Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Busing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SF school bus drivers urge board to reconsider intent to award routes to Zoom ride‑sharing
Summary
Multiple long‑service SFUSD school bus drivers testified against transportation’s intent to award part of the district’s busing contract to ride‑sharing company Zoom, raising safety, certification and labor classification concerns and citing Assembly Bill 5.
Several current San Francisco school bus drivers told the Board of Education on Dec. 10 they oppose Transportation’s intent to award part of SFUSD’s school‑busing work to ride‑sharing company Zoom, saying the company’s driver model raises safety and labor compliance issues.
Shane Hoff, who identified himself as a 24‑year SF school bus driver, told the board the district’s "intent to award part of the busing school busing contract" to Zoom concerns drivers because ride‑sharing firms reduce labor costs by classifying drivers as independent contractors. "These ride sharing companies can only save money by not paying their drivers sick pay over time, denying them many basic worker protections," Hoff said, and he referenced California’s Assembly Bill 5 and recent court rulings as raising questions about that classification.
Meg Feltz and Sherry Klein, both long‑time drivers, described operational safety incidents they attributed to Zoom drivers and questioned scoring in the district’s procurement review where Zoom received higher marks on experience and personnel. "I was rather shocked to see Zoom … was given a 113 points over First Student who has been in the school bus busing business for 20 years," Feltz said. Klein described an incident she witnessed in which, she said, a Zoom van driver left students unattended in a vehicle.
Gail Flynn, a First Student certified instructor, raised questions about compliance with federal hours‑of‑service rules, vehicle inspection schedules and who will monitor Zoom drivers’ hours and maintenance if contracted.
District staff did not take action during public comment. The testimony put procurement staff and board members on notice; the board and committee members asked for clarity about how the ruling on worker classification (AB5) would affect the district’s vendor selection and contract execution.
What’s next: Board and procurement staff will need to reconcile legal compliance (worker classification), safety monitoring and procurement scoring before finalizing any contract award.
