April 25, 2016

Dear Reader:
Since my last e-newsletter, a few noteworthy things have occurred at BART in a short period of time.  Two of them – the split vote adoption of a “one ticket, one seat” ordinance and BART and its unions reaching a tentative agreement to extend the 2013 labor contracts – and my views on them are summarized below.

On April 1, I put out an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle detailing how addressing BART’s infrastructure challenges and costly employee benefits and deficient work rules are two unique problems with two unique solutions.  It's important to highlight that these costly benefits are not unique to rank-and-file union workers; they are also afforded to executive staff.

Since that time and following pressures from political leaders who threatened to finance opposition to BART’s bond measure, BART management and its unions have reached a tentative agreement to extend the 2013 labor contract, pending approval of the union membership and the BART Board of Directors.  The extension effectively continues all components of the 2013 agreements for four additional years to 2021.  Of the few exceptions, the main ones include wage increases each year – 2.5% the first two years and 2.75% the last two years – and a written agreement that any negotiation about employees paying into their retirement be “cost neutral.”  “Cost neutral” basically means that any cost burden or savings on either side (e.g., employees beginning to pay into their retirement costs - a cost to workers, but a savings to BART) must be balanced out some other way (e.g., with a wage increase - a cost to BART, but an earning to workers).  This weekend, I put out an opinion piece in the East Bay Times that describes this in some additional detail and why I plan to vote against the contract extension.

You may have heard that at the April 14 meeting of the BART Board of Directors, the Board approved a “one ticket, one seat” ordinance by a split 5-4 vote.  I supported the ordinance.

The ordinance was introduced by my colleague, Joel Keller, in response to an increased number of customer complaints about not being able to secure seats on crowded trains because of select other customers taking up multiple seats and refusing to give them up upon request.  Without an ordinance that prohibits taking up multiple seats, BART Police cannot respond with enforcement to customer complaints relating to such seat hog behaviors.  An ordinance allows BART Police to cite violators of this rule should a customer request police response to a seat hog situation.

While the ordinance took effect immediately, enforcement did not.  In order to ensure that enforcement is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and addresses a number of concerns, I ensured that the adoption of the ordinance be conditional on BART’s Police Chief vetting an enforcement policy with the Board of Directors prior to beginning enforcement.

Opposition and Response
A few key oppositions were voiced about this ordinance, including the following:

• The ordinance is unnecessary.  People can and should work these issues out themselves.
• The ordinance is a wasted effort because there aren’t the resources for BART Police to walk around trying to enforce this rule.
• The ordinance will result in an increased volume of train delays due to "police activity."
• The ordinance criminalizes homelessness and being a minority because some customers will be inclined to use this ordinance as a crutch to get specific populations off of trains.

However, BART’s police force is constantly chasing calls for service, so operates on a complaint-response basis.  Hence, this ordinance merely affords officers a way to enforce this matter should there be a customer who calls to request such enforcement.

It is true that whenever an officer responds to a call for service on a train, that train is stopped while the complaint is investigated and addressed.  This occurs even for small things like a report of someone eating or drinking on a train.  But like with someone eating/drinking, which occurs often, but is reported rarely; anyone not already acquainted with the train delay impacts of reporting something to police will quickly get acquainted with them and be inclined to use their reporting of seat hogs conservatively.  Never mind that infractions are statistically underreported to begin with.  So, while there may be an uptick of reporting and associated delays from this ordinance early on, it is doubtful that it would be sustained.

In addition, the ordinance is intended to address seat hogs on crowded trains only, so is limited to commute hours.  Most homeless populations who take up multiple seats -- often by lying down across multiple seats -- do so during non-commute, uncrowded periods.  Commute period hogs tend to be commuters or travelers who place their bags or feet on the seats next to/across from them.

Finally, and as mentioned previously, an enforcement policy is required to be developed with input and approval from the Board of Directors prior to enforcement taking place to ensure that these concerns are well-considered in how police enforce this ordinance.  A few likely things that will be defined through this process is the amount of effort required in customers’ attempting to work the problem out before police enforcement (e.g., must someone first request a seat before making a complaint about a seat hog?) and reassurance that this ordinance only be applicable on crowded trains during commute periods.

Photo Credit:  SFGate

Sincerely,


Zakhary Mallett, MCP
Director, District 7
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
300 Lakeside Drive, 23rd Floor
Oakland, California 94612
510-815-9320