BART management: BIG WINNERS. Guess what? Sometimes you get what you pay for. BART decided to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to Sam Singer's PR firm -- without waiting for the tiger to jump the fence, mind you -- and relentlessly dispatched its own spokesman, Linton Johnson, at every moment. BART's cash outlay resulted in a slick Web site and effective PR machine allowing management to quickly set the terms of this debate.
On the other hand, these weren't very difficult terms to set. Even considering the accusations of BART management malfeasance unions were all too happy to bring up -- and the unions' oft- repeated complaint that BART has never had its books audited by an independent authority -- does anyone think the public transit system is rolling in hidden veins of cash? More to the point, in this economy, it was a lot easier for management to explain why workers should be tightening their belts than workers to explain why they should be loosening their belts. Consider that done.
Finally, BART management's aggressive tactics appear to have paid off in the end. After the ATU spurned a four-year contract adopted by the SEIU and AFSCME unions, the BART board unilaterally imposed a harsher one-year deal. This was a crossing of the Rubicon for management -- "Politically, it's a very hard thing to impose on a union," said BART board member Bob Franklin. "That's like them striking. But we got the results we needed to get."
That one-year deal -- which will be tossed if the ATU ratifies the deal now on the table -- accomplished the cuts in 12 months now tentatively stretched over 48. Suddenly, the four-year deal turned down by the ATU was looking better. Remember, "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."
Local politicians: WINNERS. For Mayor Gavin Newsom and Congresswoman Barbara Lee to implore the union and management to avert a strike was akin to urging their constituents to forego cannibalism. It's something everyone can get behind, it offers the opportunity to connect yourself with a hugely positive event, and, if it fails -- hey, not their fault. How can you talk sense to those people? They're goddamn cannibals!
When asked what role the politicians played in this outcome, ATU President Jesse Hunt would only say "it helped. It's always influential." So, it seems far-fetched to think that Gavin brewed up a pot of his extra-strong coffee, bolted the doors and bellowed "Nobody goes to the john until this baby is done!"
Mayoral spokesman Nathan Ballard told us that "Over a period of several days, the Mayor urged union leaders and BART officials to go back to the table and resolve their differences. And yesterday he went to Oakland and met with both sides. Did he influence the outcome? You would have to ask the parties to the agreement."
Okay. Well, the unions don't want to focus on that right now and management says not really. Our source there believes Newsom's role was largely "encouraging" common sense and that the BART board's hardball move to impose the one-year deal spurred more action than any phone calls from politicians (as you'd expect).
Even still, whatever Newsom and Lee did or didn't do -- they didn't hurt. And it's hardly unprecedented for local politicos with no direct say over BART matters to get involved in labor negotiations. Then-Mayors Jerry Brown and Willie Brown jumped into the fray in 2000. And the ATU rode off with a 22 percent wage increase. Obviously, that didn't happen this time.
Jesse Hunt and the ATU Local No. 1555: Winners ... but also losers. Certainly ATU President Hunt and his colleagues demonstrated the power of the train drivers' and station agents' union. Fewer than 200 votes from this union turned out to be more important than thousands of votes from SEIU and AFSCME; because of union solidarity a strike would have gone down today even though the latter two organizations overwhelmingly voted for an earlier four-year contract spurned by ATU. This gave the ATU disproportionate power in the ongoing negotiations. But did any good come of it?
Terms of the ATU's tentative deal haven't yet been released. Hopefully for Hunt's union it was worth the public rancor the ATU subjected itself to. Had a BART strike become a reality, make no mistake, the finger of blame would have been squarely pointed at the ATU; they would have been as popular as Michael Vick at a dog show.
We asked Hunt if it was worth the terrible PR to get whatever alterations in the deal he got. He answered "absolutely" without hesitation.
"We understand the PR campaign done by the district was unfortunate and unnecessary during these negotiations," he continued. "We were very clearly committed to get this done at the table. We opened negotiations by offering a wage freeze and that was rejected by management. We worked without a contract for more than a month. It was only when the BART board imposed conditions on our membership and only our membership that we were forced to announce a strike."
Of course, Hunt's membership and only Hunt's membership rejected the prior contract offer.
During the last contract vote, the ATU overrode its executive board's "yes" recommendation. Hunt and others suspected it would -- but the union still overwhelmingly went against its leadership. He told SF Weekly he doesn't think he'll have to aggressively "push this one harder." Hopefully he's right -- for our sake and his.
While Hunt would like to portray the public's obvious anger at his union's decision to call for a strike as solely due to PR manipulation by management, it's just not true. As we noted earlier, folks these days aren't in a charitable mood -- and you can ask charities about that, too. With the state's unemployment rate getting to the point where you can bring up Tom Joad without being an alarmist, even liberal Bay Area types were in no mood to look favorably at blue collar workers fighting to preserve benefits and privileges many feel hark to the archaic good times of yesteryear.
It will be interesting to see who the public will be cajoled into grumbling at when BART fares are inevitably raised; the simmering anger at the ATU could easily be tapped into by some sophisticated PR operation or other, eh? To paraphrase Chris Daly, I'd rather sit in filth on a train for $3.30 than $5.
