Machinists Union Local 264 Boston

Officials call for halting weekend commuter rail, limiting The RIDE

BY Bruce Mohl

Commonwealth Magazine

STATE TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY STEPHANIE POLLACK coined a new term on Monday to summarize the Baker administration’s budget philosophy for the MBTA: “Cut to invest.”

In a briefing with reporters, Pollack said the T is determined to eliminate its structural operating deficit in the coming fiscal year and plow state aid that would normally be used to pay off the shortfall into capital projects that would improve service at the transit agency.

But to close an estimated fiscal 2018 deficit of $42 million and pay for $7 million in new management hires, the MBTA is proposing to halt all weekend commuter rail service for at least a year, to end non-required service for disabled riders for at least a year, and to implement a host of privatization and revenue-raising initiatives. T officials said their proposals represented a starting point for discussion, but Pollack said some of them would have to be implemented.

Reaction to the plan at a meeting of the T’s Fiscal and Management Control Board was generally negative.  Paul Regan, the executive director of the MBTA Advisory Board, which represents cities and towns in the T service area, said discontinuing commuter rail service on weekends is a bad idea. “My members believe this is a terrible mistake,” he said.

Scores of union members condemned the T’s proposal to privatize or use the threat of privatization to wring cost savings out of six MBTA bus repair garages. Timothy King, a union official and a member of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation board, testified against the T’s privatization plans. And Brian Lang, a union official and member of the Fiscal and Management Control Board, indicated he opposes the T’s budget-balancing plan. “At this point I would not vote for this as a budget,” he said.

During the Patrick administration, state leaders often said “reform before revenue” when talking about the T’s finances, meaning the agency needed to first get its fiscal house in order before seeking additional state funding. Pollack and T officials made clear on Monday that there is no plan to seek additional state revenue from the Legislature. Instead, they said, the T will come up with money to fund capital and service improvements by cutting spending elsewhere at the agency.

Pollack cited as an example the decision to offer paratransit riders access to Uber and Lyft services. Using Uber and Lyft costs the T about $9 per ride compared to the $40 cost of regular RIDE service. But nearly all of the savings so far have been eaten up by customers increasing the number of trips they are taking with Uber and Lyft. Pollack said she liked that tradeoff. “That is what we mean by cut to invest,” she said.

T officials are hoping to balance the agency’s operating budget for the next four years, holding spending growth over that period to just 1.8 percent. The hope is that by keeping the operating budget in check, more of the funds flowing to the T can be used for service and equipment improvements.

“No one is trying to build up a giant surplus. Nobody is trying to take money away from the T. The only tradeoff on the table is operating dollars saved go to capital,” she said. “The choices are difficult, but the one lesson I’ve learned as secretary is setting priorities.”

T officials have spent the last 18 months trimming costs and trying to reform the agency. They cut 211 corporate headquarters positions, privatized cash-handling and warehouse activities, and negotiated wage concessions from the Carmen’s Union in return for job protections. But to balance the fiscal 2018 budget will require some tough decisions. Here are the proposals they put on the table:

• Halt weekend commuter rail service starting July 1 for a savings of $10 million. T officials say they typically run 8,000 commuter rail trips on Saturdays and 3,000 on Sundays. The passengers represent one-fifth of 1 percent of commuter rail riders, T officials said. As a result, the T’s weekend subsidy for commuter rail is $34 per trip, compared to $5 per trip on weekdays. One advantage of shutting down weekend service over the next year is that some lines will have to be shut down on weekends anyway for the installation of equipment to avoid train collissions.
• End paratransit trips that aren’t legally required beyond the Americans with Disabilty Act service area, for a savings of $7 million. The T is required to offer service within a three-quarter-mile radius of the agency’s fixed-route services, but currently goes beyond that into communities such as Dover, Medfield, Middleton, and Topsfield. T officials estimate 210,000 trips per year extend outside the ADA-required service area.
• Privatize T bus maintenance at the Lynn, Fellsway, Quincy, and Arborway garages for a savings of $11.1 million and privatize or use the threat of privatization to wring $10.2 million in saving from the Everett and Cabot garages.
• Install 700 more TV monitors in stations to boost ad revenues $3 million and push Keolis to follow through on more aggressive fare collection efforts expected to yield $1 million to the T.
• Reposition 120 temporary, in-station customer service agents as bus operators and hire a private firm to provide the service. Ninety full-time customer service agents would not be affected.

The MBTA expects to close out its current fiscal year with a $50 million operating deficit, and will use a portion of the $187 million the state provides the transit agency each year to cover the shortfall. In the coming fiscal year, however, the T wants to direct the entire $187 million into backlogged capital projects.

In addition to the $187 million appropriation, the T also receives a penny of the state sales tax and all fare and other revenue that it generates on its own. In fiscal 2018, T officials are forecasting $1.95 billion in revenues to offset operating expenses of nearly $1.5 billion and debt service of $451 million.

The quasi-governmental business, which once employed more than 500 people refurbishing Humvees and other military vehicles, severely underbid a contract to refurbish Boston transit buses.

A mechanic inspects the underside of a refurbished Humvee at the Maine Military Authority in Limestone in 2005. Over the years, Maine Military Authority refurbished more than 16,000 vehicles, generated $600 million in revenue and, at its peak, employed roughly 550 workers. Associated Press File Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

By Kevin Miller Staff Writer Portland Press Herald.

The LePage administration has proposed funneling $7 million to the Maine Military Authority in Aroostook County to cover huge losses incurred when the state-owned business underbid on a contract.

Late last year, Gov. Paul LePage halted work at the Maine Military Authority on a $19 million contract to refurbish 32 aging transit buses for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston. The work to restore the two-section, articulated buses proved to be much more complicated – and costly – than anticipated, resulting in millions of dollars in losses and eventually layoffs as Maine Military Authority stopped accepting delivery of additional buses.

While officials from Maine Military Authority and state government are trying to renegotiate the contract, they are also seeking a $7 million bailout to rehire workers, complete the work and better position the business in the future. The LePage administration has proposed earmarking $7 million from the state’s year-end surplus to a special Maine Military Authority Reserve Fund.

“The bottom line is our bid was way too low and it created a huge challenge for us,” Hugh Corbett, the authority’s executive director, told members of the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Wednesday. “We do need some help to complete this project.”

Located on the former Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, the Maine Military Authority was created by the Legislature in 2000 as a quasi-governmental business to restore military vehicles such as Humvees. Over the years, Maine Military Authority refurbished more than 16,000 vehicles, generated $600 million in revenue and, at its peak, employed roughly 550 workers.

But as the U.S. drew down its large-scale combat presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, orders from the military to refurbish vehicles fell dramatically. So Maine Military Authority leaders have been exploring municipal and commercial contracts as a way to sustain employment and keep the lights on at the large facility.

The contract to refurbish the MBTA buses represented Maine Military Authority’s first major commercial venture. But the authority severely underbid the contract.

Brig Gen. Douglas Farnham, head of the Maine National Guard and commissioner of the Maine Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management, attributed the losses to a combination of factors. The buses were more complex to refurbish and were in worse condition than expected. Parts proved costly to obtain, there were delays starting the work because of bureaucracy and then there was a “misunderstanding on the scope of the work,” said Farnham.

“We were in a situation where we had to halt (work) because we were losing money like crazy but, at the same time, we signed a contract so we had to find a way forward,” Farnham told members of the Legislature’s Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee. “So the primary focus is to finish the contract. The secondary piece of that is to try to establish some structure that buys us a little bit of time to figure out what the right way forward is.”

Maine Military Authority owes an estimated $2.2 million to vendors and has a “cash deficit” of $3.4 million, according to figures provided Wednesday to the Appropriations Committee, which is reviewing the governor’s budget requests.

Farnham said taxpayers have never been asked to subsidize the Maine Military Authority before in its nearly 20-year history. In fact, the authority funneled money back into the state’s General Fund for several years.

But after the loss of the military contracts, employment levels at Maine Military Authority had dropped to just 65 workers prior to the recent layoffs. There are currently 28 employees, although the $7 million will allow the authority to rehire most of the workers who had been employed on the MBTA project, Farnham said.

Some lawmakers expressed concerns about the long-term future of the Military Authority and the state’s involvement in the business.

“I am concerned that the government is in a private-sector business,” said Rep. Jeffrey Timberlake, R-Turner, one of the Appropriations Committee’s more conservative members. “I understand why we did it to help Loring and to help Aroostook, and I believe in all of those things. … But my experience in dealing with it, for the 25 years of my life that I have been bidding with the government, is this is a path that will continue.”

The LePage administration had originally wanted $10 million in surplus funds for the Maine Military Authority but reduced that request to $7 million on Wednesday.

Back in September when he ordered work to halt on the MBTA buses, LePage expressed “major concerns” about the underbid contract and the costs to taxpayers. At the time, Farnham said they planned to attempt to renegotiate the contract with MBTA, adding that the state “cannot in good faith create a financial burden to taxpayers and we will work to protect these good jobs for Mainers.”

Neither Corbett nor Farnham discussed details of the contract renegotiations but a hand-out to lawmakers said the new contract will lead to increased labor hours, a larger budget for parts and lead to a program that “will be revenue neutral going forward.”

Farnham and Corbett said they expect details of the renegotiated contract to be announced soon.

“We will not go into further debt to complete this project,” Corbett said.

LePage spokesman Peter Steele, meanwhile, said the additional money “is designed to position MMA to complete MBTA work, continue other work in the pipeline and position MMA for the future.”

As Democrats and the labor movement prepare for a possible fight over Trump’s imminent appointment to the Supreme Court, they should recognize that several major labor cases, brought by some of labor’s most persistent enemies, are waiting in the wings. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court gave unions an unexpected victory last year when it issued a decision in a case that had threatened to take away the right of public sector unions to collect dues from workers they represent. That win may be short-lived.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was meant to be the capstone in decades of cases that sought to have the courts determine that fair-share fees for public sector workers are unconstitutional. Fair-share fees, or agency fees, require workers represented by a union to pay the portion of fees that covers collective bargaining. They seek to balance the worker’s right to dissent from the union by relinquishing membership and not paying for activities that aren’t related to collective bargaining, with the union’s right to avoid free riders and not be forced to represent a worker who contributes nothing.

The Supreme Court, largely through decisions written by Justice Samuel Alito, had indicated that its 1977 case that allowed for fair-share fees in the public sector was ripe for a rare overturning by the Court. It all but invited a challenge. Several cases were in the pipeline, but Friedrichs took the unusual approach of conceding before each lower court that it should be dismissed so that it could move quickly to the Supreme Court. Friedrichs faced a hostile oral argument before a conservative majority; unions braced for the worst. Then, as the Court was drafting its opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia died, and with him, so did Friedrichs. The Supreme Court issued a tied 4-4 decision affirming the lower court in March.

However, there is another case in the pipeline that was stayed pending the outcome of Friedrichs. That case, which began as Rauner v. AFSCME, was originally brought by the ultra-wealthy Republican Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who—shortly after taking office—issued an executive order placing all fair-share fees in an escrow account, rather than turning them over to unions. But Rauner screwed up a basic part of the case because he didn’t have standing to bring the case.

A federal judge wrote that Rauner “has no personal interest at stake. He is not subject to the fair share fees requirement. Instead, he essentially claims to have a duty to protect the First Amendment rights of all public employees in the state … In effect, he seeks to represent the non-member employees subject to the fair share provisions of the collective bargaining agreements. He has no standing to do so. They must do it on their own.”

To fix the problem, employees filed as intervenors (“undoubtedly with the Governor’s blessing,” as the judge noted), with the backing of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center.

Janus v. AFSCME, named after one of the workers, is pursuing the same strategy as Friedrichs in trying to get to the Supreme Court quickly. The Janus plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in July, stating that the Supreme Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case, which permitted fair-share fees, remains good law, and all but invited the District Court in the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss their complaint. The District Court did so, and in their appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs similarly state that their case must be dismissed. The goal, of course, is to get the case in front of the Supreme Court just as a Donald Trump appointee to the Court is seated.

Seattle University School of Law professor Charlotte Garden explains that this strategy also “allows the case to go up without a factual record. This means that there is no record that the unions can point the justices to in order to show the importance of agency fees.”

In Friedrichs, Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer tried to give the union’s attorney the opportunity to state what he would have put in the record if he had had the opportunity to do so. But, as Garden explains, “being asked to make a proffer before the Supreme Court is tricky without the ability to engage in discovery.”

The Janus case is almost identical to the Friedrichs case in that both are premised on the idea that there is no line in the public sector between political and non-political activity. Conservatives justices have firmly embraced this rational, as was evident during the Friedrichs oral argument when Chief Justice John Roberts challenged California’s attorney to give his “best example of something that is negotiated over in a collective bargaining agreement with a public employer that does not present a public policy question.” The attorney responded that mileage reimbursement rates were such an example. Roberts shot back, “That’s money. That’s how much money is going to have to be paid to the teachers. If you give more mileage expenses, that costs more money.”

If everything that a public sector union does is political, then it is a much shorter line to find that a worker should not have to pay any part of the costs of collective bargaining. This would be a very worrisome conclusion for unions, which must do what they can now to stop such an outcome from happening.

As Democrats and the labor movement prepare for a possible fight over Trump’s imminent appointment to the Supreme Court, they should recognize that several major labor cases, brought by some of labor’s most persistent enemies, are waiting in the wings. Senators should question nominees about their view of Abood and other Supreme Court precedents that protect public employees’ labor rights. And if labor has any sway within the Democratic Party, it should make it clear that these issues should be disqualifying for any new appointment to the Court.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders displays and quotes Donald J. Trump tweets during floor speech on repealing #ACA. Watch full speech from Bernie Sanders

By Michelle Williams | Michelle.Williams@MassLive.com

More than $1.8 million is due to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, according to an audit released by the office of the state Auditor Tuesday.

The audit found long overdue account balances have been left on the books, totaling $1,863,103 more than 90 days past due. Approximately half of the accounts are more than a decade past due, according to the Massachusetts state auditor’s office.

“The MBTA should take all appropriate steps to collect funds that are due to the agency, but should also realistically write-off balances that are not likely to be recouped. This ensures an accurate picture of the financial status of the entity,” Auditor Suzanne M. Bump said in a statement.

The transportation authority dealt with vacancies in management positions and multi-million dollar deficits in recent years.

More than 260 employees took buyouts earlier this year, the Boston Globe reports, as apart of a plan to eliminate 300 positions from the agency’s payroll.

“As leadership at the MBTA considers significant overhauls, they should first look at their oversight processes to ensure that they have adequate protections in place to protect taxpayer funds from theft, loss, or abuse,” Bump said. “Without these protections, systemic problems like those identified in our audit will likely continue, despite structural changes.”

Via Commonwealth Magazine

By Bruce Mohl.

THE MBTA’S OVERSIGHT BOARD on Monday gave the transit agency’s staff a green light to put out a request for proposals for companies to design, build, finance, operate, maintain, and manage a new automated fare collection system.

The T’s chief technology officer, David Block-Schacter, said the new system would be cashless and allow passengers to board and exit at any door on buses and Green Line trains. Quicker boarding should cut bus travel times by 10 percent, he said.

Customers will be able to pay fares using T-issued cards, credit cards, and smart phones. They will purchase T rides at fare vending machines, retail stores, or online. The T-issued cards will cost $5 apiece, although free cards will be distributed through social service agencies to the needy, according to Block-Schacter.

Existing Charley Cards cost 70 cents to produce, and are given away for free. Block-Schacter said the new smart cards will cost an estimated $2.50 to produce, which could put a significant financial burden on the T. He said nearly 18 million Charley Cards have been issued, which would cost close to $50 million to replace with smart cards.

Block-Schacter said 21 of the 25 largest transit agencies currently charge for their smart cards. Chicago charges $5, while the Philadelphia transit system collects $4.95. He also said riders who use their smart phones or credit cards to pay fares would not have to pay the $5 fee.

T officials said 3.8 percent of their existing customers pay fares with cash and 3.3 percent reload their Charlie Cards on board Green Line trains and buses.

Block-Schacter said he didn’t know what the new automated fare collection contract would cost. He also said the new fare collection system could be adapted to whatever type of fare system is desired, so existing monthly passes could be continued.

The request for proposals will seek a system that would install card readers at every door so passengers would not have to line up for time-consuming fare collection at the front of the train or bus. The system would also be designed so the departure points of passengers could be monitored, which theoretically would allow the T to collect fares based on distance traveled.

Block-Schacter said the existing fare collection boxes on board buses and Green Line trains would be removed once the new automated fare collection system is up and running. He referred to the boxes as “Mercedes” because the boxes cost approximately the same as a Mercedes-Benz vehicle.

Lou Antonellis, the president of IBEW Local 103, which represents workers in the T’s existing fare collection department, urged the transit agency to collaborate with the union during the transition to a new system. The likely contract language, however, would privatize the entire operation because it refers to the contractor handling the design, financing, operation, maintenance, and management of the new system.

Joseph Aiello, the chairman of the T’s Fiscal and Management Control Board, said “this is terrific” after Block-Schacter completed his presentation. Monica Tibbits-Nutt, a member of the board, also hailed the initiative. “Nobody likes paying cash on board,” she said.

Via Commonwealth Magazine.

By Jack Sullivan.

GOV. CHARLIE BAKER said waiving the fines against Keolis for “acts of God” during the brutal winter of 2015 was the right thing to do but insisted the commuter rail operator has been held to answer for shoddy performance over the past year and half and will continue to be fined if the late trains continue.

The Boston Globe reported over the weekend that MBTA officials quietly forgave almost half the $1.7 million in fines levied against Keolis in February and March of last year. But Baker said after review, the fines that were waived were a result of circumstances beyond the rail company’s control, which is allowed by the contract language. He added Keolis paid more than $6 million in fines for failing to meet on-time goals and they won’t be getting any of that back.

“It’s pretty hard to argue the winter of 2015 wasn’t an act of God,” Baker said of the record-breaking snowfall. “I have no intention, nor does the MBTA, of waiving any of those fines associated with on-time performance. They paid those fines and they should have… The fines associated with some of the more technical stuff that were tied more directly with the issues around the weather, I think the T made the right decision.”

The Globe had reported that the T absolved Keolis of the fines in November of last year but Baker said the decision was actually made and relayed to company officials seven months earlier, in May of last year, “before we had a Fiscal and Management Control Board.” Baker said the letter in the fall that the Globe was referring to merely made note of the decision to earlier forgive the $839,000 fine. But, he added, with the fiscal control board in place, the process of measuring performance and assessing penalties has been and will be much more consistent and evenly carried out.