Sen. Marc Pacheco slammed the MBTA's board on Monday, Jan. 27, 2020 for considering use of an outside vendor to operate 60 new buses, arguing that "privatization only results in higher costs and lower-quality service." State House News Service photo | Chris Lisinski

Dozens of union workers, elected officials and labor advocates crowded an MBTA board meeting Monday to slam officials for considering the use of a private bus operator to supplement public transit service.

Two weeks after floating the idea of using an outside vendor instead of T employees to maintain and operate 60 new buses, the T’s Fiscal and Management Control Board listened to more than an hour and a half of criticism from frustrated attendees concerned about the effects of privatization.

Half a dozen state senators, including Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight co-chair Sen. Marc Pacheco, said the plan could backfire and that the T should instead invest more to support its workforce.

Privatization, Pacheco said, is an “unnecessary gamble with a long history of failure.”

“Private bidders have no allegiance to the taxpayer or the bus passenger,” he told the board. “At the end of the day, privatization only results in higher costs and lower-quality service. That’s where they make the money, by cutting back on the services.”

During their Jan. 14 discussion, members indicated they may issue a request for proposals in February. T officials stressed Monday that they have not yet made a decision to commit to an outside vendor for bus operation and that they are still exploring the costs and benefits.

“The MBTA negotiated a labor agreement with several of our labor unions that allows us to consider flexible contracting with the expansion of service,” MBTA General Manager Steve Poftak told reporters. “We are currently in the process of procuring 60 buses. We are analyzing both in-house and outsourced proposals to operate those buses. That evaluation continues.”

In February 2018, the T and its bus mechanics union reached a collective bargaining agreement that called for unions to continue maintenance of the existing fleet while also allowing the MBTA to explore cost-reduction options for maintenance on new buses.

Union leaders and rank-and-file members packed Monday’s meeting to voice opposition. Jim Evers, president of the Boston Carmen’s Union representing more than 4,100 MBTA employees, criticized commuter rail operator Keolis, the T’s money room and issues with fare gates as he argued that “privatization isn’t the answer for our public transportation system.”

Michael Vartabedian, who represents Machinists Local 264 and has previously criticized the working conditions for union members, argued that tapping outside vendors will negatively affect both employees and passengers.

“You’ve got a public service that’s not designed to make a profit, and you’ve got a company that obviously needs to make a profit,” he said. “How are they going to make that profit if it’s not in cutting corners, cutting service and taking from the workers?”

Poftak told reporters that, because the 60 new buses will be added to supplement existing service, no operators will lose their jobs if the T agrees to a private contract.

Other aspects of T work already rely on private entities, such as its contract with Keolis to operate the commuter rail. One agreement allows the MBTA to use outside carriers such as Yankee Bus to provide service during rail shutdowns, which Poftak praised.

“That has given us the flexibility to do a lot more diversions and taken off some of the pressure to try to find people in house to work overtime given the size and scale of the diversions we’re doing,” Poftak said.

A 1993 state law named for Pacheco requires state agencies to prove they will save money by privatizing services, and for the state auditor to vet any proposals. In 2015, Gov. Charlie Baker secured a three-year waiver to those requirements for the MBTA, which has since expired.

Tim King, a member of the Department of Transportation Board of Directors, said he believes this proposal requires review from Auditor Suzanne Bump’s office now that the waiver has ended.

“There is absolutely no need to push privatization through just to get something on the road,” he said.

Poftak said the T’s top brass do not believe they need legislative approval to explore partial bus privatization.

“A decision has not been made and at no point would the MBTA lose control over which routes would be serviced and which would not,” he said. “That is an ongoing discussion.”