Town Square

Post a New Topic

Unions sue BART board over contract clause

Original post made on Dec 3, 2013

BART's two biggest unions have filed a lawsuit claiming that the transit agency's directors acted unlawfully when they rejected a family medical leave provision that was part of a tentative agreement. The two sides approved a contract agreement in October. Management then said it didn't realize the family leave clause had been included in the deal.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, December 3, 2013, 1:28 PM

Comments (22)

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:09 pm

Hopefully, the UNION/BART dispute will be resolved prior to a trial.

How unfortunate that BART administration was willing to pay $400,000.00 to a high powered attorney who seems to be lying about having not seen the controversial clause? What kind of silly goose did management hire? He made out like flint! tee hee hee...

It seems waaaaaaaaaaaay careless for admin. to have trusted a $400,000.00 attorney who took off for France in the early phase of negotiations? Cool or what?

yup...blame everybody else but yourselves BART management. Next time, hire a parakeet to do your negotiations. Or, one of my doxies...they would have accepted liver treats for their hard work...hahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm so tickled I can hardly sit still...tee hee...ta-ta


Posted by Da Vegematic, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Cholo, why are you criticizing a well-educated lawyer whose education and skill level sets his $400,000.00 fee for a job well done? Shouldn't you be criticizing workers who dare to ask for a raise after going without for 5 years? C'mon, where are your priorities?


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Let us pray that any negotiations to solve the BART problem will not interrupt holiday shopping!

i rest my case...peace out!


Posted by Procurement guy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2013 at 6:23 pm

A contract isn't in force until it has been signed by both parties. If one party signs, and the other does not, there's no contract, and therefore no agreement. That's why both sides typically have contract lawyers review documents before signature. In this case, the lawyer on the BART management side caught something before that side signed, and interrupted the process.

The contract was signed first by the unions, but that in itself does not require the originator (BART management) to sign.

BART management may be accused of negotiating in bad faith, but that by itself also does not require them to sign.


Posted by unions and bribes , a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2013 at 7:28 pm

"How unfortunate that BART administration was willing to pay $400,000.00 to a high powered attorney who seems to be lying about having not seen the controversial clause?"

Maybe the BART Unions sent him a stuffed envelope to do so?


Posted by Da Vegematic, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2013 at 7:40 pm

Yes, makes perfect sense! The lawyer, who receives 400 Grand for doing contracted work with Bart management, would jeopardize his career by illegally taking an ungodly sum that the unions have siphoned off of the workers' dues. Brilliant! How much do you think it was? A cool million? Two?

But, you know, now that your probing insights have stimulated our creative juices, maybe the union strong-armed the lawyer -- you know, left a threatening calling card in the back of his teenager's pick-up truck, attached to a piece of poop. Because that's how these public union trogladites operate. I grew up with this in Chicago, and believe me when I tell you I've seen it all, seen it all from the yellow windows of a passing train.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 3, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Yellow BART train windows?


Posted by Daveg, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 3, 2013 at 8:38 pm

Daveg is a registered user.

Sounds like Mike Cherry has morphed into Da Vegematic!


Posted by ZiggyDude1, a resident of Downtown
on Dec 3, 2013 at 8:52 pm

The 400K that the BART lawyer got isn't public money ?.....who authorized it ?
The Unions didn't. Now let's do the MATHS......BART BOD says that are $ 67 million apart.....each day of "strike cost" that the BOD caused had a daily loss effect of $ 70 million times 8(days) equals $ 560 million for the greater Bay Area economy........

SHAME ON BART BOD.....bunch of crazy politicians......


Posted by Da Vegematic, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2013 at 10:12 pm

Web Link

No, not BART. Because for me to ride Bart would be to subsidize socialism. Yellow windows? Southern Pacific.


Posted by Fire Them All, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 4, 2013 at 11:28 am

Why is it that the unions feel it is OK for the union members to reject a contract their negotiating team approved, but it is not OK for the BART Board of Directors to reject a contract their negotiating team approved??????? Would the BART Board of Directors please just fire all the employees and hire some new ones? My 8 year old kid can sit in a seat, look down the track, and hit the big red button if something big is on the track. My 13 old kid can sit in an enclosed booth and be surly and rude, although she might have to really work on her "being worthless" skills.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 4, 2013 at 3:57 pm

May there be a strike...HEAR MY PRAYER!

Signed,

anony


Posted by Citizen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 am

"tentative agreement"


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 5, 2013 at 11:49 am

The contract was signed. Tentative...it's a legal matter at this point.

Unless you have insider information, it's best to BE PATIENT!

i rest my case...tee hee


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 5, 2013 at 3:03 pm

I still have difficulty with American idiom. What do you mean by "Yellow Windows"?


Posted by Da Martinishaker, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 5, 2013 at 3:26 pm

Cholo, Da Vegematic posted a link. Tom Waits is one of my faves. Yellow Windows comes in toward the end of the link. (No, I don't know what its relevance is ... to anything.)

Web Link


Posted by local, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm

tentative contract until ratified by the BART board which is the legal entity allowed to sign contracts of this magnitude. This is a common practice for all labor agreements in California (maybe required). The negotiators for the city, which can include the city manager and legal representatives work with the union. They get direction from the city council and then negotiate contracts within the frameworks the council allows. If the negotiating team along with the union leadership agree on a tentative agreement, the union takes the tentative agreement to the union members to vote on. If the union members vote it down, back to the bargaining table. Once they agree to it, it has to go to city council for final approval and has to be done in a open hearing, per the Brown Act. If a city approves a contract like this without it being done at a public hearing, they would be violating the Brown Act which would mean the action needs to be remedied. That typically means the contract is void and they have to hold a new hearing. I am sure the BART system works the same way being they are a public agency in California.

What I think might be at stake is the BART board approving everything except for a single item. If that is an issue there are two possibilities. One, the union can accept the contract with the striked out section. Two, the whole contract would be void and back to the bargaining table and all items that have been discussed are open again.

I think the union would be best served in accepting the modified contract. There is so much anger from the public on the rest of the contract provisions and if this contract is completely opened, they could loose some of the salary, pension, and medical items they won. Personally, this is what I would prefer since I feel the contract is too lucrative. The other issue of a suit is this can take a real long time to resolve and it keeps the union members in uncertainty.

I would also think the democrats that are up for re-election in the state would want the union to accept this contract as the longer this issue is kept open, the closer it is to election time and the public will remember what the politicians are giving away and vote these people out.


Posted by De Martinishaker, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 5, 2013 at 6:24 pm

local,
You're a pretty funny guy. I think the unions would be best off re-negotiating so as to get a fairer contract; and I don't think it will affect upcoming elections one bit. Like you, I don't have evidence to support my view.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 5, 2013 at 7:53 pm

What does public CRAZINESS have to do with a Union/BART contract? I was under the impression that BART mgt. had signed on the dotted line. Case closed.

BART is falling apart from old age and poor management. The Union is not responsible for stupid management decisions.

I think that ms. crunican and all of the present BART mgt. should step down/resign their positions in good faith. Then, it might be a good idea to start negotiations from scratch with new negotiators.

It makes no sense to negotiate anything with the present BART management. They are too dishonest and have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

Hopefully, the court will decide that mgt. muffed it and the Union will be victorious. HOORAY! VIVA WORKERS! VIVA!


Posted by local, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 5, 2013 at 8:45 pm

Agreed that the system is falling apart BECAUSE management keeps giving away all the funds to the unions so there are insufficient funds to fix the system up.

In case you did not know, BART is a public agency and thus has to abide by the rules of public agencies. Contract has to be signed by the board in a public hearing in order to be valid.


Posted by Da Vegematic, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2013 at 9:04 pm

Agreed that the system is falling apart because pols don't have the stomach for taxing the rich in order to ensure a functional infrastructure as well as a fair wage for public workers.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 6, 2013 at 1:42 pm

I wish all BART employees the best holiday season ever! HOORAY!

As for Union members, VIVA! HAPPY NEW YEAR!

LETS ALL CROSS OUR FINGERS AND HOPE ONLY THE BEST FOR UNION EMPLOYEES!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

David Brooks at his Best and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 949 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 34 comments | 866 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 596 views