Twin Cities Bus Strike

By:    Charles Carlson
         Mike Claseman
         Nebiyou Tilahun

Case Study Outline

This week’s case study will focus on the 2004 Twin Cities Bus Strike. The following topics will be covered.

1. What were the labor-transit incentives not to come to an agreement? How did the strike play out? Who finally won?
2. What were the expected problems that would result from the strike? How did these pan out?
3. Who wins and who loses during transit strikes?

The Strike
In March of 2004 transit workers that operated the Twin Cities Metro Transit bus lines walked out on a strike because the union and the Metropolitan Council could not agree on the terms of the new contract being negotiated.  The major sticking point was Metro Transit’s proposal to increase health insurance premiums for working members and cut health care coverage for retirees as well as its proposal to freeze wages for 2004 and have a 1% increase the next year.  By a vote of 94% to 6%, union members rejected the offer and walked out on a strike. After 6 weeks of strike, the union and the metropolitan council struck a deal which 72% of union members approved even though the deal was quite short of what they were demanding.

This raises a question whether striking is a good option in transit labour disputes. We can explore what incentives there were for both sides to take the actions they took.  From the perspective of the union, there is a segment of passengers that are highly dependent on the bus service.  These users are likely to pressure the governor and the legislator to bring about an agreement favorable to the union members.  The Met Council is a public institution and should respond to these pressures.  In additions, since the 1930’s unions had a right to strike with out employees losing their jobs.  There was little risk that the council would opt to use replacement drivers as this would be bad politically.  So the best option they had to get the concessions they needed was to strike. However long strikes are bad for employees, they have to live on their savings and/or find other work that doesn’t pay as well and doesn’t have the benefits their regular job does.

The Council on the other hand was playing its hand stating the union was looking for benefits that don’t even exist in the private sector.  Many saw this as an attempt to drive a wedge between strikers and the public. The administration and the people it appointed to the Met Council were largely seen by organized labor as ‘out to bust the union’.  The council was at the same time offering $100,000 a week for vanpool and taxi services for people who depended on the bus.  They stressed that they were broke and could not pay for what was being asked by the union and at the same time appearing to be sympathetic to the needs of the public.  As days progressed it became clear that the administration was less likely to listen to the Union’s opinions and the Union obviously did not feel that a more favorable outcome would be reached by extending the strike. The union voted 14 to 2 to recommend accepting the final contract they negotiated.  Many of the concessions that the administration made were paid for using money saved from the period that the buses were not operating. So was the six week strike worth the concessions the union got? Who won? Why? (Prepare to discuss)

Effects of the Strike on Traffic and the Public
The biggest surprise of the 2004 Metro Transit strike was that the predicted gridlock did not materialize.  What happened? If, as newspapers suggested, 40% of downtown Minneapolis’ 125,000 workers were unable to take the bus to work, why weren’t the roads packed with cars? Empirical evidence is lacking on this topic, but a few general explanations follow:

1.     The transit use mode split to downtown Minneapolis can be confusing, and not as many people may use transit as popularly conceived. (See Word                             document)

2.     The city, county, and individuals went to great lengths to prepare contingency plans in the event of a strike. Commuters adapted with carpools (I-394                         HOV lane use increased measurably over the strike), altered work hours, and made fewer peak-period trips.

3.     Many transit routes, especially those using freeway routes, were still operational since Metro Transit operates only a fraction of some Opt-Out provider                     routes. These services saw dramatic increases in ridership during the strike.

4.     Some people, faced with no other options, stayed home, biked, or walked.

The bus strike also brought out voices against the existing transit system. While the opposition varied, a few radical ideas were pushed as “alternatives” to the current system. One proposal suggested that buying cars for the poor would be more effective than transit. Another suggested PRT as a cheaper, faster, and better alternative. In either case, these groups represented the extreme opinions on transit. Neither group was taken seriously by mainstream stakeholders in the strike, but their testimony reflects the wide range of attention to transit-related issues brought on by the bus strike.

The effects of the twin cities transit strike were felt far and wide.  The effect was even harder for those with no transportation options.  Individuals that solely depended on the bus to move around found it difficult to get to work; students were being impacted on getting to class and their general mobility being restricted.  The impact undoubtedly disproportionately fell on those that did not have the option to drive.  Even on campus parking lots and campus shuttles became increasingly congested.  Traffic delays and general road congestion spiked up.  Even the light rail could not escape being unaffected, seeing its opening date pushed back several weeks.

Strategies for mitigation were few and far between.  For those who had to commute to campus (students, professors, etc.), parking lots were the answer.  For those who needed to get into or out of downtown, side streets or more patience were needed.  In general, those who normally commuted by bus were forced to drive, bike, or walk.   Since the timeframe of the strike was early March until mid-April, those who chose to walk or bike did so through snowy/slushy/wet sidewalks, whereas those who chose to drive found increased driving times and difficulty parking.

Readings for Discussion

Strike is On - Presents an overview of the strike - Pioneer Press

Effects of Transit Strike - Describes the effect of the strike on those that are not choice bus riders - MPR

Metropolitan Council's offer to help with mobility - Article from MPR

Strike Ends, Not All Drivers Happy - Article on MPR

Transit Ridership Numbers - Spreadsheet presents data and graphs on ridership - January 2003 through August 2004

Transit Labor Relation Guide - Skim through Chapters 1 and 2

Transit’s Loudest opposition:  Articles from the Taxpayer's League

This article proposes buying used cars for the poor (and dismantling the bus system)

This article denies importance of transit system (based on strike observed congestion levels)

This Press Release will give some "perspective" on the Taxpayers’ League, the group responsible for the preceding links