LOCAL LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND THE URBAN MASS TRANSIT INDUSTRY
ALAN REED
DOI: 10.2190/5XB4-R0UQ-B7N3-GR52
Abstract
Actions of the U. S. government to assist cities may have unanticipated affects. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 and its amendments were intended to address a clearly perceived national need. However, the inclusion of protections for transit unions embodied substantial risk of conflict between the national and local governments. In order to gain union support for UMTA and to stabilize local workers' positions, the UMTA included paragraph 13-C, which required that local collective bargaining conditions and the rights and benefits of transit workers be preserved. For ten years, 13-C created minimal difficulties because grants were mainly for capital equipment. After the 1974 National Mass Transportation Assistance Act injected $3.975 billion in federal operating assistance funds into the picture, the unions pressed for inclusion of extensive protections in the federal 13-C contracts. The American Public Transit Association and major transit unions negotiated a "Model" 13-C agreement in 1975, which the Labor Department, as the enforcement agency for UMTA labor provisions, and the unions have used since as the basis for contracts between the federal government and cities. Considerable confusion existed among cities regarding the authority of the international unions and the Labor Department to force cities to sign the Model agreement. Various sources, such as the Lewis Gill memorandum, the 1976 UMTA guidelines, agreements between the unions and the Labor Department, and court cases, have now clarified that the international unions must approve all 13-C agreements. The unions will only approve those based on the Model, and the Labor Department will only sanction agreements approved by the international offices of the unions. Congressional intent to preserve local negotiation has been superseded in the implementation of the Act. Further conclusions are that major expansion of union power and protections has been achieved; that urban transit systems must be viewed as components of a national system operating under federal plans and policies; that federal labor policy can be enforced through contract in spite of state and local laws; and that the partial nationalization of urban mass transit has occurred with very little disruption of operations.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.