But Sound Transit says they’re bargaining “in good faith,” and that staffers should have known they couldn’t work from home indefinitely.
By Erica C. Barnett
For months, Sound Transit staffers have been trying to negotiate with their bosses over what they describe as return-to-office mandate and an increasing reliance on consultants rather than staff. But, they say, the regional bus and light-rail agency has refused to bargain, ignoring or rebuffing their primary demands over months of negotiations that reached an impasse
Earlier this month, Sound Transit staff who recently joined the PROTEC17 union, including internal specialists who help oversee projects and keep track of costs, packed a Sound Transit board meeting to express their disappointment in the lack of progress. One staffer who testified accused Sound Transit of “stonewalling at the negotiating table”; another said the agency was pushing an “agenda of overspending, risky contract procurement and major sweeping changes without our input.”
This past March, after more than a year of interim leadership, the Sound Transit board appointed former King County Executive Dow Constantine as its CEO.
A Sound Transit spokeswoman, Rachelle Cunningham, said the agency “is committed to respecting employees’ rights to organize and to maintaining strong, collaborative relationships with our labor partners, grounded in inclusion, respect, and shared purpose.”
One major point of contention is Sound Transit’s return-to-office policy, which requires most staffers to come in to the agency’s office in the Chinatown-International District three days a week. (Staffers say they got just 30 days’ notice of the change). Because Sound Transit told employees they could work from anywhere in Washington state during the pandemic, some moved out of the Seattle area and are now expected to commute hours to the office after working remotely for the past five years.
Staffers told PubliCola Sound Transit never gave a clear reason for the policy change. “There really isn’t a good argument, as far as our work is concerned, to force everybody into one location,” one staffer, who requested anonymity to protect their job, said. “The only argument that’s been giving is the ‘revitalization of Seattle.'” Another staffer added that Sound Transit opened two new light rail extensions successfully during the pandemic, suggesting that employees could work effectively without coming in to a physical office.
For staffers who relocated outside Seattle on the belief that Sound Transit’s remote work policy would be ongoing, the sudden return-to-office mandate could mean factoring an hours-long unpaid commute into every workday spent at Sound Transit headquarters. “For me, it means being less productive—actually getting less work done, because so much of my time is going to be spent commuting,” the first staffer said.
Cunningham said the agency started implementing it return-to-office policy at the beginning of 2025, and that “there was never a policy that stated employees could live anywhere in Washington and work remotely on a permanent basis.” The union disagrees, arguing that return-to-office is a work condition that Sound Transit needs to negotiate with represented employees.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
The second Sound Transit staffer said parts of their job are now being done by contractors who were supposed to augment, but not replace, Sound Transit staff. “I had to kick, scream and claw myself into meetings” where they were previously part of decision-making, the staffer said. “These consultants don’t know what they don’t know in terms of Sound Transit processes.”
In addition to hiring more contractors to do agency work, Sound Transit is moving toward a new contract procurement method in which multiple contractors are awarded a single contract to compete for individual jobs. They fear that this, too, could be a way of boxing out Sound Transit staff in favor of private contractors. “Leadership is hollowing out [and moving] our public agency towards a privatization framework, replacing us with consultants,” the first staffer said.
“There weren’t a lot of answers about the need for this big change,” the second staffer added. “It’s all up in the air, it’s all new, and there has been very little communication about our place in all this. … There’s a lack of trust in internal staff and a feeling that we’re not important to the vision for the agency.”
Cunningham said there’s been “no change” in how Sound Transit uses contractors. “The need for consultant services changes to reflect the needs of project delivery and operations, but nothing is being done differently than in the past,” she said.
After the action at the board meeting November 6, PROTEC17 director Karen Estevenin said, “we have received proposals on some of our top issues, and had a decent negotiation session. We plan to keep up the solidarity and actions until we have an agreement we can all be proud of.”
Mandatory Subject of Bargaining: Under U.S. labor law, employers have a legal duty to bargain in good faith with the union over changes to “wages, hours, and working conditions.” The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has determined that return-to-office plans—especially after a period of remote work—fall under this category as they constitute a change in working conditions.
No Unilateral Changes: An employer generally cannot make a “material, substantial, and significant change” to a mandatory subject of bargaining, like requiring a return to the office, without first providing the union with notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain to an agreement or impasse.
Past Practice: The employer’s ability to implement an RTO policy unilaterally without bargaining can be complicated by past practice. If the employer had an established practice of allowing remote work, the union can argue that the change requires negotiation.
Specifics of Bargaining: Negotiations would typically cover the details of the RTO policy, which might include:
The required number of in-office days.
Health and safety protocols (ventilation, cleaning, etc.).
Arrangements for employees with medical or disability-related accommodation needs.
Impact on previously agreed-upon telework or remote work arrangements.
No one said you don’t have a right to bargain, the question is. Should you!
I’m retired City of Seattle manager, when Covid hit our union staff graciously approved of our flexibility of working through those very bizarre conditions. To find now that since it’s past practice of working from home let’s bargain! Public Employees unions are on the verge of killing the golden goose.
Part of the reason return to office is difficult is that Seattle has a craptactular transit system
Revitalizing downtown is an excellent rationale. Others include creativity, random interactions, mentoring, shared institutional knowledge, using the transit product, and intergovernmental cooperation. Yes, management should be fair and communicate well. Got plinth?
No, it’s not an excellent rationale. Martin Selig and other commercial property owners can fuck right off. Getting people out of SOVs to meet our climate goals isn’t feasible if we slip right back into the same old stupid systems as before.
As for the others, you’re presuming that everyone finds the same value in meat space interactions as you. I’m perfectly capable of sharing knowledge, mentoring, and cooperating with other agencies when I work from home as when I schlep downtown. Miss me with this control-freak, Boomer bullshit.
Anyone who believes they can mentor colleagues effectively, remotely, is very likely doing a poor job of it.
As a retired manager of dozens to hundreds of ProTec17 employees who also lost their shit when told to come back to the office two days a week, my sympathy is with under-served customers. IMO, government employees whose self-centered perspective ignores the tangible benefits of human interaction with their colleagues (its called behavioral science gxc), let alone the benefit to the people you serve of being available to them at a known place at a known time, have only their self-interest to stand on.
As I shared with my last (and best) shop steward, at some point the public is going to object to solid pay and extraordinary benefits (health care and defined pensions) for government workers who never want to come to work.
And on a more legal basis, I’m unaware of any local 17 Collective Bargaining Agreement that didn’t have as a default assumption a 40 hour work week in an office pre-covid (excepting first responders or others doing shift work where scheduling is more complex, including osha rules on working 12 hr. shifts). The union’s legal basis for assuming a right to bargain would seem to be predicated on emergency orders that are no longer in place. ST and every other organization whose employees are under a CBA will be having some version of this fight.
Excessive use of consultants makes transit projects more expensive. https://www.volts.wtf/p/us-transit-costs-and-how-to-tame