I read with interest your editorial of Oct. 31 concerning privatization of Salt Lake City School District's Transportation Department. You make the point that all drivers, whether public or private, have to go through the same training and take the same tests. Point well-taken.
You mention the fact that Pat O'Hara, Utah State Transportation director, says there is no statistical difference between private and public contractors when comparing accident rates in the state of Utah.Mr. O'Hara may be right, but currently in the state of Utah, there are only three privatized districts, San Juan, Ogden and Logan. This is hardly a fair comparison. The only way that school districts will save money is by cutting salaries. As a past president of a classified association in this state, I find that suggestion reprehensible.
The district I work for currently starts drivers at $11.46 per hour and tops out at $13.59 per hour. Many of our drivers work at other jobs to supplement this income. When we compare what classified employees make with what administration employees make, the difference is great.
For example: $90,000 administration salary, 4 percent raise is $3,600. Classified/bus drivers making $13.04, top pay step last year to $13.59 and this year's top step adding $792, for a total last year for eight months or 180 days of $18,778 and this year, $19,570.
These figures are for those who are working in our district at the level of an eight-hour contract. Many work less than eight hours throughout the state.
One of the problems, as I see it, is that you do not mention ongoing training. Most people are not going to stay with the job long for the pay offered. Bus drivers take verbal abuse from students and parents on a daily basis. Just think about a kindergarten student "flipping you the bird" or a high school student directing obscenities at you. Parents also are unreasonable on many occasions, thinking that Johnny or Susie can do no wrong. For any trainer in a district that were to privatize, training would be a continual nightmare.
I have access to a magazine called School Bus Fleet June/July 1995 edition. This particular edition is a special contractor issue. Contractors discuss problems associated with school busing and school bus driver shortages. On page 34 it states, "This year's survey of school bus contractors reveals the private sector has been forced to accept lower profit margins while providing more services to school districts. Contractors also reported they are devoting more resources to driver recruitment. CDL requirements, drug and alcohol testing, and rowdy passengers have made it difficult for contractors to recruit and retain drivers for what is typically low-paying, part-time work."
The article further indicates on page 38, "At least a few mentioned they aren't replacing buses as often as necessary, and that they are lengthening payment contracts on equipment purchases."
Continuing on page 38, "Nearly all contractors reported they are having difficulty finding and retaining drivers. The reasons most contractors cited were increased government regulations and licensing requirements, low pay and the fact that most drivers don't get benefits. In addition, many survey respondents cited low unemployment as adding to the problem of a dwindling driver pool. Contractors were asked what steps they have taken to recruit and keep their drivers. Here's a sample from survey respondents. We are doing everything possible: higher pay, better equipment, video cameras to improve discipline problems; and targeting specific recruitment areas such as retired (people) and housewives. (Decker Trans. Inc., Russell, Pa.) `Increased pay and benefits.' (Servicar, Royal Oak, Mich.) `Increased compensation; we started a driver training school; advertising; and direct mail.' (Atlantic Express, Staten Island, N.Y.) Other contractors reported they pay finder fees to drivers who bring in new employees and that they pay drivers for holidays. More contractors this year reported they have begun paying for the cost of CDL training and testing."
While privatizing seems like a good idea on the surface, there can be many inherent problems such as:
1. Double taxation because of a tax-exempt status for purchase of buses, fuel, parts, licensing, etc. to which private agencies are not entitled.
2. Drivers with a private contractor would probably have the right to strike, which currently we have agreements in place not to do. Who would pick up the kids?
3. Who pays to replace buses when a district changes its mind and goes back to operating transportation as a district?
4. If a district decides to privatize, who pays for new facilities to park buses and fuel?
5. Whenever you hire people to work at a lower wage scale, less money goes back into the system from which taxes are generated to support the school system. Consequently, there is a lower overall standard of economy.
As an example of privatization we refer you to San Diego School District (maybe San Diego Unified School District).
I am surprised that Salt Lake District is continuing to explore privatization. It is my understanding that the new superintendent came from a California district that went to privatization and then back again. I could be wrong.
I think the superintendent of Cache County School District said it best when he said in an article printed in the Deseret News just recently that we owe some allegiance and loyalty to those who have worked for us for so long.
This may not change your opinion, but I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your editorial.