MBTA Must Not Trample Drivers' Rights in Response to the Recent Green Line Crash

Since the May 8th crash on the Green Line T that injured 50 people - some seriously - and trashed 3 trolley cars, Bostonians have been understandably outraged that the accident was caused because now-fired driver Aidan Quinn was allegedly texting his girlfriend while running a moving vehicle. However, yesterday the Boston Carmen's Union announced that it was not supporting Mass. Bay Transit Authority leadership's new order banning all electronic devices from the workplace - which currently include stiff penalties for even possessing such a device on the job. Which was a reversal from their original position, stated shortly after the crash, that they would support the ban. Today, area press reported outrage about the union's volte-face in the local political establishment from Gov. Deval Patrick on down and there is talk that the MBTA order may be given the force of law by the legislature.

But missing in this media-driven political circus is much serious discussion of the Boston Carmen's Union's full position on the matter - despite the fact that it is quite clearly available on the union's website. As usual in situations like this, the considered opinion of the people that actually do the job of running the T day in and day out is given short shrift in this important policy debate. All parties understand that the union agrees that drivers cellphones and similar devices must be turned off while driving from now on. But there is much more important stuff being debated here than how to best stop a few clueless drivers from endangering the lives of their passengers while distracted by electronic chatter.

First and foremost among the ignored union positions is their case that T workers are being blamed for an antiquated signal system that should have been replaced years ago.

Boston Carmen’s Union President/Business Agent Steve MacDougall said the following in a statement to on public safety on Wednesday

There is no question that MBTA operators have the primary responsibility for passenger safety on the Green Line.

Whether it’s to prohibit cell phone use, implement better hiring practices or better training, we are fully supportive of very high standards for operator safety and professionalism.

But there is a bigger issue here . . . Where is the MBTA’s commitment for a safer operation on the Green Line?

Each time there is a serious accident, T management conveniently checks the box and quickly attributes the accident to operator error . . .Then management issues a new directive and they close the file.

The truth is that the T’ commitment to safety is lacking, if there was a true commitment to safety, we would not be running the Green Line on an antiquated signal system.

Today technology solutions exist that would prevent these types of accidents from occurring. Fail Safe signal systems are the railroad standard throughout the world.

The Green Line should have a modern signal system designed to ensure passenger safety and prevent collisions. How many more serious accidents need to occur before the T makes the investment?

When it comes to passenger safety, MBTA operators should be held to very high standards . . . But T management should be held to the same high standards. With the technology available today there is no excuse for not equipping the Green Line with a Fail Safe signal system.

This is particularly important because the Green Line has more trains traveling through its tunnels in less time than anywhere else in the country. Yet, it is the only major subway system without a Fail Safe signaling system.

Beyond very real problems with the state of the Green Line, the union has decided to protest the MBTA's new ban on electronic devices - Special Order 9-56 - on grounds that should strike a chord with working people everywhere.

Boston Carmen's Union Recording Secretary put it this way in a hand delivered grievance filing to MBTA Assistant General Manager Brian Donahoe

Local 589 appreciates the gravity of the recent accident which appears, at least from press reports, to have occurred while a Green Line Operator was engaged in "texting." The Union shares the goal of reassuring the public and dissuade any employee who might do such a thing, so as to make sure that service is as safe as it can be. The Union supports adopting a rule which prohibits the use of possession of an electronic device which is turned on so as to send or receive messages or provide music or other diversion to the driver. However, our members bring personal belongings of a wide variety with them to work in bags, lunch boxes, or pocketbooks, simply as a normal, natural part of everyday life. Many also have work breaks of 30 minutes to several hours, when they are unpaid, but away from home and must conduct normal, everyday affairs such as shopping, errands and so forth which are facilitated by electronic communication devices. Devices are now built as small as a thumbnail. Calculators, cell phones, i-pods, gps transceivers and the like are made so as to be stored and transported unobtrusively and we estimate that a certain percentage of our members travel with such a device, not realizing its whereabouts, let alone using it, every day. The devices are lawful and even necessary accouterments of every day life in the modern world. Lockers are not provided to operators, and for those who do not report or leave work in a station location, would be meaningless anyway. Yet, under the Special Order, any person possessing such a device, even turned off or disabled without a battery installed, or wrapped in original heavy plastic packaging would receive at least 10 days off and, after a second offense, dischage. This is unreasonable under the contract, unprecedented in the industry and profoundly unfair to our members, without sound reason.

The full text of these and related communications can be the general public at the union's website atwww.carmensunion589.org anytime. The union's leadership has definitely been speaking up wherever a platform is afforded to them in the news media. But such platforms, we fear, are too few and far between to garner enough public support to stop the T and the state legislature from ramming through the overwrought anti-worker policy that is Special Order 9-56. Especially in the anti-union climate constantly whipped up in much of the regional and national media.

As usual, though, we're going to stick up for T workers here at Open Media Boston and demand that the MBTA and any politicians that are leaping on this ever-so-convenient bandwagon modify Special Order 9-56 and any bills attempting to give the order the force of law to allow T drivers to live normal lives like the rest of us. While nobody wants to be a victim of a preventable accident on the T, as long as drivers are mandated to keep their electronic devices off while driving, it's all good as far as we're concerned. And we certainly support finding the money to make the critical upgrades to the Green Line signal system - which will do more protect the T riders than any other reform on presently on offer.

We'd also like to see more sympathetic coverage of workers rights in this situation from the rest of the Boston press corps. But that, unfortunately, may still be a little too much to ask. Maybe when a bunch more news media people lose their jobs we'll start to get a more balanced view out of them on these matters. Of course, by then it will be too late.

Jason Pramas is Editor/Publisher of Open Media Boston.