Public Transit: If you like it so much show me how it doesn't suck

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh was once a labour organizer
but the shoe is on the other foot now that he has to
deal with the MBTA's toxic pension funds.

This is an issue that hits very close to home, as my dad is a public transit employee and the parallels are just so close. He's a union worker, a good worker, but I'm sorry to break the news: you're too good for them Dad.
On Sunday I had a some friends over for a BBQ and one of them got into several heated political conversations with me. Believe it or not, the state of public transit came up! I know what you're thinking: THRILLZ!! He stated the case that our local transit system is in budget jeopardy because the state government, run by Republicans had reduced its funding. I couldn't help but laugh, since for years prior to our governor taking power the system had been just bleeding money, because the financial structure doesn't make any sense. You could pump in as much FUNDING as you wanted, but it would just keep getting USED for something.

Olde Towne, Olde Issues

Critics of privatization loooove to bash businesses
as corrupt, yet they know in their own minds that even
corporate America has better accountability than
government organizations. Even CEOs tend to
be accountable to shareholders, whereas government
employees are accountable to no one. 

So lo and behold this story fell into my lap. The Mayor of Boston Marty Walsh used Labour Day in order to condemn proposed programmes to privatize certain services including driving for the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA). He even claimed that he had discussed this position amiably with Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker. So let's be clear, Walsh is a Democrat and Baker is a Republican, and they've both been trying to prevent what's been called a "freefall" in the MBTA pension fund. The company's board had stated itself that a number of measures, including shifting the pension fund's stewardship to the state's main management authority and PRIVATIZATION <gasp> should be on the table. This seems to be a sore topic for progressives and believers in government solutions. One opinion writer has claimed that Greyhound and Trailways have been failures as national bus service providers. Hmm, I've never heard of there needing to be a Greyhound bailout.

Where was the blame game in 2013?

Baker claimed that the deficit was not a result of under-funding but mismanagement. That's a debate that hasn't been resolved totally, but it's going to be resolved between Baker, Walsh and the rest of that state. But Monday Walsh threw cold water on the MBTA recommendations claiming that privatization was a threat against the interests of both the workers of the authority and its customers. Walsh claimed that "investment", meaning more state funds, would solve the MBTA's financial malaise that has caused this year's $110 million budget deficit.So that debate will have to be addressed a different time. But let's ask a simple question: Are the MBTA's woes a result of poor administration or do they have a legitimate gripe against state cutbacks? Well, the truth is that if state funding shortfalls are a problem, they were a problem under Democrats too. In 2013 MBTA had a massive budget hole of $118 million, and that was during the tenure of Gov. Deval Patrick. So back then Massachusettts had an all-Democratic state government, and yet the issue was just as much of a problem.

Public transit advocacy has a couple of angles. Literally a couple. There is the angle of keeping the customers satisfied by providing convenient and affordable services, and then there's the one of keeping the workforce in place. The second angle is actually a horrible premise for protecting public transit. In the end a government owned service is a service to the communities and guests from outside. Oftentimes, the priority for these budget moves, whether it is state or federal funding, emphasizes either conserving or creating job positions that in reality cannot be supported without subsidies. This exposes the real fear of the transit unions and their government stewards: They need to protect their phony baloney jobs. The rub is that if the organizational model itself is flawed and unprofitable the government could pump in as much money as these unions and their allies desire and it would not be enough.

One possible compromise

So you don't want budget shortfalls but you're wary of corporate-owned transit systems? How about a co-op? As a body these transit systems can sold to employees. Market economy advocates are fine with the concept of such an arrangement; in fact they are a better reflection of participatory capitalism than corporations. Co-ops have already been used for power utilities, and there have been works published in support of using it for other public services. Most significantly, it could remove the frequent excuse of union leaders that poor corporate management is to blame for wasteful spending or failed strategies, because the management would be completely responsible to its workers as shareholders. If they start to screw the pooch guess what happens: shareholder meeting!

The unionist strategy however is exactly in opposition to this. The unions know that once a responsive leadership takes hold of a company one of two things happen: A) The company implements merit-based hiring and salary practices, B) If it cannot implement such changes the company either has to significantly boost its revenue stream, cut the service significantly, or lay off employees. So they prefer the status quo of coming with their hands out to state capitols or the federal government every couple of years. It will be interesting to see what happens in MBTA.

Update -- Sept. 11, 2016

One further detail overlooked is that Mayor Walsh himself has been implicated in a number of trade union scandals since entering office, specifically for tolerating intimidation tactics as well as forcing businesses or festival organizers to hire union labour. This has entered the realm of federal investigation, and is likely to cause further grief for his administration. And while this is not directly MBTA related, it will colour the trade union landscape for the foreseeable future in Boston.