muni_driver.jpgAs reported by the Chron, Streetsblog, CBS5, and ABC7, Muni drivers Friday night voted to reject a series of concessions expected to save Muni $19 million over the next two years, money Muni says they hoped to reduce recently enacted service cuts.

The Chron reports that members of Transport Workers Local 250-A, which represents about 2,000 Muni operators, voted 747 against and 538 in favor of the changes, which would have called for using more part-time employees to work during rush hours and required operators to work 40 hours in a week before they could earn overtime pay.

In a statement send out late Friday, MTA head Nathaniel Ford says he’s “deeply disappointed and perplexed” by the vote, urging them to “quickly reconsider their actions and to recast their votes.”

the author

Eve Batey is the editor and publisher of the San Francisco Appeal. She used to be the San Francisco Chronicle's Deputy Managing Editor for Online, and started at the Chronicle as their blogging and interactive editor. Before that, she was a co-founding writer and the lead editor of SFist. She's been in the city since 1997, presently living in the Outer Sunset with her husband, cat, and dog. You can reach Eve at

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • kl2real

    I ride Muni, and I vote. I can’t wait to correct this mistake in November. These thugs need to be put in their place.

  • smskater

    You know, I didn’t like the outcome of the Lt. Governor’s race. Let’s revote.

  • Ciaran

    Dear Nat Ford, I don’t pay you $300k to be ‘perplexed’.

  • scuz75

    So the Mayor and SF MTA head are both calling for an immediate re-vote? This WAS the re-vote.

    It’s time that the Mayor stop looking to blame the operators for the cause of, and the sole solution to this deficit and call on the business community to buck up and pay their fair share for the transportation that gets their workers to their jobs. The working population did not cause the global economic crisis and should not be expected to bear the entire responsibility of fixing it.

  • bagpuss

    Mr. Ford should show willing as well and take a 10% paycut on his (by most people’s standard’s) HUGE $300K+ salary …

  • Alex Zepeda

    If Lum is signing off on this, why aren’t rank and file? So this is the second time that rank and file have voted down a proposal… does this mean that Irwin Lum is out of touch with his prols? Or that the TWU is negotiating in bad faith? Did Lum even bring the proposal to the rank and file? Quite frankly, I’d be perplexed too if I was in the same situation. Something smells, and this time it ain’t Nat Ford.

    See also:

  • scuz75

    What smells is that TWU executive board is not listening to it’s members.

  • scuz75

    By the way, Lum is AWOL

  • supertamsf

    Muni workers won’t consent to having to work 40 hours a week before collecting overtime. Just wanted to restate how WACK that is.

  • Mike

    @supertamsf, not entirely WACK. The law requires OT for hours over 8 in a single work shift or for hours over 40 in a single work week. I used to work part time at a place that was open very late one night per week. I worked 6 hours for 3 shifts, and 10 hours on that one night, so I got OT for a couple of hours even though I usually averaged 28 hours a week. I think you even get double time for hours over 12 in a single shift.

    Still, I don’t think it is unreasonable to try and limit OT pay right now by getting rid of the 8 hour requirement. Management could potentially abuse this and put everyone on 11.5 hour shifts, which I would not support as it makes for tired operators. But if a set of bus trips requires 8.5 hours to staff properly, it would be nice for that to be an option that doesn’t require OT.

  • Equiman

    I believe this letter to Chronicle editor presents an intelligent,

    counter the mainstream thinking, argument:

    “Saluting the drivers

    The San Francisco Gray Panthers salutes the Muni drivers who resisted the pressure of downtown business, the mayor’s office, The Chronicle and the Examiner, and some supervisors in rejecting the concessions the city is trying to force down their throats.

    Muni service cuts, fare increases and financial problems are not caused by drivers’ greed or the riders’ fare evasion; they are caused by downtown business refusing to pay for the service Muni provides in bringing them customers and workers.

    We recognize that the same forces that attack Muni drivers and riders are also attacking the city services we need to survive – health and human services, housing and nutrition. Thoughtful city workers in other unions should support the drivers because the drivers’ refusal to make concessions and their crucial position in the city’s economy could make the city think twice about demanding more concessions from them. This could save jobs and services.

    We demand: no service cuts or fare increases for San Francisco’s poor, seniors, minorities and immigrants. Make downtown business pay for the services they receive. Drivers and riders should unite to demand more public transit, not less

    M.L.Gray Panthers”

    Read more: