Paul J. Bachtel
Continued
Much of the decline in revenue over the past decade is directly attributable to the 2001 tax payer decision to cut the vehicle excise tax that provided stable funding for transit. Subsequent decisions by transit management and the elected officials who supervise management’s repeated decisions to spend down needed reserves may have put in place a recipe for draconian cuts in service.
Why would the elected officials agree, or direct, transit management, to spend down needed reserves? The only plausible explanation is to provide taxpayers with a level of service beyond what revenues support in hopes of gaining reelection. What politician wants to run for reelection on a platform of cutting needed services?
Regardless of who’s to blame, Unions are told they have a Hobson’s Choice of either agreeing to substantial cuts in wages or incurring layoffs.
Prior to and during the 2010 contract negotiation, King County Metro actively attempted to reduce wage increases through misleading or factually incorrect press release statements. The false data was used by the right-wing Washington Policy Center, conservative Seattle Times, and King 5 Television to misrepresent the past wage increases of transit workers. An honest evaluation reveals that during most of our history with Metro, wages have just barely kept up with inflation.
Low seniority members, fearing layoff, have called upon their union leaders to agree to a wage freeze. The much larger majority of union members have called upon their union leaders to hold their ground and demand that built-in cost-of-living increases be maintained.
Ironically the question of the day may only be a precursor of what’s to come. If you believe the numbers being presented by transit management (and I don’t), without a significant increase in revenues (substantial new taxes) transit service will be cut by as much as 20% (600,000 hours) of current service levels (3,000,000 hours) over the next two biennium’s (2012-2013 and 2014-2015). Employee wages are, even by management’s numbers, only a small percentage of the projected revenue shortfall. Why then are management and the media focused on such a small part of a revenue shortfall while ignoring the long- term problem? Could it be to sell newspapers, advertising, and attack publicly employed unionized workers? Could it be that management is trying to direct attention away from its size and cost growth so that cutting management is not one of the options to be included in the debate of the day?
The future is hard to see, especially revenue five years in future. The decisions that are made today by your union leaders will be made with the sure knowledge of economic history over a considerable amount of time, not short sighted cuts based on a short-term recession. Union members should hold tight to the long history of stable transit growth and not let fear mongers who are attempting to affect current negotiations control their thoughts. Together, we will get through this difficult time.
In solidarity,
Paul J. Bachtel
President / Business Agent
Local 587 |
