Management & Operations

Benefits of 13(c) Debated at Senate Hearing

Posted on June 30, 2000

Federal administrators and transit operators disagreed on the necessity of 13(c) during a hearing held in April by the Senate Banking Committee. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) expressed the necessity of 13(c) to further protect and preserve the rights of transit workers. "The FTA strongly supports the integration of 13(c) protections and rights into our grant agreements and will continue to work cooperatively with the Department of Labor [DOL] to ensure that these rights are integrated in a timely fashion," said Nuria Fernandez, acting administrator of the FTA. Jim La Sala of the ATU said 13(c)’s function is to prevent transit worker abuse. “It has been a hallmark of the federal transit program that the collective bargaining process maintained through the Section 13(c) transit employee protection program has functioned to enhance stability and service within the industry,” he said. Both Fernandez and La Sala disputed accusations that 13(c) delays grant certification processes and contributes to rising costs. Fernandez said that joint efforts of the FTA, DOL and transit authorities actually sped up the processes and increased the number of final certifications. "Since the issuance of the 1995 guidelines, approximately 97% of the grant applications received an interim or final certification within 60 days," Fernandez said. Before, about 85% of grant applications were certified within a 90-day period. La Sala said the costs of 13(c) programs have been minimal over the last 30 years. Individual employee’s claims during that time total a fraction of the $120 billion to $130 billion distributed by the program since 1964. Lee Gibson, assistant general manager of transit at the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nev., said 13(c) is no longer necessary to the transit community. "It is a relic of another era and has outlived its usefulness. In fact, I submit that 13(c) stands in the way of the transit industry," he said. "Unlike the situation in 1964, today many states have public sector collective bargaining and labor relations statutes. Further, for the private sector transit employees, traditional labor rights are fully addressed by the National Labor Relations Act," Gibson said. Roger Snoble, president of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), said his primary concern is the sole provider clause within 13(c). He said that such a clause goes against Texan law and prohibits DART from contracting out services for preventative maintenance and other new activities. "This prohibition is in direct contradiction to … the Texas Transportation Code and to the industry’s best business practices," Snoble said. "If, as a result of this evaluation, DART would determine that it would be more economically efficient to contract for new transportation services, the sole provider clause would prohibit DART from doing so." Snoble said that attempts to negotiate the clause out of the 13(c) operating assistance arrangement became futile. In December 1999, ATU and DART concurred that the sole provider clause would be eliminated from the 13(c) arrangement. But in January, ATU changed its mind and reasserted the clause that left DART to decline 13(c) arrangements entirely. Snoble said DART experienced negative financial consequences due to DOL and ATU holding on to 13(c). "It seems that 13(c) has served its purpose and is no longer required to protect transit employees," Snoble said.

View comments or post a comment on this story. (0 Comments)

More News

Deadline extended for Innovative Solutions Award submissions

Applications can be submitted either by the operation or the solutions provider and will be judged by our BusCon Advisory Board, with winners and shortlisted submissions recognized at BusCon’s Award Breakfast on Wednesday, Sept. 13.

Calif.'s GCTD breaks ground on ops, maintenance facility

The new facility will replace an outdated and deteriorating bus garage located on a three-acre site that was originally built in the 1970’s for a much smaller fleet.

London most expensive city to commute to work via public transit

New York City comes in it at No. 4 at a cost of approximately $120 per month, with Chicago and San Francisco at $102.10 and $86.10 per month, respectively.

Late U2 concert leaves transit officials upset over costs

The Wednesday night concert, which didn't wrap up until 11 p.m., forced the Valley Transportation Authority to add 11 extra after-hours trains to accommodate concertgoers.

Video shows Metro Transit officer asking about immigration status

Metro Transit Police Chief Harrington said in a statement that it's not his agency's practice to inquire about immigration status and has asked for an internal investigation into the encounter.

See More News

Post a Comment

Post Comment

Comments (0)

More From The World's Largest Fleet Publisher

Automotive Fleet

The Car and truck fleet and leasing management magazine

Business Fleet

managing 10-50 company vehicles

Fleet Financials

Executive vehicle management

Government Fleet

managing public sector vehicles & equipment

TruckingInfo.com

THE COMMERCIAL TRUCK INDUSTRY’S MOST IN-DEPTH INFORMATION SOURCE

Work Truck Magazine

The number 1 resource for vocational truck fleets

Schoolbus Fleet

Serving school transportation professionals in the U.S. and Canada

LCT Magazine

Global Resource For Limousine and Bus Transportation

Please sign in or register to .    Close