Transit workers and allies press Rochester to reconsider Transdev contract amid suspension claims
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Multiple speakers during public comment urged the city not to renew or to reconsider its contract with Transdev, alleging suspension of drivers without completed investigations, union-busting tactics and service disruptions; speakers demanded the city act to protect workers and service reliability.
Several residents and labor representatives used the council’s public comment period on Feb. 18 to press the city on labor and transit issues tied to Transdev, the private operator under contract to run Rochester Public Transit.
Adam Busby, speaking for Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1005, said the union has raised concerns about "union-busting tactics" and disciplinary practices by Transdev. "The harsh discipline ... all falls right in line with union busting," Busby said, urging the city to act where the contractor appears complicit. Former union president Ryan Timlin said 14 operators had been suspended without completed investigations and described the suspensions as a morale issue that needs to be addressed.
Workers' Strike Back member Emma Smith and resident Toby Holloway urged the city not to renew its contract with Transdev unless worker demands are met. Smith said organizers do not "consent to the city of Rochester aligning with exploiters of the working class" and called for the city to advocate for workers. Holloway noted union votes rejecting Transdev offers and authorizing a strike if negotiations fail, and said recent suspensions have led to staffing shortages, dropped routes and stranded riders.
City Administrator Zelms told the council the transit system experienced a significant disruption on Feb. 11 when 40% of fixed-route drivers called in and 37 trips were missed; staff have requested a federal mediator and said Transdev is under contract while negotiations proceed. Speakers asked the council to consider the city’s role in overseeing contractor performance and whether alternative service arrangements or more oversight are appropriate.
No council action was taken during the meeting on the Transdev contract; public comments were recorded for follow-up by staff.
