Labor–Management Partnerships for Public Transportation, Volume 2: Final Report (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D-1 A P P E N D I X D Chapter 3.1 presents some key findings from the survey of management and union representatives from 47 transit sys- tems across the country. The areas presented in Chapter 3.1 include: • Labor–management relationship (LMR) rating • Issues addressed by labor–management committees • Good practices for LMPs • Barriers to LMPs • Comments on the term “labor–management partnership” • Benefits of LMPs In addition to what has been presented in Chapter 3.1, the analysis the research team performed resulted in findings in the following areas that may be of interest to the reader: • Labor relations trend • Conflicts and resolution • Workplace justice • Transit system size • Leadership longevity • Labor–management partnership issues Labor Relations Trend In the telephone survey, the question immediately after the LMR rating question is: “Is the relationship between the management and the union currently improving, staying the same, or getting worse?” Table D-1 summarizes, in order of the LMR rating, the responses from management and union to this question. Among the 21 transit systems where both management and union responded, most respondents think their labor rela- tions are either staying the same or improving, but manage- ment tends to be slightly more optimistic about the trends in labor relations. Eleven out of the 21 management respondents think their labor relations are improving, versus 8 out of the 21 union respondents. Only two union respondents are more optimistic than their management counterparts. Conflicts and Resolution The research team collected grievance resolution data through a follow-up questionnaire after the telephone survey. The responses show interesting findings—the total number of grievances initiated does not have a strong correlation with the LMR rating; however, how fast a grievance is resolved does. The faster a transit system resolves its grievances, the higher (i.e., more positive) its LMR rating tends to be. The survey included the following questions • How many work grievances were initiated over the past 3 years? • How many work grievances are still waiting processing? The ratio of the two answers, the number of grievances ini- tiated over the number of grievances waiting process, is the turnover rate of grievance resolution, which measures how fast a transit system resolves its grievances. Figure D-1 shows the relationship between the grievance turnover rate and the LMR rating. Workplace Justice Survey respondents were asked to rate the workplace jus- tice condition in their transit system. The original question was “How would you rate the current condition of workplace justice in your system? Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the most fair.” Workplace justice here refers to whether a system’s employees are treated fairly and justly. Table D-2 summarizes the responses from 21 transit sys- tems. Management generally rated the workplace justice higher than union or at least the same. None of the 21 man- agement respondents rated their systems’ workplace justice lower than 3. Additional Survey Results and Findings

D-2 The scatterplots in Figure D-3 and Figure D-4 suggest that transit system size and LMR ratings do not have a rela- tionship that is statistically proven by the survey responses received. Leadership Longevity The survey included questions regarding the effects of longevity or term in office for both management and labor leadership on LMPs. Figure D-5 is a scatterplot of LMR ratings against the average management leadership term of the past three general managers. Survey respondents were asked to report that number by choosing from one of the following ranges. The research team then converted the answers into a score of 1 to 4 by the standards in parentheses. If responses were received from both management and union respon- dents of a transit system, the two scores were averaged; if only management or union responded, then only one response was used for that transit system. □ No longer than 3 years (score 1) □ Longer than 3 years, but no longer than 5 years (score 2) The survey responses demonstrate a statistically strong correlation between LMR rating and workplace justice rating. See Figure D-2. A transit system with a better perceived work- place justice condition tends to have a higher LMR rating. Transit System Size The survey included questions regarding the effects of tran- sit system size on LMPs. Figure D-3 is a scatterplot of LMR ratings against transit system size by the number of vehicles and rail cars operated during peak hours. The LMR rating is an indicator of how survey respondents perceive labor rela- tions in their systems. A rating of 5 indicates a very coopera- tive relationship, while a rating of 1 indicates a very adversarial relationship. The figure shows a negative relationship between the two variables, but statistical analysis demonstrates that the relationship is inconclusive. The correlation between the two variables is very weak (p-value = 0.67). Similarly, Figure D-4 shows a negative relationship between LMR ratings and transit system size by the number of full-time equivalent employees, but the relationship is also inconclusive (p-value = 0.38). Transit System Name LR Trend (Mgmt) LR Trend (Union) System 1 Improving Staying the same System 2 Staying the same Staying the same System 3 Improving Staying the same System 4 Staying the same Staying the same System 5 Staying the same Geng worse System 6 Improving Improving System 7 Improving Improving System 8 Improving Improving System 9 Geng worse Staying the same System 10 Staying the same Staying the same System 11 Staying the same Improving System 12 Improving Improving System 13 Staying the same Staying the same System 14 Improving Improving System 15 Staying the same Staying the same System 16 Improving Staying the same System 17 Improving Improving System 18 Ge ng worse Ge ng worse System 19 Improving Improving System 20 Geng worse Geng worse System 21 Improving Staying the same Improving: 11 Same: 7 Worse: 3 Improving: 8 Same: 10 Worse: 3 Darker shading: Union more opmisc Lighter shading: Mgmt more opmisc No shading: Equally opmisc Table D-1. Labor relations trend.

Transit System Name Mgmt Rang Union Rang Average Rang System 1 4 4 4.00 System 3 4 4 4.00 System 9 4 4 4.00 System 18 4 4 4.00 System 2 3 5 3.87 System 13 5 3 3.87 System 4 4 3 3.46 System 6 4 3 3.46 System 8 4 3 3.46 System 10 4 3 3.46 System 15 4 3 3.46 System 5 5 2 3.16 System 7 5 2 3.16 System 11 4 2 2.83 System 14 3 2 2.45 System 21 5 1 2.24 System 12 4 1 2.00 System 16 4 1 2.00 System 17 4 1 2.00 System 19 4 1 2.00 System 20 4 1 2.00 Darker shading: Mgmt Rang < Labor Rang Lighter shading: Mgmt Rang > Labor Rang No shading: Mgmt Rang = Labor Rang Table D-2. Workplace justice rating. Figure D-1. Labor–management relations rating vs. grievance turnover rate.

D-4 responses. A summary of broader representation is pre- sented in Table D-3. All 47 transit systems that responded to the survey are included, even if only management or union responded. Because of the unequal number of responses from management and union, a percentage is added to the table to show how prevalently an issue is addressed in labor– management committees in transit systems. Table D-3 presents the issues ranked in order of frequency by which they were identified by a management or union survey respondent in their transit system and addressed by a labor–management committee. For example, in the case of “pension and deferred compensation governance” 17 man- agement survey respondents and 24 union survey respon- dents said that the issue is addressed in a labor–management committee in their transit system; the two numbers are summed and the issues are ranked by the sums. If two issues have the same numbers of management and union responses confirming that they are addressed in a labor–management committee, the issue with management and union confirming responses closer in number, would rank higher. For example, “skill training, testing, and apprenticeship” and “violence and driver assault or work place security” both have 29 confirm- ing responses from management and union, but the former ranks higher because the difference between its management □ Longer than 5 years, but no longer than 10 years (score 3) □ Over 10 years (score 4) The positive relationship between LMR ratings and the average management leadership term is inconclusive accord- ing to statistical analysis. The correlation between the two variables is very weak (p-value = 0.64). A similar analysis was performed on the LMR rating and the average union leadership term. Survey respondents were asked to report the average term of their union leaderships over the past three union local presidents. Figure D-6 shows a negative relationship between the two variables that was found to be inconclusive statistically (p-value = 0.69). Figure D-5 and Figure D-6 indicate that the survey responses received do not statistically prove any relationship between management or union leadership longevity and labor relations. Labor–Management Partnership Issues Chapter 3 presents the issues addressed in labor– management committees. However the data presented are for the 21 transit systems with both management and union Figure D-2. Labor–management relations rating vs. workplace justice rating.

D-5 Figure D-3. Labor–management relations rating vs. transit system size by number of vehicles and rail cars.

D-6 Figure D-4. Labor–management relations rating vs. system size by number of full-time equivalent employees.

D-7 Figure D-5. Labor-management relations rating vs. average management leadership term.

D-8 Figure D-6. Labor-management relations rating vs. average union leadership term.

D-9 Table D-3. Number of transit systems with labor–management committees addressing specified issues. Areas of Issues # Systems with Labor Management Commiees Addressing the Issue (Mgmt) % "Yes" Among 29 Mgmt Responses # Systems with Labor Management Commiees Addressing the Issue (Union) % "Yes" Among 39 Union Responses · Pension and deferred compensa‚on governance 17 59% 24 62% · Preventable accidents 17 59% 20 51% · Skill training, tesng, and apprenceship 14 48% 15 38% · Violence and driver assault or work place security 12 41% 17 44% · Schedule preference 12 41% 15 38% · Jointly administered health and welfare plan 11 38% 16 41% · Drug and alcohol abuse 7 24% 11 28% · Safety 6 21% 11 28% · Restroom access for transit operators 5 17% 10 26% · New service modes or expansion 6 21% 8 21% · Management and union’s posion on funding votes in legislaon 4 14% 7 18% · Aendance and disability policy 4 14% 7 18% · Cell phones or electronic devices use in vehicle operaon 3 10% 8 21% · Fare collecon systems and discount idenficaon cards 4 14% 5 13% · Overme assignment 2 7% 6 15% · Extra board rotaon 3 10% 4 10% · Management and union’s posion on public referendum 4 14% 3 8% · Scope of work by skill 3 10% 3 8% · Uniform/are 3 10% 2 5% · Management and union’s posion on other public controversies 3 10% 1 3% · General commiee (as issues arise) 1 3% 1 3% · Ac vity 1 3% 1 3% · Interacve management group 1 3% 1 3% · Seniority 0 0% 4 10% · Crew composion on rapid transit, streetcars, and commuter rail 0 0% 3 8% · Child care 0 0% 1 3% · Grievance review 0 0% 1 3% · ADA compliance 0 0% 1 3% · Diversity 0 0% 1 3% · Christmas fund commiee 0 0% 1 3% · Markeng commiee 0 0% 1 3% · Radio commiee 0 0% 1 3% · Connuous quality commiee 0 0% 1 3% · Wellness 2 7% 0 0% · Career development/workforce educaon 2 7% 0 0% · 2nd Chance (substance abuse/cell phone use) 1 3% 0 0% · Excellence of performance (reward) 1 3% 0 0% · Dispute resoluon 1 3% 0 0% · Employee assistance program 1 3% 0 0% · Drivers commiee to resolve roune issues 1 3% 0 0% · Bus route and stop change 1 3% 0 0% · Cause containment/changes in healthcare 1 3% 0 0%

D-10 Table D-4. Comparison of ranking of top six issues most prevalently addressed in labor–management committees. Among all 47 Transit Systems Among 21 Transit Systems with Responses from both Management and Union Pension and deferred compensaon governance Pension and deferred compensaon governance Preventable accidents Preventable accidents Skill training, tesng, and apprenceship Violence and driver assault or work place security Violence and driver assault or work place security Skill training, tesng, and apprenceship Schedule preference Schedule preference Jointly administered health and welfare plan Jointly administered health and welfare plan and union confirming responses is only one, while the latter has a difference of five. The top six issues most commonly addressed in labor– management committees are the same among all 47 transit systems and the 21 transit systems where both management and union responded. However, the ranking of the top six issues is slightly different. Table D-4 shows the two rankings side by side.