Score: 0
(0/7/0)
Contra Costa County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
Contact: Sherry Rufini Foreperson
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
BART is an essential part of the San Francisco Bay Area transportation system.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
A strike by BART employees or a lockout causes a significant disruption to the riders, citizens, and counties of Alameda, Contra Costa , San Francisco , San Mateo, and Santa Clara .
No recommendations for this finding
F3
An interruption of BART service directly disrupts riders and impacts BART income, and indirectly affects the environment, the roads, employment, businesses surrounding BART station sites, and other means of transportation.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has not adopted a plan to minimize the effects of a BART strike on residents of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors should adopt a plan to mitigate the effects of any future BART strikes on county residents.
F5
A multi-jurisdictional transit service plan developed and initiated by the MTC Commission during the last BART strike was insufficient to mitigate the impact of the strike.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
In previous years BART management and its labor unions have had an adversarial and distrustful relationship.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
BART Board of Directors should adopt a negotiation method that is built on trust, communication and transparency.
F7
The modified baseball type negotiation model presents a better likelihood of success, unlike the current method, which was not able to avert the last strike
No recommendations for this finding
F8
During the last strike BART management was working to address the problems confronting management, and labor unions were working to address the problems confronting labor.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
BART’s labor unions have not agreed to refrain from a strike when there is no contract in place.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2
BART Board of Directors should immediately re-open negotiations with their labor unions to agree on the process for future negotiations.
R3
BART Board of Directors should review and negotiate the use of an independent arbitrator during labor negotiations, who can decide any major financial and work rule issues pursuant to the baseball style arbitration process.
R6
The arbitrator would have only two choices in making his or her decision. The arbitrator’s decision must accept either the management offer or the labor offer. The purpose of this rule is to encourage both sides to make responsible offers, rather than to make extremely one-sided offers. Such extreme offers should be easily rejected by the arbitrator. There could be one last chance, however, after the arbitrator has chosen one or the other offers, to allow the parties to argue for some modifications to the offer chosen in the event it clearly posed some unworkable or impractical difficulties. The arbitrator would be the one to make any final decision on that point.
R7
The final decision of the arbitrator would be binding on both sides and any remaining issues still open would be subject to further collective bargaining. There would be no right to strike on the remaining issues, nor further arbitration unless separately agreed by both sides. This alternative to a BART strike would be in the public interest. Regardless of which type of negotiation is used, the current negotiation process has not worked to the benefit of the BART riders, BART management, or their labor unions. While employee/management rights to negotiate are not in question, the public service obligations to the people of the San Francisco Bay Area are likewise not in question. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLAIMER One or more Grand Jurors recused themselves due to a possible conflict and did not participate in the preparation or approval of this report.
F10
A report from Agreement Dynamics Inc. was commissioned by BART which resulted in 63 recommendations on what problems existed during the last negotiation process and how to address the many problems between management and labor unions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
BART Board of Directors should monitor the implementation of the recommendations made in Agreement Dynamics Inc.’s report that it has chosen to adopt.
F11
Some believe there is not enough time for BART and its labor unions to correct enough of their problems in order to conduct productive negotiations in 2017.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
There is currently nothing in place which ensures that if a contract expires that BART service will continue.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The overall impact of a strike is too damaging to the San Francisco Bay Area to allow a strike to occur.
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Transit Authority