[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 65 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E829-E831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      METRO ARBITRATION RELIEF ACT

                                 ______


                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, April 6, 1995
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation for myself 
and Mr. Davis of Virginia, to provide financial relief to the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA] and to the 
citizens of the Washington metropolitan area by allowing for more 
flexibility in resolving labor disputes. Under the interstate compact 
establishing Metro, WMATA must have a balanced budget and Metro cannot 
provide service unless there are funds to pay for it. These funds are 
becoming more and more pinched by rising labor costs that threaten the 
affordability of the Metro system for the ridership.
  Labor costs at Metro are among the highest in the Nation in terms of 
operator salaries and benefits. For example, starting operator wages 
for bus drivers in New York City are $12.35 per hour compared to $13.76 
in the District. The average annual wage for a Metrobus operator is 
currently $45,683. This is higher than the average wage for teachers in 
our area and is more than a GS-12 starting salary for many 
professionals in the Government. With overtime, Metrobus operator 
salaries can approach $60,000 to $70,000 per year, the equivalent 
salary of a GS-14 or GS-15 or an assistant school principal.
  In addition, Metro salaries and benefits are far higher than other 
transit operators in the region when compared with bus operators such 
as Montgomery County Ride-On or Fairfax Connector and Dash. The average 
annual wage for Ride-On, DASH, and Connector operators is $27,148, 
$25,459, and $23,400 respectively. These high comparative costs have 
made it very expensive for local governments to continue to contract 
with Metro bus service. As a result, local governments are increasingly 
choosing to provide their own service leaving Metro with fixed overhead 
costs to distribute among shrinking bus services.
  [[Page E830]] This bill will allow arbitrators to take these local 
factors into consideration when evaluating wage scales. As a result, we 
will be simultaneously maintaining an affordable transit system, 
reducing the risk of massive job losses, and introducing more 
competition into area transit. This is a workable, practical and fair 
solution as we address the budget problems facing both the District and 
public transit in our area.
  As fares increase, ridership dwindles and a downward spiral 
continues. Metro management has testified before the Transportation
 Appropriations Subcommittee that it is close to the point where higher 
rates will mean more Metro riders will return to their cars. For 
example, a single mother traveling from Vienna, VA, to downtown will 
spend approximately $8.50 per day in parking and Metro fares--nearly 
$200 per month. For a GS-7 earning some $24,000, and netting perhaps 
$1600-$1700 per month, this cost amounts to one-eighth of take home 
pay.

  Affordable public transportation is essential to the economic 
vitality of the Washington metropolitan area and to reviving the 
sagging economic fortunes of our Nation's Capital. Many low income and 
working individuals and families depend upon public transportation as 
their primary means of travel. However, use of mass transit is 
substantially affected by the fares charged for such mass transit 
services.
  Currently more than two-thirds of the cost of the Metro system is 
attributable to labor costs. Metro labor costs have increased at an 
alarming rate and are among the highest in the Nation. Salaries for 
Metro have gotten out of line with many other occupations in the area 
and with local bus systems. When evaluating and balancing competing 
needs, there has to be more flexibility in this area. That is what this 
legislation will do. It will provide for more consideration to be given 
to the impact that wage increases have on the ability of transit 
patrons and taxpayers to fund the increases through subsidies or at the 
fare box. This act will adopt standards governing the arbitration 
process when resolving disputes involving Metro labor issues.
  Over the past 5 years, Metro has reduced staff by more than 500 
positions--almost 10 percent of the workforce. In the past year alone, 
it has cut over 250 positions, bringing the current personnel level to 
that in 1988, even though Metro has increased rail service by 64 
percent since that time. But labor costs still are the major driver of 
increasing fares. If fares continue to increase, ridership will decline 
and other competitive systems will enter the system further driving 
down Metro ridership.
  At a time when we are facing severe budget limitations, we must think 
more creatively about how transit agencies can manage scarce Federal 
dollars. We must also face budgetary realities before they reach the 
crisis point. The current labor costs put the future of the Metro 
system on a collision course with the Metro ridership public. Already 
we have strongly competitive bus service in the area resulting in 
decreased bus ridership of Metro buses. When ridership goes down, jobs 
are lost and those in the areas with the least alternatives for 
transportation suffer the most. These areas usually serve the most 
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.
  The financial difficulties faced by the District of Columbia threaten 
the ability to make operating subsidy payments that could result in 
further bus service reductions or route terminations on a very broad 
scale. Metro bus service has already been reduced by $5 million to meet 
current budget needs.
  As Metro general manager Lawrence Reuter recently testified before 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve, Metro 
is working closely with Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, 
and Members of Congress from this region to minimize the impacts of the 
District's financial crisis on Metro's ability to provide transit 
service throughout the region. As we work to find better solutions for 
the District of Columbia, providing more flexibility to Metro in labor 
disputes will assist in the bigger financial picture for the District.
                                H.R. --

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Capital Area 
     Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) affordable public transportation is essential to the 
     economic vitality of the national capital area and is an 
     essential component of regional efforts to improve air 
     quality to meet environmental requirements and to improve the 
     health of both residents of and visitors to the national 
     capital area as well as to preserve the beauty and dignity of 
     the Nation's capital;
       (2) use of mass transit by both residents of and visitors 
     to the national capital area is substantially affected by the 
     prices charged for such mass transit services, prices that 
     are substantially affected by labor costs, since more than 
     \2/3\ of operating costs are attributable to labor costs;
       (3) labor costs incurred in providing mass transit in the 
     national capital area have increased at an alarming rate and 
     wages and benefits of operators and mechanics currently are 
     among the highest in the Nation;
       (4) higher operating costs incurred for public transit in 
     the national capital area cannot be offset by increasing 
     costs to patrons, since this often discourages ridership and 
     thus undermines the public interest in promoting the use of 
     public transit;
       (5) spiraling labor costs cannot be offset by the 
     governmental entities that are responsible for subsidy 
     payments for public transit services since local governments 
     generally, and the District of Columbia government in 
     particular, are operating under severe fiscal constraints;
       (6) imposition of mandatory standards applicable to 
     arbitrators resolving arbitration disputes involving 
     interstate compact agencies operating in the national capital 
     area will ensure that wage increases are justified and do not 
     exceed the ability of transit patrons and taxpayers to fund 
     the increase; and
       (7) Federal legislation is necessary under Article I of 
     section 8 of the United States Constitution to balance the 
     need to moderate and lower labor costs while maintaining 
     industrial peace.
       (b) Purpose.--It is therefore the purpose of this Act to 
     adopt standards governing arbitration which must be applied 
     by arbitrators resolving disputes involving interstate 
     compact agencies operating in the national capital area in 
     order to lower operating costs for public transportation in 
     the Washington metropolitan area.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``arbitration'' means--
       (A) the arbitration of disputes, regarding the terms and 
     conditions of employment, that is required under an 
     interstate compact governing an interstate compact agency 
     operating in the national capital area; and
       (B) does not include the interpretation and application of 
     rights arising from an existing collective bargaining 
     agreement;
       (2) the term ``arbitrator'' refers to either a single 
     arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, chosen under 
     applicable procedures;
       (3) an interstate compact agency's ``funding ability'' is 
     the ability of the interstate compact agency, or of any 
     governmental jurisdiction which provides subsidy payments or 
     budgetary assistance to the interstate compact agency, to 
     obtain the necessary financial resources to pay for wage and 
     benefit increases for employees of the interstate compact 
     agency;
       ($) the term ``interstate compact agency operating in the 
     national capital area'' means any interstate compact agency 
     which provides public transit services;
       (5) the term ``interstate compact agency'' means any agency 
     established by an interstate compact
      to which the District of Columbia is a signatory; and
       (6) the term ``public welfare'' includes, with respect to 
     arbitration under an interstate compact--
       (A) the financial ability of the individual jurisdictions 
     participating in the compact to pay for the costs of 
     providing public transit services; and
       (B) the average per capita tax burden, during the term of 
     the collective bargaining agreement to which the arbitration 
     relates, of the residents of the Washington, D.C. 
     metropolitan area, and the effect of an arbitration award 
     rendered pursuant to such arbitration on the respective 
     income or property tax rates of the jurisdictions which 
     provide subsidy payments to the interstate compact agency 
     established under the compact.

     SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATORS.

       (a) Factors in Making Arbitrary Award.--An arbitrator 
     rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area may not make a finding or a decision for inclusion in a 
     collective bargaining agreement governing conditions of 
     employment without considering the following factors:
       (1) The existing terms and conditions of employment of the 
     employees in the bargaining unit.
       (2) All available financial resources of the interstate 
     compact agency.
       (3) The annual increase or decrease in consumer prices for 
     goods and services as reflected in the most recent consumer 
     price index for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United 
     States Department of Labor.
       (4) The wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of the 
     employment of other employees who perform, in other 
     jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C. standard metropolitan 
     statistical area, services similar to those in the bargaining 
     unit.
       (5) The special nature of the work performed by the 
     employees in the bargaining unit, including any hazards or 
     the relative ease of employment, physical requirements, 
     educational qualifications, job training and skills, shift 
     assignments, and the demands placed upon the employees as 
     compared to other employees of the interstate compact agency.
       (6) The interests and welfare of the employees in the 
     bargaining unit, including--
       (A) the overall compensation presently received by the 
     employees, having regard not only for wage rates but also for 
     wages for 
     [[Page E831]] time not worked, including vacations, holidays, 
     and other excused absences;
       (B) all benefits received by the employees, including 
     previous bonuses, insurance, and pensions; and
       (C) the continuity and stability of employment.
       (7) The public welfare.
       (b) Compact Agency's Funding Ability.--An arbitrator 
     rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area may not, with respect to a collective bargaining 
     agreement governing conditions of employment, provide for 
     salaries and other benefits that exceed the interstate 
     compact agency's funding ability.
       (c) Requirements for Final Award.--In resolving a dispute 
     submitted to arbitration involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area, the arbitrator shall issue a written award that 
     demonstrates that all the factors set forth in subsections 
     (a) and (b) have been considered and applied. An award may 
     grant an increase in pay rates or benefits (including 
     insurance and pension benefits), or reduce hours of work, 
     only if the arbitrator concludes that any costs to the agency 
     do not adversely affect the public welfare. The arbitrator's 
     conclusion regarding the public welfare must be supported by 
     substantial evidence.

     SEC. 5. PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.

       (a) Modifications and Finality of Award.--In the case of an 
     arbitration award to which section 4 applies, the interstate 
     compact agency and the employees in the bargaining unit, 
     through their representative, may agree in writing upon any 
     modifications to the award within 10 days after the award is 
     received by the parties. After the end of that 10-day period, 
     the award, with any such modifications, shall become binding 
     upon the interstate compact agency, the employees in the 
     bargaining unit, and the employees' representative.
       (b) Implementation.--Each party to an award that becomes 
     binding under subsection (a) shall take all actions necessary 
     to implement the award.
       (c) Judicial Review.--Within 60 days after an award becomes 
     binding under subsection (a), the interstate compact agency 
     or the exclusive representative of the employees concerned 
     may file a civil action in a court
      which has jurisdiction over the interstate compact agency 
     for review of the award. The court shall review the award 
     on the record, and shall vacate the award or any part of 
     the award, after notice and a hearing, if--
       (1) the award is in violation of applicable law;
       (2) the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
       (3) the decision by the arbitrator is arbitrary or 
     capricious;
       (4) the arbitrator conducted the hearing contrary to the 
     provisions of this Act or other statutes or rules that apply 
     to the arbitration so as to substantially prejudice the 
     rights of a party;
       (5) there was partiality or misconduct by the arbitrator 
     prejudicing the rights of a party;
       (6) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or bias on 
     the part of the arbitrator; or
       (7) the arbitrator did not comply with the provisions of 
     section 4.
     

                          ____________________