school districts around the country. Private contractors say that they can potentially save school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars. Private bus companies also point out that they specialize in transportation, whereas school districts spe- cialize in education. “That’s what we do,” says John Benish Jr., chief operating of-


ficer at Cook-Illinois Corp., in Chicago, one of the largest bus contractors in the Midwest. “We try to let the school districts spend more money on educating students and let us worry about transportation.” Timothy Stokes, spokesman for First Student, the larg-


est contractor in the nation, agrees with Benish. “Privatizing school bus transportation with us allows schools to focus their energy and resources on education,” Stokes says. And when it comes to union negotiations, some contrac-


tors say that wage and benefit negotiations are at the top of the list of challenges. Tey view sick pay and personal days as incentivizing drivers to not come to work, and districts bear the added cost of paying substitutes. Many also say senior- ity and a limited ability to terminate poor-performing drivers complicates operations. What was a pro-union atmosphere in the Midwest nearly two decades ago is now permeated with an anti-union backlash that seeks to usurp their collec- tive bargaining powers, especially in Ohio and Wisconsin. “I think unions definitely impede on our ability to be flex-


ible in our business,” says Magda Dimmendaal, the incoming president of NSTA and owner and CEO of Dousman Trans- port Company serving 39 school districts in Wisconsin. She adds that the end result can be higher costs that must be passed on to the customer. Bus drivers counter with their own warnings, among them


child safety, driver training and screening. But the bottom line for unionized drivers is job security, pay, health care and retirement. Drivers employed by school districts claim that, even if they are retained by private contractors, they still lose, because few contractors can match state benefits. And much of the promised cost savings come at the expense of lower wages and lost benefits, which can translate into less qualified drivers. Opponents of privatization also say the savings are tempo-


rary and that costs will actually increase over time. “Privatization does not make sense,” IUPAT’s Hall argues.


“Private companies must turn a profit and will do it somehow. Tey usually cut drivers’ health care, even if they match the ex- isting hourly rate. Public employees do the job at cost. When private companies do the job, they’ve got to turn a profit.” Te Los Angeles Unified School District began using con-


tractors more than 40 years ago to comply with integration mandates. Donald Wilkes, interim transportation director, supplements his fleet with four contractors, and the situation is working well. “One advantage is it allows us to grow and shrink as nec-


essary,” Wilkes says. “Our requirements for special needs students are unpredictable. Our contract fleets can shrink or expand by terms of the contract.”


Wilkes says the district does not control what contractors


pay their drivers. He said many drivers may begin with a con- tractor and ultimately apply for a position as a district driver. “We do not set the standard for their pay and benefit


packages,” Wilkes says. “However, two of our four contract partners have unions and offer benefits such as sick leave and vacations. Te packages are competitive, but public em- ployees enjoy packages not offered by many employers. Tis balance is a good one.” Daniel Gilbreth, manager of transportation operation ser-


vices in the San Diego Unified School District, discontinued using contractors last year because it became too expensive. San Diego found that combining student populations and creative scheduling, including furloughs, satisfied its needs and saved money. “It took us a while to show our chief financial officer that


paying someone an hour of overtime was less costly than bringing in and paying a benefited driver,” Gilbreth says. “We saved close to $3 million from 2009 to 2010 by letting the contracted drivers go. We are doing all the routes as of this school year.” At least two studies paid for by bargaining units have been


conducted over the past 15 years that appear to support claims that privatization is not the panacea it is billed to be. The Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA) com-


missioned a 2004 study by the Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon that was updated in 2008. “All Costs Considered: A New Analysis on the Contracting Out of School Support Services in Oregon,” found that the quality of life in the community, wages, health insurance and morale were adversely affected by privatization. “Public sector drivers are better off, definitely,” says OSEA


Director of Government Relations Ed Edwards. “Public em- ployees get sick leave. When the school districts privatize bus drivers get no sick leave at all. Te salary difference is between three and four dollars an hour. We’re working hard to do away with these disincentives.” Bob Bussel, co-author of the report, adds that continuity is


also an issue. “We tended to find much more turnover with private contractors, which is not surprising,” he says. “(Dis- trict employees) work in the district long term. They live and raise their children there.” An earlier AFSCME study, “Taking Them for a Ride: An As-


sessment of the Privatization of School Transportation in Ohio’s Public School Districts,” looked at 611 Ohio districts from 1994 through 1998. That study concluded that con- tracting districts paid between 24 percent and 50 percent more per pupil, and between 51 percent and 63 percent more per mile. It also indicated districts that used a mix of public and private transportation tended to transport only a small percentage of their students with private contractors, and school districts that relied exclusively on contractors received lower state reimbursements. If Madison (Ohio) School District officials were aware of that report it failed to dissuade them from privatizing their student


www.stnonline.com 39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60