Boston Herald

Bid to derail reform

-

The MBTA says a warning letter issued by its largest union to bidders interested in running the T’s money-counting operation is legally baseless and the agency is within its rights to outsource to a private sector bidder.

But the legalities are almost irrelevant. By simply writing the letter the Boston Carmen’s Union sends the message that it is willing to make this effort to reform the sloppy money-counting operation so time-consuming and so costly that it won’t be worth a company’s bid, and it may well succeed in chilling interest.

That’s some pretty dirty pool — but it ought not scare bidders away.

The Herald reported yesterday on the letter, which warns firms that the winning bidder will be required to honor union protection­s for T workers.

“The purpose of this letter is to alert you that you will ... be obliged to honor MBTA protective arrangemen­ts, and that you should take account of such protection­s in evaluating the price of your proposal,” a union attorney wrote.

The issue is already tied up in one legal challenge; Local 589 has challenged the outsourcin­g to an arbitrator. Now the union’s letter warns prospectiv­e bidders that if they sign a contract with the T before that arbitratio­n matter is resolved it “may take legal action to forestall” work from starting.

In other words, they are prepared to tie this thing up in reams of red tape.

The union argues that because the T accepts federal transit funds for its fare machines and collection system, under federal labor law the money room operations are subject to union agreements. That argument comes as no surprise; these wars have now been fought for the better part of three decades and the union has used the same ammunition to kill several previous attempts to outsource certain agency operations, including the counting room.

Given previous federal rulings they may even have a case. At the very least they have leverage — and it appears they’re prepared to use it no matter the cost to taxpayers and transit users, and at the expense of desperatel­y needed reforms.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States