Federal case at the T
The Massachusetts congressional delegation continues to be oddly fixated on how the Baker administration handles its budget-balancing efforts at the MBTA, sending its second letter in a month to Gov. Charlie Baker and Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack in an attempt to influence the process.
Or maybe the fixation isn’t so odd after all. The delegation appears to be doing the simple bidding of unions that object to some of the agency’s outsourcing plans, and that are calling in a favor. And given a choice between representing the best interests of their constituents or their own
political interests, well, just guess on which side the all-Democratic delegation comes down.
Last month the nine U.S. House members and two senators wrote to Baker and Pollack, urging them to reconsider a (since-suspended) plan to reduce weekend commuter rail service. In that discussion they had at least the fig leaf of concern over the impact of reduced transit service.
But the latest letter over a plan to turn some of the T’s bus maintenance over to private contractors amounts to simple pandering, given that the financial argument in favor of outsourcing is so clear — and firmly on the taxpayers’ and T passengers’ side.
Remember that the T spends more on vehicle maintenance than every other major transit system in the U.S., and devotes more labor hours and pays higher salaries than all of its peer transit agencies. The use of private contractors could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, not to mention greater productivity.
Naturally the union representing MBTA mechanics fears the impact on their jobs. But the question is why members of Congress agreed to act as their agent. In their letter they say they don’t want to “insert” themselves into the substance of collective bargaining, they merely want the administration to negotiate with Machinists Local 264 “in good faith.”
What they are really doing is proving their loyalty to their party and the unions that support it, and support them.