Last week, Metro bus driver John Nelson became a household name in Madison for his 2009 paycheck of $159,258. It's twice the median income of a Madison household plus a nice used car. While arguments over whether Nelson deserves all this are pointless, the number does dig up some deep issues in the Metro Transit System.
Bus drivers' entry into the $100,000 club is not new to Madison. Since 1998, Metro drivers have been frequenting the city-paid top earners list, which The Capital Times pointed out early in 2007. Last year, the hourly pay of these drivers was $26.02 with 50 percent more for overtime hours. As federal guidelines on hour-limit do not apply to city bus drivers, they can basically work however many hours they want, so long as there is at least a 10-hour break between shifts, according to Metro General Manager Chuck Kamp. Union contracts further catalyzed the overtime boom by allowing senior bus drivers like Nelson the first chance at overtime hours. Nelson worked more overtime than regular hours in 2009. All told, his hours added up to 3,909, averaging 75 per week. We all remember being constantly warned against drowsy driving, but the same warning seems to be neglected in the Metro buses. Thanks to the union and its overtime policy, Nelson's salary jumped from $113,610 to $159,258 within three years, an increase of 35 percent.
But on the receiving end of Metro services, we're getting a similar increase with the 50-cent bump in bus fare last year. The preceding bitter debate in 2009 put the mayor at loggerheads with Madison's Transit and Parking Commission. The gloomy picture of Metro, supposedly hopeless without a 50-cent increase, prompted every rider to extend their ""bailout"" hands. The current $2 price makes Madison buses some of the most expensive to ride in the country. But now that Metro is teeming with big earners, how can you justify its fare increase when its employees enjoy swift pay raises?
The city's 2010 operating budget shows state funding for Metro will increase by $338,000. This extra boost alone could fill up almost half of Metro's worst budget deficit, which came in December 2008. Considering the increasing ridership and easing economy, could we bring the $1.50 fare back? City-paid workers have unions to bargain for them. But who bargains for taxpayers?
During the tightest financial crunches, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz put a sharp brake on the city's hiring. In retrospect, we could allow for more flexibility and innovation in job creation and budget saving. Did the politically appealing ""hiring freeze"" actually solve the problem? In Metro's case, it does not help with employee welfare or quality of service. Letting one senior employee work as two is simply not as practical as letting two share the overwhelming hours. If we accept eight-hour days as the most productive norm, working 11 hours every day is simply killing efficiency. Wouldn't it be better if we filled in the vacancies with new jobs instead of overtime hours? Even though the initial ""hiring for saving"" call may sound counterintuitive, the city could easily persuade its people with valid numbers.
Besides Madison, Metro's operating issues could emerge from other parts of the state as well. Once the Regional Transit Authority starts bringing in more rails, all major Wisconsin transit nodes will gradually be connected. By then, shrinking ridership and accelerating competition for the budget will force more local buses to make changes. Leaving adjustments behind will not only hurt taxpayers' confidence today, but it also endangers the future of Wisconsin's pension system. It is the ninth largest public pension fund in the U.S., according to state records. Given Wisconsin's medium-sized population, the system is already shouldering more responsibilities than many of its peers. As more people strive to buoy their pay in the years leading up to retirement, the system could soon feel a huge financial drag.
The discussion on bus drivers' pay illuminates a malfunctioning part of Madison's government architecture. Similar compensation logic might be running through other city branches as well. Recurring heated debates surrounding the issue should have sent a clear message to the government: don't just give lip service, actually address the root of the problem.
Qi Gu is a junior majoring in journalism. Please send all responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com
