Why Muni Drivers Suck

So, this blog is about a week and a half out of date - I don't know if the issue has been solved yet, but I do know that Muni workers in SF are out of touch with reality. I heard a couple of blurbs on KCBS (FM 106.9, AM 740) talking about contract negotiations with San Francisco, and the Muni drivers refusing to accept a "pay cut". When the radio news went into further detail, it turns out that they were not even being asked to accept a pay cut, they were being asked to relinquish an 8% pay increase that was scheduled to happen in July or August (I think, I don't remember the actual time frame, but the important point is that it was a scheduled raise, not a cut in anyone's actually salary).

According to SF statute, Muni drivers must make at least the second highest wage in the nation for their business. I don't know if the scheduled raise was to make sure that this remained the case, but notwithstanding, they were being asked to forgo a pay increase not accept a wage reduction. I don't know of anyone who budgets based on what they are going to make rather than on what they do make (except the government, of course), so as far as an impact on the drivers lives, it sucks, but at least you get what you got in previous years.

Police and firefighters have accepted actual cuts in salaries, and I sympathize with them far more than with Muni drivers. Police and firefighters provide a service for all members of the community that is completely essential and they agreed to cut their salaries for the good of the community. Muni drivers are non-essential, and they do not serve all of the community (not everyone requires public transportation, but we all have to fund it). I am not saying that public transportation is unimportant, I just feel that other services are more important. Even people in Supergoober's line of work have taken a pay cut, and teachers have been laid off, but Muni - heavens no, we can't take a pay cut...

And that leads me to the two people who were interviewed - the one sound bite that they played of a woman saying "Take a pay cut, how do they expect us to live!" She sounded offended at the notion that she would have to tighten her belt somewhat, and it was then revealed that she makes $84,000 a year. So she would still be making that amount of money, she just wouldn't be getting an 8% raise on top of that (which would put her at $90,720 a year). Her current income is well over the SF median household income of about $65,000, and also a bit over the median family income of about $81,000. (household income includes all income earners in a house even if their is only one member of the household, while family income is restricted to households of 2 or more related by blood or marriage)

Either way, $84,000 a year is enough to live on. You may be forced to make difficult decisions, but it is entirely possible to do in the Bay Area. The outrage that was evident in her tone was ridiculous, especially given the sacrifices other, more essential, city employees have made. Couple that with the benefits package that Muni drivers get, and you have a fairly good living.

The other person who was quoted stated that he received about $68,000 a year, and that he had a $4800 a month mortgage. I don't know how he qualified for that loan, or if he has another income, but if it is only him then his mortgage is approximately 85% of his gross income. Either he was one of the people who should not have bought a house and got sold a bad loan (negatively amortized for three years, then adjustable, or some other such nonsense), or he has another income in the household to help out, or he is lying about his mortgage (which I doubt - $4800 a month would be an unusual number to make up). Whatever the situation is, it is not my responsibility to make up for his overextending himself. He did that of his own free will, and if there were bankers or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac egging him on, it doesn't matter. He could have actually read the loan documents or asked for help if he needed it. He signed his name a bunch of times in the purchase of a home, and you engage in a contract when you do that. It is nobody's fault but your own if you are stuck in that situation (unless someone lied to him about how the loan worked - a completely different situation). San Franciscans should not have to foot the bill for this guys irresponsible behavior by guaranteeing him a job. That has nothing to do with the salary issue that was being discussed, he just played the pity card of "I live in an expensive city with a high mortgage"; of course, implicit in that statement is "don't make me change my lifestyle - I should be allowed to live past my means with no penalty, and you should make sure I am compensated for my own lack of foresight".

Many people have tried to make this a race issue, and I honestly don't know enough about the racial demographics of the situation to say that it is entirely untrue, but I do know that other city workers have made concessions and the Muni Drivers have refused. Incorporating the pay into the City Charter was supposed to make bargaining about other things easier (I don't know who thought that would actually work, but someone did), and, predictably, the opposite happened. If your wages are guaranteed by law, why would you concede anything else. That kind of guarantee breeds an arrogance in the worker/union, because they know that they are untouchable. If you get to have a pay guarantee even if you are doing a craptastic job, you will eventually get workers who want to be compensated well no matter what they do, and no matter what the situation.

The fact that other city workers have made concessions highlights the main difference between people who go into those lines of work, and people who go into Muni - most other public services require somewhat of a sacrifice. No one becomes a cop, a firefighter, a city mental health worker, etc. because they want to get rich - many do it because they feel they owe something to the community (are there people in these professions who don't have that motivation - certainly, probably quite a few, but I am characterizing the bulk of people in public service). People go into public service because they want to give something back, but Muni has never fostered that attitude. It seems like Muni actually runs counter to the "service attitude" that most idealists have when they embark in a public service career. I do not know how to fix that, but I do believe that the heart of the problem lies right there. It has more to do with attitude than race or socioeconomic status of the drivers. It seems like they have never seen themselves as "public servants", which is the ideal attitude for any public employee.

I am not alleging all Muni drivers suck, that title was just a snapshot of my emotional reaction when I heard the story, and just like not all public servants outside of Muni have what I called the "service attitude", not everyone in Muni has the "you owe me attitude" either. But when the majority in a profession like Muni votes down concessions, my impression of Muni is what counts, because that will be the emotional response of many people besides myself (which is why Muni tried to keep its workers from making any comments).