Response to UTU
"Drivers Speak Out"

While the drivers say they regret the hardships the strike is causing to riders and the community, they were the ones who refused to give more than 6 hours notice to the public that they were going to strike. It is a common practice for unions to give adequate notice in the case of public strikes so that people have time to make plans. UTU did not see a need to do this and with only 6 hours notice they walked off the job. As to the fact that the METRO Board of Directors not accepting the modifications to the Terms and Conditions of the Implementated Last, Best & Final Offer, this was entirely in the purview of the Board to do. It was the Board's concern for the fact that Health Insurance Premiums for the drivers would increase 127% on June 30, 2006 that caused them to reject the proposal AND the fact that UTU was still going to sue METRO on three different issues. As to UTU characterizing this as a "Bad Faith Strike", one only has to look at the recent County SEIU rejection of a negotiated settlement - was this a Bad Faith Action on the part of SEIU? Obviously, just as the Union has a right to not ratify a deal, so does METRO. Reasonable, responsible reaction is to go back to the Negotiating Table and continue to work on the issues, not to strike and strand 23,000 riders each and every day. As to this their claim that this is a strike of principles, not profits, one only has to examine what they are asking for and decide for yourself.

UTU refuses to acknowledge the financial condition of METRO and continues to demand that METRO allocate funds to satisfy their demands. METRO's record has been clear. METRO financial records are completely open and available on our web site. By looking at past Board Meeting Packets, you can examine staff reports that detail the financial condition of METRO. METRO has, and continues to provide documentation confirming its financial condition. UTU has been unable to have their demands met at a time when there are limited resources available.

Throughout this process, UTU has resorted to name calling and character assassinations. METRO has not and will not resort to these techniques.

METRO is only providing responses to inaccurate information that is being put out by UTU to attempt to get public sympathy for their strike. They charge that METRO has easy access to the media. When unbiased people examine the all the facts, and attempt to get past the empty rhetoric, they tend to agree with the positions taken by METRO. UTU has stated numerous times that they want the negotiations to occur at the negotiating table, yet they continue to make public statements and post information on their web site. METRO, since negotiations have started up again, has only responded to UTU's claims. We have not released any information regarding negotiations and have refrained from public comments. However, METRO will not allow untrue information from UTU to go unanswered. As to UTU's charge that METRO is interested in prolonging the strike, nothing could be further from the truth. UTU has had periods of time where they have been unavailable to meet, and yet METRO does not charge UTU with prolonging the strike. The METRO Board of Directors offered to meet after the strike began if the drivers came back to work - UTU rejected this offer. UTU claims to want to negotiate at the negotiating table, yet website postings, newspaper advertisements, and public statements speak otherwise.

UTU has compromised only on those issues that would never be given, and therefore can not be construed as compromising. UTU asserts that METRO is saving $53,000 per day while they are on strike, and at the Special Board Meeting they asked the Board to spend this "saved money" on their contract. Since this has become a an issue for UTU, METRO has prepared a separate page on "Savings" from the strike to provide a full accounting of what the impacts of the strike are to METRO's budget. In any event, there are many problems with UTU's assertion.

• First UTU fails to recognize that when METRO shuts down, there are revenues - farebox, contracts, rents, and advertising that do not get realized. These lost revenues would have to be deducted from any costs that are avoided. In addition, you would have to add in any "new" costs that are attributable to the strike. The "Savings" page details our Weekday and Weekend calculations. As can be seen from the numbers, the savings are small as a result of the lost revenue. The last part of the equation, one that does not show up in any daily accounting is the revenue loss in the future that can be attributed to the strike. If METRO was to lose 5% of our ridership as a result of people making other arrangements after the strike is over, that would amount to an annual revenue loss of $343,858. This would increase the overall deficit for METRO, further limiting our ability to provide transit service.
• Second, UTU provides no justification for its assertion of savings. The best we can figure is that it appears that their estimate of "savings" is the cost of service used when METRO charges outside agencies for service. Unfortunately, UTU fails to recognize that these costs include all of the costs for all of the other employees at the District - currently being paid - and all of the other continuing costs such as facility rents, utilities, phones, etc.
• Finally, why would the Board of Directors reward, and in effect "pay" UTU while they are striking by providing them with money not spent during a strike. If any money actually were saved, it would be one-time savings, and would not re-occur in future years, so METRO couldn't give these funds for recurring pay raises.

This is another claim that sounds good on the surface, but UTU is leaving out some important facts that the public should be aware of when evaluating their claim. First, the method used to pay for Pension Costs is left up to the parties to negotiate. Arrangements such as the one currently in place is also used by the County of Santa Cruz, where employees pay the Employer share over a capped amount. Further, in April of 2002, UTU made a deal that increased their Retirement Plan by 25%. In exchange for this increase, UTU agreed to pay the amount exceeding 3.235% of the employer share from this change. METRO would never have offered this increased benefit without this cap in place, as the increased costs would have required service cuts and fare increases to pay for it.

Many UTU employees retired under this increased benefit, and all current employees are covered by it. Now, UTU is asking that the District pick up these costs, by reneging on the deal they made in April of 2002. How can METRO be confident of any negotiation offers made by UTU if they later decide they no longer want to live up to them?

UTU in their last 3-year contract received pay increases of 4.25%, 4.25%, and 4.25%. In addition, in the last year of their contract, they also got a 5% salary step added to their pay schedule. The effect was that that all drivers received a 9.25% pay raise last year. All of these raises came at a time that METRO was having to cut service and raise fares. With continuing deficits, METRO is unable to meet the demands being made by UTU in this strike that they characterize as "principle not profits".

UTU can get all of these things by coming to an agreement with METRO on a new contract. Since there was no agreement, the METRO Board implemented their Last, Best & Final Offer. If UTU drivers come back to work they will have a grievance process.