right to edit or remove any comment that is deemed inappropriate, off-topic, abusive or offensive.

Thank you for participating in the public dialogue!


(required: will not be made public)

Remember my personal information

To help protect our site against spam, please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments?