Why It’s Good That Our Mayor Is Not Seeking Re-Election

Yesterday, he authored a piece in our Weekly News, which can be found at this link on Halifax News Net, on Why Binding Arbitration Isn’t The Best Solution to (the) Transit Dispute in which he said that he is not comfortable playing blackjack with taxpayer dollars and the future of Metro Transit. I believe the expression is, What A Load of Bull!

Supposedly, the reason he does not want arbitration is the fact that 5 Million in overtime payments were made last year to Metro Transit drivers, and there’s no guarantee arbitration will fix that. Granted this is a lot of money given the current annual budget of Metro Transit and it points to a serious problem somewhere, but so is $74,689,846 — a number almost 15 times the number supposedly being bickered over. And what is this number you ask? It is the amount of money being put at risk each and every week Metro Transit is on Strike.

As per this Wikipedia article on the Economy of Canada, the PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) of Canada is $40,457 per individual. PPP is the average contribution to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of Canada by each Canadian Citizen. On a weekly basis, this is $778. There are 96,000 HRM residents affected by the strike. As a result, the $778 each of these residents would contribute to Canada’s economy through work, higher education, or some other function is being impacted because they can’t get to work, to school, or to other important tasks. Even if the impact is only 5%, that’s 3.7 M in GDP being affected each week the strike goes on. And, more importantly, it’s your livelihood! Forget the tax dollars — if you can’t earn a pay check, you don’t pay taxes! The Mayor’s rationale is ludicrous!

And what’s the real issue anyway? Excess overtime, or the fact that the union gets to cherry pick shifts instead of rostering? Either way, it’s likely a problem with Metro Transit management and/or the scheduling system they use and/or the number of drivers. While it is more data entry work to let workers pick shifts instead of blocks, as was noted in a prior post, it’s not expensive and if there are enough drivers, the shifts will get filled. If there are not enough drivers to cover the schedule, there will be overtime regardless. If there are, there is an inefficiency or a scheduling issue that, once corrected, would not result in significant overtime.

I believe that MetroTransit should always seek better solutions, but let’s not forget why they’re there — to move people around. When busses aren’t on the road, they are not doing their jobs. And if the Union — which is typically opposed to arbitration as the reality is that an arbiter will typically find some middle ground she thinks is fair that doesn’t really please either side — is willing to go to arbitration, then Metro Transit and the HRM should do the right thing.

If this transit strike goes on too long, the 5M Metro Transit hopes to save (and will only save with good management, which is another issue) will be dwarfed by the impact to the local economy — and that is the big picture a Mayor is supposed to have in mind. All I can say is that it’s too bad the Mayor hasn’t stepped down already!

Who is Responsible for the Metro Transit Strike?

Researching the issue, it would appear that this strike could have been avoided, or at least predicted well in advance, and that someone should be held accountable.

Let’s review the facts, as they have been materializing one piece at a time across various news sources including, but not limited to, MetroNews, The Coast, The Chronicle Herald, Halifax News Net, and CBC News. Given that:

1) Negotiations for the last contract started in Fall 2006 (see the Metro Transit News Archive) and a deal was not reached until the midnight hour on September 30, 2007.

and

2) The current contract ended in August, 2011.

It is ridiculous that

3) Negotiations did not start until September.

4) A Conciliator was appointed in October — only one month after talks began. Serious negotiations don’t enter into arbitration or conciliation that fast.

5) The impasse was officially declared January 18, a mere 3 months after the conciliator was appointed.

Metro Transit knew the contract expiry date 4 years in advance. Metro Transit knew that these negotiations are always time consuming, heated, and difficult. Metro Transit knew that a strike was narrowly averted last time and should still remember that the last strike lasted over 5 weeks. Given this information, Metro Transit should have started the process 1 year in advance. A first offer should have been made last September and negotiations started within two months, once ATU Local 508 had a chance to review the offer and make their initial counter offer. While there is no guarantee that an agreement would have been reached before the current contract ended, it would have been the responsible thing to do.

And, in addition, announcements should have been made when the process started and complete details on the sticking points, if not the entire offer, should have been publicized. In this regard, the Union may be at fault as much as Metro Transit as there were, according to some sources, as many as 70 points of contention (while Metro Transit claims at most 27), but there is no list of these issues anywhere — not even on the members only ATU Local 508 site which, I am told, only lists 15 of these points. This service is being paid for by public money — there should be transparency. If the Union has 70 sticking points, they should announce what they are and why they are important — and if Metro Transit has 27 points, they should do the same. Instead, we’re told that it’s all about the money and that the Union demands will cost 8.8 Million, primarily due to the fact the Union is picking their shifts and not agreeing to wage restructuring.

While the overtime issue is real, and costly, this is not avoidable. If the service is growing faster than planned, overtime will be required while new drivers are found, trained, and certified. As long as the issue is managed and budgeted appropriately, it will be less than 2% to 3% of total budget. And there’s no reason a cafeteria-pick scheduling system should take 24 days. The bus schedules are typically decided months in advance. There’s no reason that workers can’t pick their shifts months in advance, and be given a deadline to do so. It might be more data entry, but let’s get real here. A data entry clerk might make $10/hr and this might add $2,000 to the process. Real dollars, but not significant dollars if we are talking a 70 Million organization. And why can’t there be a compromise? Why not a middle ground where shifts are grouped into weekly blocks and a driver gets to pick his or her block? Drivers still get flexibility and the workload for the data entry clerk decreases by a factor of 5.

But I am digressing from the issue. The issue is who is at fault? While there is likely plenty of fault to go around, due to the lack of transparency from the Union, Metro Transit, and the Council — who should be on top of this issue as almost 100,000 Haligonians are impacted by this strike, I think the fault should like with the head of Metro Transit, Director Eddie Robar. Plain and simple, he knew how long the last set of negotiations took, he knew some of the proposals would be very contentious based on past negotiations, and he knew it was his responsibility to keep the service running when he took the job. Plus, he knew this was coming when he was acting as interim director and, if negotiations had to be delayed, should have been prepared for the situation. I’m not saying he should be fired, as it’s not my place to do so, but I am saying that I think he should resign.

As a comparative point, there were a number of service disruptions with the SMRT service in Singapore late last year, including one on December 15, 2011 which was dubbed “the worst in 24 years” and one on December 17, 2011. The public did not take this lying down, and called for the resignation of the SMRT CEO (source: Yahoo News). And they did not give up until the CEO resigned on January 6, 2012 (source: TR Emeritus). I can’t understand why we aren’t doing the same. We live in an era of accountability, and as far as I am concerned, the head of Metro Transit, Director Eddie Robar, did not take his responsibility seriously and did not act in an accountable manner knowing the ATU Local 508 contract was ending and that a request for significant changes during contract renewal could easily lead to another strike, given how precarious the last negotiations were.

In short, the fault should lie with the one person responsible for keeping the service running, Director Eddie Robar, and he should resign, like Ms Saw Phaik Hwa (former CEO of SMRT) for failing to do so.

Impact of new ATU 508 contract on Community Transit

I find the lack of details on the offer(s) and counter-offer(s) with
respect to the metro transit strike disturbing.  This is affecting the
lives of 100,000 taxpayers who have a right to know.

Furthermore, as a community resident, I would like to know what impact
the proposed offer to the union will have on the community bus system
and the community bus drivers.  Specifically:

With respect to the drivers,

1) What impact will the offer have on them?  I have heard that they will
no longer be separate from the regular drivers but that they will not be
able to exercise their rights.  What does this mean?  Will they lose
seniority?  Benefits?

2) I understand that, as of now, their pay scale is 1.29/hour less than
that of their peers.  Will this be rectified?  Given a standard 2000
hour year, will they be paid, on average, $2348 less for doing the same job?

With respect to the communities,

3) Will they get better service?  Under the old rules (36.01), which
appear to have been partially abolished by council votes in 2008 which
changed the definition of urban core, will bus drivers now be able to
pick up passengers in the old "urban core" and drop off community
passengers at any valid metro bus stop?  This would increase ridership
and be better for the system over all.

4) Will the schedules change?  Will we get better service?  While we may
not have the population density to support busses 16 hours a day like
the downtown core, I find it ridiculous that some communities, like
Sambo, don't have a Saturday bus and that the former Director of
Scheduling feels that 10 minutes, assuming the busses are on time, is
enough time for nurses to prepare for their shifts.  In some communities
the lack of ridership is a direct result of insufficient service.

In addition, I am having a hard time finding the facts of the situation,
which should be public record.

In this regard, I would like to know:

5) How many people are in the metro transit organization as a whole, how
many are union, and how many are non-union.  I've seen different
articles quote between 750 and 800 union members.  That's quite a
spread.  I'd like the facts.

6) For the union, how do these numbers break down with respect to
occupation --drivers, maintenance people, etc., and classification
status -- full time or part time.

7) What is the supervisor to bus driver ratio, and do supervisors drive?

Thank you.

Annual Hours – But which one ?

As I mention in my earlier posts already when one creates a report for the  public ( that might not be not very familiar with technical terms) , the set of assumptions has to defined clearly to avoid confusion or misleading the reader.

The main objective of Oct 28, 2010 was for  MT to produce report  that would  provide pricing for solution suggested by the community on Oct 1, 2010 meeting, hence any member of the community ( and  Council as well)  should be able to look at the report and decide which options is the most beneficial and cost-effective.

Putting label  “Total Annual Hours” is misleading and  the only purpose that is serves is to hide the cost of deadheading.  Currently Sambro Community Bus is deadheading to Burnside, not a Ragged Lake.

Total Annual Hours of deadheading to Burnside is approx 340 hrs. 340 hrs is equivalent to  $21,400 of waste taxpayers money. There is no information in Report of deadheading cost to Ragged Lake.  Our community should be informed  what  Total Annual Revenue Passenger Service Hours are for every proposed solution (A. Current Pilot, B. Full Loop and C. Full Loop to Mumford)

For clarification  here is a list of definition that  CUTA  uses for the collection and publication of statistical data for conventional transit systems.

Revenue Passenger Service Hours: Annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.) in regular passenger revenue
service, including scheduled and non-scheduled service; does not include layover, auxiliary passenger services (e.g. school contracts, charters,
cross-boundary services to adjacent municipalities), deadheading, training, road tests, or maintenance.

Layover Hours: Annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.) for time allocated between trips at terminals,
including breaks, in regular passenger revenue service.

Deadhead Hours: Annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.) of non-revenue service required to operate
regular passenger revenue service; does not include hours operated to and from garage.

Garage In and Out Hours: Annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.) of hours to and from the garage for
regular passenger revenue service.

Auxiliary Passenger Service Hours: Annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.) for auxiliary services (crossboundary
service, school contracts excluding yellow school bus service, charter, etc.); does not include non-revenue hours required to operate
auxiliary services.

Other Non-Revenue Hours: Annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.) for training, road tests, maintenance,
non-revenue hours for auxiliary service, etc.

Total Vehicle Hours: Total annual vehicle hours operated by active revenue vehicles (buses, trains, etc.), including regular passenger service,
auxiliary passenger services, and other non-revenue hours.

 

Comparing Apples and Oranges and on what purpose ?

Annual Service Hours

1. Have a look at 2010-2011 Service Plan http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/ssi/documents/2010-11AnnualServicePlan.pdf ->3,630 annual service hours.

2. Have a Look at Oct 28, 2011 http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/110111cow3comm.pdf for Sambro  Option 2 ( current Pilot)  -> 3,675 Annual Hours

Hours Reduction

1.Service Plan: Reduce to  peak hours only”.  Savings of 2,060 annual service hours.  Hence 1570 hrs in service  3,630 – 2060 -> 1570 hrs  service hours

2. According to Oct 28, 2010 report   -> 1680 hrs left in service

Costing

2. October 28, 2010 report

How do you compare that ? How can average bus user  ( average taxpayer ) without accounting background and /or time can make sense of those numbers ?

In March 2010, we were told we do not meet “Service Standards” and Public agreed without questioning to reduce service to “peak hours only” It took me weeks of explaining to people that our community would over pay for that service and somehow I managed to convince our Councilor enough so he made an objection on Sept 14, 2010 meeting.

Let me repeat if Option 1 selected our community overpay $183,300 – $119,900 = $63,400 in Local Area Tax This is amount does not include amount of fare box collection !

Lets look on current solution and how much really in red MT is $183,300 – $262,200 = -$78,900

Fare boxes revenue 86 passengers per day * 260 * $1.15( half of fare ) = $25, 714

Fare boxes revenue 86 passengers per day * 260 * $2.25 = $50, 310

So MT is substituting our route by $40, 000 HOWEVER if you want to make savings remove “dead-heading” to Burnside from the Operating cost and you will notice that Sambro Community route is self-sufficient.

Looking forward to correction of my calculation

How many KM/H per trip – it depends ?

Have  a look again at MT report http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/110111cow3comm.pdf

Option 1 is proposed solution to reduce service hours of existing service Option 2

KM/H  = Annual KM/ Annual Hrs

Option 1 KM / H =  27 km

Option 2 KM / H = 34 km

I  understand that traffic plays a role in trip time, but why does it play such a significant role in our community which is not a main thoroughfare or bottleneck.

And more importantly, are the trips the same length?  Is one route longer than the other?  The report doesn’t say, or provide route lengths, which are extremely difficult to calculate with the information presented.

Also, statistics and models are good tools, but what does it mean to say that the route requires 0.8 bus ?  Either we have a bus or we don’t.  A bus is not something you can divide into tenths.  If the bus runs, there is 1 bus.  If two buses run, there are 2 buses.  The Public needs numbers that they can relate to.   A Bus is a Bus.

Eddie Robar will no longer be entertaining any correspondence with me.

Trust me if those people would do their job correctly I would never be involved with people such as Eddie Robar. However it  seems that Metro Transit   forgot that their jobs are paid by taxpayers money and they have an obligation to do it right.

At this point I agree with well minded people from Fusion Halifax that the only way to abolish Metro Transit monopoly is to create independent body of Regional Transit Authority.

When I get involved  in saving bus for our community  I believed that the only way to accomplish this is  by uniting people from all our communities. Yes, I believe in power of people.  Chronicle herald echoed my sentiment by repeated my quote:  “Where is the will there is a power”

I hope that one day Eddie and MT will realize that.

——————————————————————–

From: “Eddie Robar”

Councillor Adams,

Metro Transit will no longer be entertaining any correspondence from Yadviga.

Thank you.

*********************************
Eddie Robar
Manager, Service Development
Transportation & Public Works
Metro Transit
*********************************
—–Original Message—–
From: “Yadviga Gawetski”
To: Steve Adams
Cc: Amy Power
Cc: Dave Reage
To: Eddie Robar
To:
To:

Sent: 1/12/2011 12:13:13 PM
Subject: Incorrect numbers for Sambro on Oct 28, 2010 Transit Report

Steve,

The numbers provided by MT are confusing, misleading and, in many cases,
entirely wrong. Today, at the Council Meeting, I started by pointing out
nicely to Mr Robar that the numbers on the report are not correct only
to receive a quick, curt, response that “No, they are not”.

I am sorry but, after his comment to me at the Oct 1, 2010 meeting
stating that “I know what I am doing, because I am doing this for a long
time for living”, he gave me no choice but to call him stupid and incompetent. His
arrogant attitude has to stop. I will no longer tolerate it. Instead, I
will focus my efforts to to curb the “inept management” ( as per the
words of the Coast ).

As you are aware, I have made most of my living as an independent
consultant and I can assure you that any reports that I presented to my
clients were always well written in a concise manner with a clearly set
defined set of assumptions as to avoid ambiguity or confusion.
I believe that report provided by MT is written in such a confusing way
on purpose in an attempt to confuse council in misguided hopes that
Council will believe that MT knows what they are talking about just
because they produced a report with a lot of numbers.

There is so much ambiguity in the report that first we need to focus on
how Number of Operators and Number of Vehicles could possibly be
calculated to be 2.3.

A. Hours of Work
- Based on the Collective Agreement, Section 28.01, “All regular
shift Operators will be paid a minimum of forty (40) hours per five (5)
day week”.
- Community Bus Drivers are guaranteed a minimum of 7 hrs and 23
min (PLEASE confirm or provide correct number )

B. Currently Sambro Bus operates on 2 FTE and 1 bus
1. Morning shift is from 4:45 AM to 11:45 AM = 7 hrs
2. Bus in Service is from 5:30 AM till 11:20 AM ( 5 hrs 50 min )
3. Afternoon Shift is (PLEASE PROVIDE exact time) 1:45 PM to 9:15
PM = 7 hrs 30 min
4. Bus in Service is from 2:20PM till 8:50 PM ( 6 hrs 30 min )

Can you please tell me how Amy Power and Andre MacNeil derived these
numbers and how Erin Flaim approved this report? The math does not add
up. I am assuming that Ken Reashor was trusting his stuff and did not
bother to double check if these numbers are correct or not.

Community Transit Report – One more example of sloppy work by MT

First lets focus on first two Options:

Option 1 – Approved Annual Service Plan Efficiencies Service reductions as per the Council approved 2010-11 Annual Service Plan Weekday peak hours service only 80 minute frequency from 6:46am to 8:05am and 5:00pm to 6:30pm 3.5 round trips per weekday
Option 2 – Existing Pilot Service 80 minute frequency from 5:30am to 10:45am and 2:20pm to 8:15pm 9.5 round trips per weekday

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that those numbers do
not match!

 

Sambro Bus Schedule Stays the Same for the Time Being

But how long that is, we still don’t know. As per a recent article over on haligonia.ca, Councillor Adams has confirmed that the bus schedule for the Sambro Community will stay the same until the Regional Council receives and reviews a report from Metro Transit examining the concerns of the committee.

According to Councillor Adams, who sent a letter to Metro Transit, he will advise the community of the council date when the decision will take place.

Why Is There No Central Location for News on Our Bus?

As some of you may know, this week’s Committee of the Whole meeting was deferred a week until this coming Tuesday, December 7th. But unless you checked the right page on the HRM site, you wouldn’t know that.

However, at least there is one location you can go to find out when HRM Council and CotW (Committee of the Whole) meetings are. Because when it comes to the status of our bus, there’s nowhere you can go. There is no information on the HRM site. There is no information on the Metro Transit site. And there is no information on our Councillor‘s page. I heard there was some information posted at the local corner store, but I couldn’t find it.

I think there should be a central location on-line and off-line in our community (that everyone knows about) where our Councillor and/or Metro Transit posts information on what is happening with our bus. I think we need a central source of information. What do you think?