Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ATU members press Charles County board about bus contracting, say bargaining stalled and some contractors retaliate
Summary
Two representatives of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 addressed the board during public forum, saying unionized school bus drivers face employer retaliation and that several contractors have refused to bargain; they urged the county to require better contractor practices.
Representatives from Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 told the Board of Education during the public‑comment period on May 13 that unionized school bus drivers in Charles County are facing resistance from some private contractors and that bargaining over wages and conditions has stalled.
At the public forum, union organizers described a two‑year organizing campaign and said they have won union representation elections at nine contracted operators serving the county. "Since April and May of 2022, when we won union elections at 9 school bus contractors in Charles County, our members have fought hard to win fair contracts and fix the broken school bus contracting system," Ania Banks, an ATU organizer, said. Banks said only three of the contractors have agreed to bargain with the union and that other companies have either avoided bargaining or faced National Labor Relations Board complaints.
Union claims and district role Union speakers said contractor pay rates rose elsewhere in Maryland and vendor hourly rates for related services increased, drawing employees away. The union urged the board to use its leverage over contractors and to require contractor conduct that treats employees fairly. "Contractors can afford to retire at a decent age while our members have worked for the aforementioned contractors for decades and have no real retirement security," Banks said.
What board members asked Board members did not respond with formal policy actions at the meeting; the public‑forum comments were heard as stakeholder testimony. Several board members said the concerns raised — retaliation allegations and protracted bargaining — merited follow‑up from district staff and legal counsel to review the county’s contracting language and potential remedies.
District context The speakers said a handful of local contractors have been slow to engage with bargaining representatives and that some operators closed rather than accept a recognized bargaining unit. Organizers argued the county’s contracting process can create a “wild west” environment if it does not require transparent labor practices. They urged the board to take stronger steps ensuring contractors treat drivers fairly and to consider contract terms that include standards for employee relations.
Ending The district did not announce a formal action at the May 13 meeting; district staff said they will follow up with stakeholders and review options for ensuring contractor compliance with county expectations.
