Development and impact of Section 13(c) within the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 on the labor-management structure of Texas Transit Systems

Abstract

In 1920, one-half of all Americans lived in the cities. It is expected that four out of five will live and work in the city by 1990. During the early 1900's, transit predominantly served the city's residents, however, fewer than one in twenty urban trips are served by transit today. This research: (1) traces the development and decline of mass transit within the U.S. with emphasis on economics, regulations, and governmental policy; (2) reviews the policies and legislation that led to passage of UMTA, and identifies the significance of Section 13(c); (3) discusses the impact and ramifications of Section 13(c) on the public sector transit industry; and (4) the problems of the transit system adopting and following the requirements of the Act under state and local statutes governing the public sector. All Texas Transit systems receiving UMTA funds were surveyed to determine the effects of Section 13(c). The major issues that surfaced were analyzed using the Delphi technique. The participants identified ten key problem areas. Using the Spearman's Rho rank correlation test, it was determined that there was little correlation between the rankings by labor and management for these ten problem areas. However, there was a high degree of correlation for eight of the ten problem areas. Section 13(c) was the controlling factor in transit model selection immediately following the public takeover in Texas because of the requirements of the Act and the restrictions of Article 5154c. It was determined that: (1) the Memphis Formula has not been the positive remedy Congress intended; (2) without Section 13(c), any transit worker becoming a public employee after a public takeover would lose collective bargaining and other rights in Texas; (3) DOL's "hands-off" policy regarding Section 13(c) arrangements, wherein the local parties formulate their own conditions, has created significant problems; and (4) the major problem areas dividing labor and management addressed the union's attempted use of Section 13(c) as a leverage tool, the certification delays associated with "hammering-out" the details of the arrangement, and a perceived view that Section 13(c) problems exist more with personalities than with its structure. Recommendations were made to: (1) establish the past rights, privileges and benefits of affected employees; (2) assess the level of injury incurred by each grant over an established grant period; (3) realign the certification process; (4) define the scope of Section 13(c); (5) define the role of the International Unions; (6) create impasse and dispute resolution methods; (7) provide adequate definitions; and, (8) establish a hearing forum for Texas systems to discuss, negotiate, and draft the arrangement.