SFist: Muni Drivers' Union Boss: "I feel the system works now."

guest

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:58:54 -0800

I am a retired MBTA Boston green line rail car maintenance technician . I have worked on the Breda vehicles, they are of the poorest quality . The wiring is not labeled throughout the vehicle .The car builder did not supply wiring diagrams, or a heavy maintenance repair manual. All the replacement car body parts are different sizes, holes don't line up. During the winter snow storms the car roof leaks into the passenger compartment like a bath shower. The train derails if speed exceeds 28m.p.h.The wheels have to be cut every 3,ooo miles The handicap wheel chair ramps do not work.The brakes fail when temps fall to 10 degrees.The sand box only holds 40lbs of sand. In winter this small capacity requires filling at the end of every trip. Because the vehicle had so many problems years passed by, now 10 years later the companies that contracted to fabricate parts no longer exist .The vehicle has cost the state of Massacchusetts several hundreds of millions of dollars ,the vehicle still don't run safely.I want to thank Breda for producing a light rail vehicle that is a rail technicians dream as I made alot of money trying to get that Italian donkey to run.GOOD LUCK BROTHERS IN SAN FRAN..

Alex (the other one)

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:58:55 -0800

At this juncture, I figure it's worth pointing out that there appears to be two Alex's posting. I strongly support the idea of performance or merit based pay in the case of MUNI operators. As it stands, there's no real accountability, and we're stuck with a small handful of horrible drivers that account for the vast majority of the complaints. We need to reward the operators that do a good job, and sanction those that do not. We need *some* way of weeding out these bad apples. Until management is empowered to take disciplinary action against bad operators, I'll take what I can get. Hell, apparently MUNI can't pursue disciplinary action against operators unless the operator consents. www.ucsf.edu/oshpr/library/city.html

Ben

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:40:05 -0800

Wow, an almost perfect misinterpretation Alex. No one is suggesting that the drivers should be paid less. What is being suggested is that their performance should be tied to their compensation. I'd be perfectly happy to have everyone at MUNI paid more if the the trains and buses ran on time, drivers were courteous, and safety became the priority that it should be. And frankly, if you think the T-Third is the only problem with MUNI then you don't ride a whole lot. I'm glad that this high profile failure is starting to highlight the systemic problems with MUNI but I've been waiting 30 minutes for buses that are supposed to come every 8 minutes everyday for years.

Alex

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:55:36 -0800

IIRC, Breda wasn't the cheapest bidder, they were simply the least qualified applicant.

Dave

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:39:55 -0800

@Greg: I know. I was living in Boston when they rolled out the first of the Bredas on the Green Line's "B" line. Suck does not begin to describe. Not only were there crazy delays, but they had to operate the trains SLOWER than the older Kinki's because of the derailment issues. So, they spent a whole mess of money to take an already pathetically slow streetcar line and made it even slower.

Ciaran

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:06:14 -0800

Ah, good to know. Thanks!

andrew

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:41:40 -0800

Ciaran, the union contract DID allow that practice (called "miss-outs"), but that was removed by Proposition E in 1999. Currently if an operator goes AWOL there are strict penalties.

Ciaran

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:13:42 -0800

- chronically absent I suspect this is the cause of a lot of problems, but I don't have any data. Didn't I read somewhere that the union contract allows drivers to not turn up to work if they don't feel like it without having to notify Muni? Or did I make that up. And don't try and turn this into a race issue.

Alex

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:57:46 -0800

Wow SFist since when does paying someone less motivate them to do a better job at work? Instead of taking the red herring bait to blame workers for the MUNI problems maybe you should keep the focus on the real problem which is the chronic underfunding of MUNI. Last I checked the MUNI drivers weren't the ones that designed the T-Third line and they weren't the ones who built it? So how have they become the ones that are responsible for all the problems? It sounds like you would prefer it if the city contracted with Wal-mart to operate our transit system. . .

Greg

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:43:13 -0800

@Dave: If you read the blog "Charlie on the MBTA" you'll find the Breda disaster was far worse than you know. They literally used SF tracks to develop the cars "since they're kinda the same" and the result was horrendous - derailments and breakdowns, constantly, since they didn't account for the tracks and weather of Boston!

Greg

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:39:32 -0800

The only problem I have with the driver's union is that it seems to have lost its way regarding advocacy for workers. It's gone from creating a professional, high quality, well compensated work force( I.e. what the "union label" used to mean) and instead seems to enrich its workforce with rules and benefits that don't care a bit for the survival of the entity that's paying their salaries. Worse, it seems like they are now dedicated to protecting the "few bad apples" - note the case when a driver insulted a supervisor using the PA system (hey like we all haven't had rude drivers before) and their reaction was to defend that driver to the max. Likewise when investigative reporters wanted to look into the appalling record of the "few bad apples", they spent union dollars to fight it in court. I am reminded of something the NYC Teacher's Union president once said years ago "We are obligated to fight like hell for the good teachers who do the job every day. We are not obligated to fight for those who fail and drag our profession and our kids down every day." Everyone that does the job and helps out and the like deserves to be paid well, esp. in SF. People that do not should be dumped and allowed to find a job elsewhere that puts up with bad behavior. The many many good operators of MUNI would benefit from such a plan.

JA

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:14:18 -0800

I think trying to overhaul the Muni labor contracts at the ballot box is more tinkering with a system that needs more fundamental change. How many Muni referenda do voters have to vote on to tinker with Muni? I understand the temptation to "act now" but I think the better solutions will take time. The current Muni culture is more employee-oriented (both drivers AND management) than user-oriented for us riders -- and that takes time to change. I have a better idea: Let's have a simple referendum to take only LRT system -- management, unions et al -- out of the current Muni day-to-day by January 1, 2009. (Since Muni is short of drivers, I'm sure the union drivers can start driving buses.) Then, set up a panel to create a whole new management structure and team as a model of what we should have. (It may even take a management company to come in and set up things.) Have everyone from management to drivers reapply for their jobs -- after the job descriptions and union contracts and pay systems are set up to actually set standards of performance. Take the next few years to work out all of the kinks in the system and set the pattern for a new management/ driver culture. And maybe after all the kinks are worked out -- say by 2012 -- then begin to roll the new management concept to the rest of the Muni system.

TinMan

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:30:33 -0800

"If Muni drivers were so overpaid, then they would not be having such problems hiring new ones, would they? Isn't Muni 200 drivers short?" Um, believe it or not, money's isn't the only motivation behind working. What's better for you: getting well paid to do a job you hate or getting paid peanuts to do a job you love? While I have never tried it, my guess is that driving a Muni bus sucks. (I have plenty of experience driving around ordinary passenger cars around SF and it sucks. But that's just me...)

marc

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:11:17 -0800

Yes, I agree on the need for labor reform throughout the City. But if one were to evaluate the effectiveness per person hour of the TWU at MUNI versus the POA at the SFPD or the SEIU at DPW, I'd wager that most folks would conclude that we're getting better productivity out of our transit operators than we are out of our cops or public works employees. Why would the mostly white transit geeks focus their ire on a mostly black union while allowing a white run union to literally run scot free? I applied for the position of operator a few years back, went through the preliminary screening process, came out 20th out of hundreds on the test, but declined to opt in to the job after thinking about what day-to-day work would be like. Yes, we need labor reform. But as only a conservative like Nixon can go to China, only a progressive can really address labor reform in a manner which reflects San Francisco's values. Whether Peskin's proposal is that or not remains to be seen once the proposal is unveiled. Personally, I believe that more San Franciscans come out worse with the POA unchecked than with the TwU's antics. -marc

T.E. Lawrence

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:28:59 -0800

Hey, maybe if they weren't the second-best-paying agency in the country, they could afford to hire a few more drivers. Are you being sarcastic? San Francisco is an expensive city... you're screwed if you don't own a house or live in a rent controlled apartment. Seems unfair to pick on the drivers just because of how much they make. To be fair, you should look into how much the managers and executives make at the MTA. That being said, I think Muni and the unions should work to: 1) improve driver training - train drivers in a realistic setting. Isn't odd that bus drivers and LRV operators train in empty vehicles? How will they learn to deal with the pressures (traffic, keeping up with the schedule, the occasional psychotic passenger,etc.) that come with the job? 2) weed out problem drivers - fire or suspend w/out pay drivers & operators who are: - chronically absent - incapable of dealing with stress - dealing with a substance abuse problem, like our dear Mayor Newsom. How's rehab coming along Mr. Mayor?

NoeValleyJim

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:55:00 -0800

If Muni drivers were so overpaid, then they would not be having such problems hiring new ones, would they? Isn't Muni 200 drivers short?

Dave

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:33:48 -0800

Speaking of Breda (Italian for Shitty Trains), the MBTA (Boston) ordered a whole fleet of Bredas to replace its again stock of Kinki Sharyo LRVs on its Green Line. The trains were a complete disaster, lasting only 400 hours and not the 9,000 that were spec'd. The trains also had derailment problems. Breda has also had problems with trains made for other transit systems. Guess that's what you get when you go with the lowest bid. As for pay for peformance - now THERE'S a crazy idea. Imagine that - having Muni drivers actually get paid based on how well they do or do not do, their jobs! Amazing! It'd be like....well, it'd be like how the rest of the working world gets paid.

Alex

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:20:40 -0800

Richard, you've forgotten one or two key elements in the equation. In addition to being significantly overpriced, the Breda cars are absolute junk. In addition to being crap, they were also not built to the proper specifications (and yet... we ordered more after the first botched batch). So, sure, in a reasonable world MUNI looks ridiculously inefficient. In a reality where we're forced to work with what we've got, things could be a lot worse. Maybe.

Mark Ballew

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:38:17 -0800

I think it's great someone is stepping up and pointing out where the problems are in a public forum. Most people are pretty uneducated when it comes to Muni and aspects like how much money the system burns through, and how truly car-centric and big business the Major and his team are. Muni is just one glaring example of how words are cheap in this town, to find out more on your own just attend a "fake question time." Watching the mayors monologue is soul crushing to those who actually care about this town and it's citizens.

Ben

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:37:08 -0800

What a rediculous take on things. Apparently Peter seems to feel that the fact that Muni drivers' pay has no relation to their job performance, face virtually no disciplinary measures for poor performance, and receive benefits which are the envy of most of us privately employed workers has nothing to do with the extremely poor service standards which MUNI has continued to display. As a manager myself who oversees blue collar workers, I can tell you that no incentive and no discipline very clearly does equal ineffectual job performance. I personally think the whole MUNI organization would benefit greatly from having their performance actually effect what goes into their wallets every paycheck. If any private business was operated in such an inept manner, it would have gone bankrupt years ago.

andrew

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:35:12 -0800

EVERYONE misunderstands this. The Charter provision is a wage LIMIT, not a wage floor. Most years the MTA negotiates up to or close to it, but it is an amount that the city may not EXCEED when paying Muni operators. This is section A8.404, "Salaries and Benefits of Carmen" which in fact governs all Muni operators. Read it at: www.sfgov.org/site/civil_service_page.asp?id=6387#404 In relevant part: "The board of supervisors shall thereupon fix a wage schedule for each classification of platform employees and coach and bus operators of the municipal railway which shall not be in excess of the average of the two highest wage schedules so certified by the civil service commission for each such classification." Now it may be that removing this cap is a good idea for reasons of cost of living or otherwise, but that is what the proposed change is, removal of this cap. In my opinion the salaries of Muni operators are the LEAST of Muni riders' worries. Far more serious are Muni's reliability and safety records which have had such trouble recently, as recently seen (on the reliability side) in the T-Third problems this week. Proper management, dispatching, and maintenance of these (as Richard correctly points out) three million dollar LRVs is much more important to service quality than quibbling over the wages paid the operators - who even with a lot of overtime have a hard time affording to live in SF. Andrew

TinMan

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:36:35 -0800

LOL, more so than ever, it seems like SFist is really just MUNist. About half of the threads are about SF public transportation. It's not that it isn't important, I'm just sayin'...

TinMan

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:21:51 -0800

LOL, more so than ever, it seems like SFist is really just MUNist. I think half the threads are about SF public transportation. Not that it isn't important, I'm just sayin'...

Jerry Jarvis

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:48:49 -0800

You can't blame the union for doing what has become it's status quo.High pay low work duties.

Paul Hogarth

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:20:42 -0800

Hey Matt, complaining about Muni is fine -- and God knows that we need to hold them accountable -- but what's with your rant against the Union? It's unfair to scapegoat them for everything that's wrong when there are many, many other problems that make Muni the dysfunctional joke that it is. Like, an MTA completely appointed by the Mayor -- or Downtown refusing to pay their fair share so we could have affordable Muni, reliable service, and well-paid bus drivers. Did you know that Muni bus drivers get paid less than BART drivers? I don't mean to defend that Muni driver who brought his girlfriend to work -- but you have bad apples everywhere. Muni drivers have a sucky job, whereas BART drivers don't even have to interact with other human beings.

Richard Mlynarik

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:13:02 -0800

"Not enough trains"?!!!! Surely you jest! Muni owns 151 "light" rail vehicles -- n.b., designed to exactly Muni's own unique specifications, and which not coincidentally ended up being the heaviest and most expensive "light" rail vehicles in the world, as well as being about 15 years obsolete in design the day they were built -- of which 118 are supposedly required to provide Muni's peak level of advertised "service". Of these, 15 were purchased using funds allocated to the Third Street Contractor and Consultant Welfare program (the budget for what it is worth says $42223000 of your tax dollars disappeared down that particular hole.) If Muni can't operate day to day with more than one in five (33 of 151) of its nose-bleed expensive capital assets sitting idle (broken, unmanned, wrecked, under maintenance, feeling tired) in a yard somewhere then problem most certainly isn't that it didn't "buy enough vehicles". (Note that 33 not-in-revenue-service LRVs represents $93 million dollars or so of depreciating, taxpayer-funded assets.) This is all leaving aside the matter of whether 118 vehicles should be required to provide Muni's advertised service in the first place. The basic equation is that the slower the average speed, the more vehicles (at $2.8+ million a pop) and the more operators (at $27+/hour excluding benefits and overheads) are required. All told, it costs Muni $205.20 to operate one "light" rail vehicle for one hour. Think about that next time you see four of them lined up at the end of a line somewhere, or when you see one disappear into the hole at the east end of Embarcadero station before reappearing 5 minutes later when it could have reversed at the station in 30 seconds, or when SFMTA flunkies tell you with a straight face that a Muni train or bus carrying up to 150 passengers should give way to a half-dozen cars carrying single occupants, or when somebody comes begging for more money to "fix" Muni. The problem isn't a lack of money, or a lack of vehicles. It's a lack of application of those assets to provide service. Simple arithmetic: if it takes, say, 2 hours to make a round-trip from Castro to Third Street (n.b. much slower than the 15-Third bus upon which this $650 million dog was supposed to be an "improvement"), then it takes 16 trains+operators to run the advertised train every 7.5 minutes , which translates to $3240/hour and $45 million worth of trains. But if it took 45 minutes each way (average speed up to a blistering 12.9 miles per hour!) four fewer trains would be needed, saving $822/hour and over $11 million worth of trains, which could then run somewhere useful, like along the N-Judah. Wow. Rocket science!

Peter

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:05:57 -0800

Geesh, since when did SFist become a proxy for the National Right to Work Committee? I fail to see how paying MUNI drivers what amounts a middle class wage in one for the most expensive cities on earth has anything to do with whether or not the trains run on time. Instead of examining how the T-line was designed or planned you make the great illogical leap from "data" collected by "a reader" to advocating for a merit-based pay system. Since you brought the subject up, a word about so-called merit-based pay schemes. They take the decisions about raises, etc out of a democratic process of negotiations between workers and management and puts those decisions solely in the hands of the employer. In this case the employer is the same people who do such a bang-up job of managing MUNI. Were the author not blinded by knee-jerk anti-unionism, he might be able to see how drivers would prefer a negotiated wage-scale that allows them to enjoy such luxuries as living in the city where they work to a system of raises that inevitably devolves into favoritism and patronage. Unfortunately it's clear from your concluding sentence that these wages do not go to hard working women and men who use that money to pay their mortgage or rent, feed and clothe themselves ad their children - they go to the big scary "UNION" probably managed by a cabal of pinky-ring wearing mafioso types. Such stereotypes are tired, SFist. Let's put them to bed. All of us would be better served by a thoughtful analysis of MUNI's shortcomings and their possible solutions. But evidently MattyMatt is more interested in grinding his anti-union axe than even discussing the other parts of Peskin's plan.