It is almost pathetic that most AU students, not to mention some of us at The Eagle, were oblivious to the bus drivers' union AU workers formed in October 2006. Despite the massive legal battle that persists today, only a few campus organizations have voiced their dissatisfaction with AU's handling of the unionization process.
Center to the union debate is a series of abuses bus drivers outlined in a letter they sent to the Office of Risk Management and Safety Services in May 2006. Allegedly, the university failed to reimburse bus drivers for their uniforms and cleaning supplies, disrespected and excluded the workers from the office and increased the hours they work and the frequency of their trips. Later, bus drivers complained that the new bus schedule forced them to take fewer breaks, a side effect they felt compromised their ability to do their job.
But the university, which maintains it committed no wrongdoing, fired back, claiming that it provided its workers adequate reimbursement and hour-long lunch breaks and was more than willing to accommodate the drivers' needs.
Frankly, anyone has the right to form a union. Tony Newman, director of Risk Management and Transportation Services, told The Eagle that AU supported the drivers' move toward collective bargaining. That kind of support is important, considering how much the student body relies on its bus drivers. It should not matter through what channels the university negotiates so long as it facillitates a positive working environment.
Perhaps if AU addressed the needs of its drivers before disputes erupted, there wouldn't be a need for a union at all. It is not easy to drive a continuous route multiple hours each day, and if the drivers' accusations are true, it is certainly much more difficult without breaks. Demanding more from the drivers without their input threatens the safety of the students who depend on AU transportation, not to mention the future of the transportation system itself.
