Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) 587, somewhat miffed at perceived attempts by King County to bargain through the media, relaunched their media relations with an informal press briefing yesterday, featuring the usual transportation reporter suspects and me. Erica C. Barnett was also there, and STB doesn’t pay nearly enough to do a writeup of the main points when there’s a perfectly fine one already available elsewhere.
I don’t think anyone who rides one of Metro’s more troublesome routes can dispute that driving a bus can be a difficult job with a fair amount of responsibility. Neither union solidarity nor union busting is part of this blog’s agenda, but it’s clear that the best personnel equilibrium from a rider’s perspective is one that pays the absolute minimum amount that still attracts quality personnel. That’s pretty vague, but I have to do some more deep thinking before saying more.
One simple yardstick is what peer agencies pay. I was gratified to learn that the ATU is not, by state law, allowed to strike, but instead go to binding arbitration that tends to compare proposals to what peer operators pay.
I also asked why neither Metro nor the ATU had brought up incentive pay for some of the more violent and undesirable routes in the system, in order to attract some more experienced drivers. The surprising response was that routes like the 7 are actually driven by fairly experienced staff, because there’s some pleasure in driving a trolley and serving a transit-dependent neighborhood.
routes like the 7 are actually driven by fairly experienced staff, because there’s some pleasure in driving a trolley and serving a transit-dependent neighborhood.
An argument for keeping the trolleys I had never considered before.
It’s also where new full time drivers get stuck when all the other routes are taken by drivers with higher seniority numbers, which for the first couple of years is just about everyone. It’s good training unless you really like the ‘action’, but most bail out when something comes along better, or closer to home.
Many drivers at East base look at me funny when I tell them I’m only picking downtown routes. Frankly, the Eastside is boring – Seattle routes are more interesting and more of a challenge. Of course, I’m only part-time so that makes a huge difference. To each their own I suppose.
What’s more pleasurable about driving a trolley over a regular diesel bus?
They’re quiet, smooth, powerful and unique. The trolley routes serve the downtown core more than other routes – and some operators like the constant activity over deadheads or long stretches of freeway. They’re challenging to drive as you have to navigate the wires and switches as well as the challenges of ordinary road driving (pedestrians, traffic, signals, etc.) Some of the routes actually have bathrooms within walking distance.
Sounds like routes like #7, #43, and the like are a kind of ‘hazing’ for the newbies!
These are the things that happen when job assignments are distributed solely on the basis of seniority w/ little consideration for other abilities, special skills (languages, etc).
Actually the 7 is fairly coveted, as mentioned it has a lot of “straight wire” and fewer difficult turns. Rainier Valley is a great community with lots of great people. If you have to drive a Breda, the 7 is the one to drive.
The 43, not so much.
I bet the union will stand firm on this one, because the county will be forced to arbitration, where they ALWAYS lose.
Now Desmond is threatening to layoff 200 part-timers and demote 100 full-timers. Funny thing is though: Metro and ST have hired about 300 operators, mechanics, etc. over the last six months, and layoffs always go by seniority.
Why would they hire drivers just to lay them off? Union busting.
This year the arbitration process also favors union leadership, as they won’t be faced with the embarassment of having a contract overwhelmingly rejected by an open vote of the membership.
Not only can new hires be laid off (and Publicola is reporting that even the union President says that this will happen), but for every 2 part time Operators laid off, 1 junior full-time operator can be bumped back to a guarantee of only 5 hours per day.
The reason that Metro keeps hiring is that it can create the illusion that it is continuuing to enhance service, even with major cuts looming.
It’s not so simple. Direct wages are the “tip of the iceberg.” Benefits and pensions are the part that don’t make the news. Government jobs like driving for Metro are one of the few that still offer a pension (in addition to social security). I don’t think anyone from Microsoft will be drawing a “pension”. That was an IBM way of doing business. Now you’re expected to invest your wages and fund your own retirement account. The rules on overtime and how that determines pension payments are all a huge part of negotiations but not likely to get much press coverage since it requires thought.
Well one remembers especially in the early days that Microsoft provided generous 401K matching with stock options making the first few waves of Microsoft employees very wealthy in a short period of time.
The dot com days were great for taking a chance and ending up rich. Keep in mind though that the vast majority of internet start-ups failed. The folks at MS and CSCO were the exception. Matching funds for a 401k are a great perk. You have to save for it to do any good. I think Boeing still does this but it’s not common. For most of us it’s Ronald Reagan’s IRA program (roots in the Carter White House) that we are looking to for retirement. I fully support the concept of the Military retirement. Bus drivers are definitely front line workers. Not perhaps as exposed to dramatic consequences as the police or firemen but it’s still pretty intense. Perhaps bus driving for public transit should be part of the civil service umbrella? Of course that creates another barrier to entry. People that serve their country in the military would have the inside track for drivers jobs.
For what it’s worth, I believe the state pension plan is sunsetting too. At UW at least only people who started before some date (1990 I think) have access to PERS. The younger of us are on 403(b).
It’s common for bus driver to report that trolleybuses are more pleasant to drive, for reasons that may be related to why they’re more pleasant to ride: they lack the constant vibration of motor buses.
I’m not sure I share your “pay the minimum” view. I think there’s a case for “pay enough to make the job desirable, but raise the standards accordingly.”
“Hazing” is in a transit driver’s own mind. What scared me off East Base routes was literally almost falling asleep on duty on 405 one night. What made me so fierce about transit itself was how bad I hate suburban traffic, in any seat in any vehicle.
As trolley routes go, the 7 is probably the easiest in the system to drive- fast, with a lot of straight wire. The 3 and the 4 are much harder, winding through neighborhoods as they do, and also carrying standing loads up a vertical hill to Harborview Hospital.
For scenery, the 2 is beautiful.
I picked the Route 7 by choice as soon as I could get to it, and favored it until Tunnel service opened seven years later. If Metro had put the 7 into the Tunnel at Dearborn Street, as they seriously considered doing, I would have driven it ’til the end of my service. Both assignments share one thing in common: the satisfaction of mastering an unusual skill for the public benefit.
By rights trolley-driving should pay more, since there’s more to learn, and the passenger loads generally heavier. But a lot of us out of Atlantic would have driven them for less- if Metro could have taken the “dead spot” one block up the Queen Anne Counterbalance and moved it around the corner to flat ground some time in the last thirty years.
And BTW, Martin: “I see my chief value to your company as my willingness to accept the absolute minimum amount of money I need to get to work. Oh, and I’m also quality personnel.” Do you really put that on resume?
Mark Dublin,
Formerly Full-Time Transit Driver 2495
Good post. I’d add the dead spot going up James just after the freeway (7th) as another annoyance.
During the recent Waste Management strike threat, surprisingly few folks screaming this “absolute minimum” line – i.e. open up all jobs to public bid to see who will work for least – were willing to open their own jobs up to the same consideration process.
“”Martin: “I see my chief value to your company as my willingness to accept the absolute minimum amount of money I need to get to work. Oh, and I’m also quality personnel.””
Excellent point I was also thinking of…
That’s a pretty significant distortion of what I said, and in any case shifts the subject from the “shareholders” (taxpayers and riders) to the employee.
Not a distortion as I read it, but a re-statement from the perspective of the employee. You provided a view of a chief benefit from “the rider’s perspective”. Imagine if that same perspective were adopted by applicants as an argument that they best meet the requirements for the job.
Think about it.
I think if two applicants signal a similar level of quality, the one willing to work for less will get the job. What that has to do with “the minimum I need to get to work” isn’t very clear to me.
Of course, applicants want to get as much money as they can, so they emphasize signaling quality, not willingness to work for less.
Do you think employees are not stakeholders?
Yes, which is why I said “shareholders”
You don’t think employees are shareholders?
To the extent they pay taxes and ride the bus, sure. But they’re a tiny minority of that group.
Big difference is how much the employee can make a difference. If you’re a hot shot programmer or can throw a baseball 90mph with you’re left hand you are a hot commodity. Jeff Gordon can’t make much of a difference in route performance using his bump drafting skills. I wouldn’t say driving a bus is easy but there are enough people capable of performing the job satisfactorily that drivers are just a plain old commodity.
Transit Planners on the other hand are a dime a dozen. Not even a commodity, really.
On this blog, yes. However, STB contributor contributes as much to your worth in salary as it costs to subscribe (but at least they offer a double your money back guarantee :=). On the other hand, real traffic planners with experience and a track record like Goran Sparrman and Kurt Triplett (and I guess I must include Adam Parast who’s comments and contributions, though I may not agree are backed up with knowledge, reason and a degree… the degree I’m not so impressed with :=) seem to be able to attract pretty good salaries. Granted, not as good as left handed pitching but colleges are super selective in accepting applicants for that program.
OK, that was pretty good. Now explain Britney Spears. :)
Thanks to Martin for attending the ATU meeting and reporting on it. I was one of the ATU people there. I have two contributions to this discussion. One, the job should pay enough to keep good people driving, so that there isn’t such high turnover that the quality of service suffers. Two, one of the reasons some of us drive trolleys is that the routes are an hour or so long with a bathroom at each end. When I was young, being stuck on the freeways for a couple or three hours at a time with no possible way to stop at a bathroom was hard but do-able (not all park and rides and freeways stops have bathrooms within a reasonable distance from the bus stop). As many of us get older, we simply can’t put ouselves in that situation.
Office workers, just imagine what it would be like to give up the bathroom at the end of the hall. Imagine driving to Idaho every day, but not in your comfortable car with AC and tunes. In a bus seat, with only three or four 5-10 minute rest stops which have been scheduled for you by someone else who has never driven to Idaho, and no lunch (no lunch break and no eating on the bus). Now add 40 passengers making demands on you, and massive traffic….
Again, thanks for this thoughtful discussion.
Yes, I agree that retaining quality people goes hand-in-hand with attracting them in the first place.
Oh, brother.