EMTA and Union in Stalemate

By Tiffany Peden, The Daily Review, Towanda, Pa.

Jul. 2–Contract negotiations are at a stalemate after Endless Mountain Transportation Authority (EMTA) management submitted a complete and final contract offer to their union employees, Teamsters Union Local 229, who rejected the contract proposal.

Anonymous information about the issues the union employees have with the contract negotiations was recently dropped off at The Daily Review office. The information was verified by Teamsters Union Local 229 Vice President and business representative Robert Oakes, and was also discussed with EMTA general manager Karen Graber, EMTA operations manager Marge Tillotson and EMTA’s attorney, Robert Ufberg.

The union’s contract expired on June 30, 2006 and negotiations have been ongoing to draw up a new contract, according to the paperwork.

One of the issues stated in the paperwork is, “the wage increases that the EMTA management proposed are not acceptable.”

Under the last contract, employees had a 1.5 percent increase in 2003, a 1.7 percent increase in 2004 and a 2 percent increase in 2005. The paperwork stated that these increases were not enough based on how much the cost of living is going up, nor were the increases offered in EMTA’s final offer, which had been presented March 18, 2008, and was rejected.

In the final offer, there was a 3.5 percent increase in wages that would have been retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008 if the proposal was accepted within 30 days of receipt, a 2 percent increase in 2008, a 2 percent increase in 2009 and a 3 percent increase in 2010, Graber said.

Graber said the employees also got a 2 percent increase in pay on July 1, 2006, when the old contract expired.

“There are other benefits that EMTA employees get,” Graber said.

Employees get a shoe allowance and a tool allowance, and are also given their uniforms for free, she said.

Under the old contract, full-time mechanics are given an annual allowance of $115 for shoes or tools, and full-time drivers are eligible for $50 for shoes, the expired contract stated, which would have increased if the final offer had been accepted.

Graber said employees also receive paid holidays, seven personal days and vacation time.

The second issue the paperwork stated was that “the medical insurance that each employee has to pay for out of their check is not acceptable.”

The paperwork states that higher costs of health insurance eliminate any wage increases that they would get.

The health care program offered by EMTA includes different plans for individuals, families, employees and spouses, and so on, according to the contract. There are also three different deductible costs to choose from: $250, $500, and $750.

In the proposed offer for the $500 deductible, individual health insurance plan, the employee would pay $65.23 or 15 percent, of the total cost. The previous contract had an individual employee with a $500 deductible pay $54.76, or 13 percent, of the total cost, according to the contract. The increase is 19 percent from the previous contract to the declined final offer.

Oakes said the members of the union want a pay increase that will cover the higher health insurance costs.

“At the end of the day, the members will be making less money than they were in 2006,” Oakes said. “Based on what they’re going to pay for health care, their take home pay is going to be less.”

Ufberg said EMTA is in a consortium for their health insurance that allows them to get a lower rate than normal.

“If we come outside the pool, the cost will skyrocket,” he said.

The health care program includes vision, dental and medical coverage, and Ufberg said it is the cheapest plan they can get.

He also pointed out that the old contract took effect in 2002, meaning that the increase in health insurance is a 19 percent increase from 2002.

“Health care is on the rise,” Ufberg said. “This is an extraordinarily generous health plan.”

The third issue stated on the paperwork is that while working on a shift and waiting for a client(s) somewhere out of town, a driver has to wait there for the client(s) and would only be paid for two out of four hours of wait time.

“The driver would be in uniform and there for the purpose of transporting the client back to their home, but would not be paid while waiting unless the wait time was more than two hours,” according to the paperwork.

Tillotson said this is explained in two different cases. When a driver is on a fixed route and they take a trip to a mall, the bus would arrive at the mall at 10:30 a.m. and leave the mall at 2:30 p.m., she said. The first two of the four hours would not be paid but the last two would be, she said.

During this time, Tillotson said drivers are not standing with the buses; however, they are usually shopping or walking around the mall.

“They’re not being paid for those two hours because they’re not working,” she said.

When a driver is on a shared ride route, she said that the down time for a driver is usually half an hour, though sometimes it is longer than an hour. If they work for four hours, she said they get paid for two of those hours.

The last issue stated in the paperwork is that the employees are not getting retroactive pay to the end of the last contract, which expired on June 2006.

Graber said that the employees did get the two percent wage increase when the last contract expired, and added that the rejected final offer had said employees could get retroactive pay back to Jan. 1, 2008.

“All [the union employees] ask is that they be treated fairly with wage increases that, at the least, would allow them to keep pace with the cost of living and the health insurance costs,” the paperwork stated.

Since the final offer was rejected, however, Ufberg said that he doubts the offer will be the same next time.

“We made an offer that was pretty good at the time,” he said.

Ufberg said that the last thing that happened in the contract negotiations was that Oakes wanted to set up a meeting and EMTA did as well. Ufberg said they informed Oakes that they did not have another offer to make, other than the proposed final offer, and Oakes cancelled the meeting.

Oakes said currently no new contract has been agreed upon.

“We can work under terms and conditions of old contract and that’s what we’re doing now,” he said.

Oakes said they are not going to strike at this point, and added that if they did, “it would be detrimental to the infrastructure of Bradford County.”

Ufberg said he thinks the union members do not know all of what is going on in the negotiations.

“It’s the people who have been harmed,” he said. “The people don’t understand what the authority is offering.”

Tiffany Peden may be reached at (570) 888-9652; e-mail: reviewvalley@thedailyreview.com.

—–

To see more of The Daily Review or to subscribe to the newspaper, visit http://www.thedailyreview.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, The Daily Review, Towanda, Pa.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

NASDAQ-OTCBB:EMHD,