Transit Scheduling--from:
http://www.octranspo.com/mapscheds/Contingency/PDF_documents/Scheduling Council 20090114a.pdf
January 14, 2009
2
History of Scheduling History of Scheduling
• In 1996, ATU bargained away paid breaks in return for higher
wages and received competitive wage awards every year since
• Unresolved issues from the 1996 23-day strike formed part of the
1998 KPMG/IBI Comprehensive Review and scheduling
practices were identified as a source of discontent in the
associated employee survey
• A joint Operator Working Group identified problem areas in
allocating work to drivers to be considered for future negotiations
• OC Transpo resolved the 1999 negotiations through a
unconventional model
• Employees acquired the ability to assemble their work pieces
• Ability to exchange work
• Introduction of additional premiums for 2 piece work
• To resolve the 2001 negotiations, the ATU acquired the ability to
influence operations through a standing committee
3
Conclusion Conclusion
Further implementation of the direction outlined in the
1999 KPMG/IBI Report is justified as it accounts for our
objectives of safety, reliability and efficiency
Remaining elements are to:
• Introduce standards of safety
• Return to the economic balance in work scheduling
(Operator selection was not recommended)
4
Current Situation Current Situation
• 2007 Customer and Employee research identified
need to improve service reliability through scheduling
as the #1 issue
• Management opened negotiations with a commitment
to resolve scheduling, address efficiency and ATU
demanded all scheduling issues be resolved through
this round of negotiations
• In 2007, new legal standards of safety were set
nationally, excluding OC Transpo
5
Scheduling Objectives Scheduling Objectives
• Safety – meet public expectations of minimum safety
standards
• Reliability – to improve on-time trips
• Efficiency – labor model fosters unproductive costs
and premiums
• Employee satisfaction – realistic schedules and work
selection equity
6
How do Operators Select Work Today? How do Operators Select Work Today?
1. 53% of Operators choose straight runs – 8 hour
guarantee available and daytime straights preferred
by most senior Operators
2. 23% of Operators choose work which pays highest
premiums, all with spreads greater than 12 hours
• Can earn 1 hour of guarantee, or
• Can get overtime for every minute > 8 hours, and
• Non-worked hours earn days off
3. Last 24% of employees (low seniority) pick-up
remaining short split runs where they work usually 12
days for 80 hours with spreads less than 13.5 hours
7
Safety Safety
• In 2007, new legal standards of safety were set at the Federal
level for bus operations – similar to O-Train operation
• Today, the public is exposed to unacceptable risks of fatigue:
• About 65 employees drive more than normal legal standard of
14 hours daily (at least once a week)
• To get overtime on stat holidays some operators (5) get less
than 6 hours rest in 32 hours of work
• About 10 operators (9 of 10 are senior ones) rarely take a day
off (45 to 190 days of continuous work)
• Our proposal aligns with these standards:
• Maximum 14 hours driving in a row
• Minimum 8 hours of continuous rest per 24-hour period
• Minimum 1 day off every 14-day period
8
Reliability Reliability
• Both management and the ATU agree that service
reliability must be improved – agree on using GPS to
adjust running times
• To offset growing inefficiency, management has not
been able to expand run and trip recovery times
• If management assembles work, we could achieve
recovery times as high as 10%
• Our proposal has guaranteed a minimum of 5%; and
can be improved depending on ATU demands to
restrict interlining
9
Efficiency Efficiency
• There are too many short inefficient runs
• We require more operators and buses to run the
business than necessary
• We want to package work to ensure fewer guarantees
and less overtime is paid
• Guarantees have more than doubled to $2M per year as
operators master the system – no employer protection
• Overtime has been institutionalized and grew by 400% since
1997
10
Employee Satisfaction Employee Satisfaction
• Employees seek work selection equity and realistic
schedules – “management doesn’t care about
operators and the union only cares about senior
operators” (KPMG/Core Strategies Surveys)
• Any new regime must preserve the widest options of
work to meet operators’ personal preferences
• By improving run and trip recovery times, employee
satisfaction will improve through ensuring that each
operator has adequate personal time at the end of
each trip and reduce stress
11
What is at Stake? What is at Stake?
• November 2007 Report to Council identified drop in productivity
since 1999 – labor productivity loss of 1% annually
• The 2007 Long Range Financial Plan approved by Council set
fare increases at 7.5% to improve the revenue cost ratio.
Management recommended a 5% productivity gain to meet this
objective
• 2009 Budget approved with a 1.5% economic increase, a $1.8M
improvement in Operator wages and $1M in efficiency savings
for scheduling improvements
• Failure to achieve savings will require consideration of future
service reductions in order to meet financial targets
12
Why the Impasse? Why the Impasse?
• Union Executive is focused on recovery time as a
means to secure a better work experience for its
members
• Management’s issue is to ensure a minimum standard
of public safety through work-rest rules
• To achieve improved recovery time a series of
measures affecting work scheduling is required
• Management has identified that by reducing inefficient
choices of work or eliminating premiums,
improvements can be financed to meet the Union’s
demands
• Financing of the improvements is the core issue
http://www.octranspo.com/mapscheds/Contingency/PDF_documents/Scheduling Council 20090114a.pdf
January 14, 2009
2
History of Scheduling History of Scheduling
• In 1996, ATU bargained away paid breaks in return for higher
wages and received competitive wage awards every year since
• Unresolved issues from the 1996 23-day strike formed part of the
1998 KPMG/IBI Comprehensive Review and scheduling
practices were identified as a source of discontent in the
associated employee survey
• A joint Operator Working Group identified problem areas in
allocating work to drivers to be considered for future negotiations
• OC Transpo resolved the 1999 negotiations through a
unconventional model
• Employees acquired the ability to assemble their work pieces
• Ability to exchange work
• Introduction of additional premiums for 2 piece work
• To resolve the 2001 negotiations, the ATU acquired the ability to
influence operations through a standing committee
3
Conclusion Conclusion
Further implementation of the direction outlined in the
1999 KPMG/IBI Report is justified as it accounts for our
objectives of safety, reliability and efficiency
Remaining elements are to:
• Introduce standards of safety
• Return to the economic balance in work scheduling
(Operator selection was not recommended)
4
Current Situation Current Situation
• 2007 Customer and Employee research identified
need to improve service reliability through scheduling
as the #1 issue
• Management opened negotiations with a commitment
to resolve scheduling, address efficiency and ATU
demanded all scheduling issues be resolved through
this round of negotiations
• In 2007, new legal standards of safety were set
nationally, excluding OC Transpo
5
Scheduling Objectives Scheduling Objectives
• Safety – meet public expectations of minimum safety
standards
• Reliability – to improve on-time trips
• Efficiency – labor model fosters unproductive costs
and premiums
• Employee satisfaction – realistic schedules and work
selection equity
6
How do Operators Select Work Today? How do Operators Select Work Today?
1. 53% of Operators choose straight runs – 8 hour
guarantee available and daytime straights preferred
by most senior Operators
2. 23% of Operators choose work which pays highest
premiums, all with spreads greater than 12 hours
• Can earn 1 hour of guarantee, or
• Can get overtime for every minute > 8 hours, and
• Non-worked hours earn days off
3. Last 24% of employees (low seniority) pick-up
remaining short split runs where they work usually 12
days for 80 hours with spreads less than 13.5 hours
7
Safety Safety
• In 2007, new legal standards of safety were set at the Federal
level for bus operations – similar to O-Train operation
• Today, the public is exposed to unacceptable risks of fatigue:
• About 65 employees drive more than normal legal standard of
14 hours daily (at least once a week)
• To get overtime on stat holidays some operators (5) get less
than 6 hours rest in 32 hours of work
• About 10 operators (9 of 10 are senior ones) rarely take a day
off (45 to 190 days of continuous work)
• Our proposal aligns with these standards:
• Maximum 14 hours driving in a row
• Minimum 8 hours of continuous rest per 24-hour period
• Minimum 1 day off every 14-day period
8
Reliability Reliability
• Both management and the ATU agree that service
reliability must be improved – agree on using GPS to
adjust running times
• To offset growing inefficiency, management has not
been able to expand run and trip recovery times
• If management assembles work, we could achieve
recovery times as high as 10%
• Our proposal has guaranteed a minimum of 5%; and
can be improved depending on ATU demands to
restrict interlining
9
Efficiency Efficiency
• There are too many short inefficient runs
• We require more operators and buses to run the
business than necessary
• We want to package work to ensure fewer guarantees
and less overtime is paid
• Guarantees have more than doubled to $2M per year as
operators master the system – no employer protection
• Overtime has been institutionalized and grew by 400% since
1997
10
Employee Satisfaction Employee Satisfaction
• Employees seek work selection equity and realistic
schedules – “management doesn’t care about
operators and the union only cares about senior
operators” (KPMG/Core Strategies Surveys)
• Any new regime must preserve the widest options of
work to meet operators’ personal preferences
• By improving run and trip recovery times, employee
satisfaction will improve through ensuring that each
operator has adequate personal time at the end of
each trip and reduce stress
11
What is at Stake? What is at Stake?
• November 2007 Report to Council identified drop in productivity
since 1999 – labor productivity loss of 1% annually
• The 2007 Long Range Financial Plan approved by Council set
fare increases at 7.5% to improve the revenue cost ratio.
Management recommended a 5% productivity gain to meet this
objective
• 2009 Budget approved with a 1.5% economic increase, a $1.8M
improvement in Operator wages and $1M in efficiency savings
for scheduling improvements
• Failure to achieve savings will require consideration of future
service reductions in order to meet financial targets
12
Why the Impasse? Why the Impasse?
• Union Executive is focused on recovery time as a
means to secure a better work experience for its
members
• Management’s issue is to ensure a minimum standard
of public safety through work-rest rules
• To achieve improved recovery time a series of
measures affecting work scheduling is required
• Management has identified that by reducing inefficient
choices of work or eliminating premiums,
improvements can be financed to meet the Union’s
demands
• Financing of the improvements is the core issue
