Teamsters not ‘giving up:' Why Seattle school bus drivers may strike this week
Some Seattle school bus drivers may go on strike as soon as Tuesday, April 1.
'A strong majority of those working for First Student voted over the weekend to authorize a strike against their employer,' Teamsters Local 174, which represents Seattle's bus drivers, stated on its Facebook page.
In addition to bus drivers, Teamsters Local 174 also represents school mechanics and dispatchers servicing the Seattle School District.
With their contract expiring Monday, March 31, the union could take advantage of a new Washington law that would require private school bus companies to offer equitable worker benefits to those received by school district bus drivers, according to the union.
Teamsters not 'giving up'
'First Student workers and their union have been working together to climb a mountain for years, striving to reach equal footing with their peers who work directly for school districts,' Teamsters Local 174 Secretary-Treasurer Rick Hicks said. 'Now that we are finally close and the summit is in sight, First Student has chosen to hold fast and refuse to continue bargaining…we aren't giving up until we reach the top of that mountain.'
The union said it last went on strike against First Student in 2018.
According to the union, First Student employs about half of the school district's bus drivers.
First Student 'disappointed'
First Student said Monday afternoon they had not been advised of an imminent work stoppage.
'We have more negotiating sessions scheduled at the end of April,' the company said in an email. 'We remain committed to reaching an agreement with Local 174 as soon as possible and encourage union leadership to join us in finding a resolution that prioritizes the best interests of our employees and the Seattle families who need us.'
'First Student is disappointed that Teamsters Local 174 membership has voted to authorize a strike,' the email said. 'We have been negotiating in good faith with union leadership since January to reach a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).'
KIRO Newsradio and MyNorthwest have reached out to the Seattle School District for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
Will a rapidly rising NHL salary cap end the parity era? Mirtle mailbag
With the NHL in the heart of its offseason, we put out the call for your burning questions a few weeks ago when the hockey news cycle started dying down. The response was an interesting mix of queries about changes in the CBA, the rapidly rising salary cap and how certain teams on the outside of the playoff race may get back into it, among many other topics. There was lots of good stuff there, to be sure. Let's dig into a few here, and we can answer more in coming the weeks as we count down to training camps opening in about a month. Does a quickly rising cap mean less parity? — Martin D. I think eventually we will get there, but a $95.5 million salary cap for the 2025-26 season isn't going to do it. It just isn't high enough, not when a lot of teams are clearing $200 million or more in annual revenue. For one, half the league is basically spending to the cap already, and with a few unrestricted and restricted free agents still to sign, more teams will join that list by the season-opening puck drop on Oct. 7. And there really wasn't that much roster movement overall this offseason, especially at the top end of team's lineups. Advertisement It's going to take time for the new CBA to affect roster construction and, by extension, team quality. Likely three or four years. We saw this offseason how much teams scrambled to lock up their existing talent and how weak an already-thin free agent class was as a result. But how does that dynamic change if we're talking about a cap that's another $20 million or more north of where it is now? How is that extra $640 million league-wide going to get spent? Will it mean a major redistribution of talent, from contending teams to those trying to get better, or is it going to simply make it easier for the Floridas of the league to keep everyone in-house, like they did this summer? Will the full amount even get spent at all? When things get interesting is if more and more teams start spending below the salary midpoint — the halfway mark between the cap and the floor — and maybe even closer to the bottom. We haven't really seen that dynamic in the NHL before, and the league seems to be trying to guard against it somewhat by increasing revenue sharing payouts. But at some point the smaller markets aren't going to be able to keep pace with 9 percent payroll bumps every year. So you may end up in a place where teams that have a lot of extra money and are anxious to get better (i.e. big markets that have struggled like Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia) are able to really blow free agents out of the water with huge offers, changing the math for pending UFAs on whether to stay where they are. And that ability to outright buy talent on a more regular basis could certainly change how big-market teams go about rebuilding or retooling their rosters. But it's not ever going to be like MLB — not with a hard cap. And it's going to take star players being more willing to go to market, the way Mitch Marner did this summer, than they have been in the last 20 years under the cap. Perhaps the promise of a significantly richer payday makes that happen as more and more money floods the UFA market. Will the Red Wings ever be a free-agent destination? Is the Yzerplan a massive failure? — Derek F. Not a bad segue for us there, Derek. I know Detroit was pushing for some of the top potential UFAs this summer, but as mentioned above, a lot of them didn't end up even getting to market. Aaron Ekblad, in particular, could have signed for a much thicker average annual value in Michigan than the $6.1 million he took with Florida. Advertisement Is Detroit as sexy of a UFA landing spot as Vegas or Dallas right now? No. But it's also not one of the teams that's going on the top of players' limited no-trade clauses like some other markets. It's still an Original Six team, with a strong history and a new building, and it's also close to home for a lot of NHLers. Patrick Kane certainly likes it there, for example. The biggest thing working against the Red Wings, and the reason they're having to overpay lower-tier talent to add free agents, is that they just haven't been competitive enough. The no-state-tax factor has been talked to death, but the other thing in common between a lot of the teams that most players want to go to (or stay with) is that they win a lot of games. It's coming up on a decade for Detroit out of the playoffs and they haven't won a playoff round since that lockout-shortened season in 2013. Steve Yzerman came back as general manager in 2019, so only six of those seasons are on him — and realistically, given the mess he inherited, this was a pretty long-term project. And they've had some bad luck in the draft lottery, dropping more than anyone in recent years and only picking in the top five once (Lucas Raymond at No. 4 in 2020). But now is about the time you'd want to see real progress in the standings, and the second-half fall-off last season was disappointing. The big question for the Red Wings is whether they have their elite talent base that can elevate them from wild-card contender to one of the best seven or eight teams in the league. I'm a big fan of Simon Edvinsson. Marco Kasper has flashed potential. And they have other very good prospects coming. We'll see if their young players will be (a) high-end enough to compete with some of the best star cores in the league and (b) ready when their existing talent like Dylan Larkin isn't in a downswing. Advertisement Adding a marquee free agent right now would be nice, obviously, but the Red Wings are not realistically an Ekblad away from contention anyway. Their biggest hope is a little more patience, as the kids start to hit their stride and some of the other contenders in the Atlantic Division age out. They should be a wild-card team this year, especially with their cap flexibility to work with in-season. The biggest danger for a team going into a deep, years-long rebuild like Yzerman did with Detroit in 2019 is ending up stalled out in the NHL's mushy middle. The Red Wings aren't stuck yet, but this is a huge year for them to show more tangible progress and take the next step. The pressure is real. Why do people think the Bruins have a shot at being good? As a fan, I would love it, but to see their 'upgrades' in the offseason I think we're relying on the top line to score us goals and nothing else. Feels like a recipe for disaster, especially with all these so-called tough guys that are going to make them tough to play against. That won't matter if we don't score any goals. I just don't understand it honestly and some national writers are believing they'll bounce back. They are a worse team than last year all over. — Jacob M. I'll be shocked if they're not better than last season, although that's not saying much. Boston cratered so hard at the end of the year that they finished with the NHL's fourth-worst record, better than only Nashville, Chicago and San Jose. Their late-season collapse was a work of art as far as midyear teardowns go, as they won just six of their final 27 games and dealt away Brad Marchand, Charlie Coyle, Trent Frederic, Brandon Carlo and Justin Brazeau. Hampus Lindholm missed nearly the entire year, Charlie McAvoy was hurt and Jeremy Swayman was a shell of himself after that contract dispute ran long. It's hard to see that big of a trainwreck hitting them twice. As far as being good, though, it depends how you define that. They're definitely thinner up front, where it's going to take some surprises from their young players to keep them competitive. But I could still see them in competition for a wild-card spot, given the talent they still have. Their path to competing with the contenders, however, is pretty murky right now, given last year's selloff, their meager prospect pool and all of their holes. I know the Capitals' surprising rise has a lot of GMs believing in a retool versus a rebuild, so I suspect we'll see more teams try to go down that path, but most of those clubs feel likely to get stuck being just okay and not really competing for a Cup. Boston feels like they're about to be part of that trend, especially given how they spent their limited free agent dollars last month. Advertisement Hard to believe, given that the Bruins ran away with the Presidents' Trophy only two years ago. With NCAA players eligible for pay and the majority of draftees not league ready anyways, would there be a desire to raise the draft age so teams could see more immediate returns on draft picks? — Jack H. I've long been of the mind that the change that would make sense would be to allow 18-year-olds to only be drafted in the first round. That way the elite players who will have a chance to play in the NHL right away can still get a pro home at a young age, but everyone else has to wait for another year of development. How many players picked beyond the top 32 picks make the NHL right after being drafted anyway? Almost none. And teams tend to have a very hard time projecting a lot of 18-year-old players, especially at notoriously hard-to-project positions like in goal. Such a change could up the degree of difficulty for teams given that they'll have to decide between players of different age groups. Do you use your first-rounder on a 19-year-old who is more of a sure thing or take a bet on upside with a younger pick? That said, I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone whose primary focus is covering the NHL. I was curious what one of our prospect writers thought, so I sent Scott Wheeler a note on this earlier this week. He doesn't agree that a change is needed. 'Teams do a pretty good job with all of the available resources now identifying the kids who will play, even at 18,' Wheeler explained, noting how few good players actually get missed in the early rounds and are taken late. 'Those players also create interest from fans and revenue for the lower levels of the pyramid in junior and college once they're tied to an organization for longer. I think the 18-year-old draft is good for the sport across levels.' Advertisement The other thing that Scott pointed out is that with the new CBA changing to a system where every drafted player's rights are now held until they're 22 years old, it makes it a more level playing field for players coming from the various leagues. 'The kids who were getting hurt (by an 18-year-old draft) — CHL players who teams had to decide on quickly — will now have more time to showcase themselves,' he said. Personally, I don't see the harm in having some kids wait to get picked, giving teams more viewings of them in prominent roles before having to make a decision. The average age of draft picks in other Big Four sports like football and baseball, where they're typically drafting out of college, is significantly higher, and it seems to work well there. With more top hockey players headed to the NCAA in the new system, this conversation of how to shift things more in line with those leagues probably isn't going anywhere. Are the Blackhawks going to finish 30th to 32nd next season or do you think they could reach the mid-20s? — John N. Goaltending is a big wild card there, with Spencer Knight in place for a full season and the potential return of Laurent Brossoit. But it certainly feels like there will be more pain coming in Chicago. I actually thought they made the right move with a pretty quiet offseason this year. There was talk at the combine that perhaps GM Kyle Davidson would be really aggressive, throwing huge money at the Marners of the world, but instead they've left open nearly $20 million in cap space to try and accumulate future assets and aim for a rise up the standings in another couple years. It's going to mean a frustrating season at times for players like Connor Bedard, but trying to fast-track what they're doing there could have been a disaster. As mentioned with the Red Wings, it's a long road going full-rebuild in the NHL right now, even if everything breaks your way and you win some lotteries. If Chicago had signed a big-name UFA this summer, that huge-salaried star could be well onto the wrong side of the aging curve by the time they're ready to contend and still making big money. Contrast that with the upside of adding another pick at the top of a strong 2026 draft, and it's a no-brainer decision. Advertisement I think Chicago will be closer to the 70-75 points range than the 61 they had last year, but that likely still puts them bottom three, given that basically no one around them is trying to bottom out and be bad. (Which could change early in the year with Gavin McKenna as the prize at first overall.) Our Blackhawks expert Scott Powers concurs. 'I think it's between them and San Jose for the bottom of the league,' Powers said. 'The defense will be so young. Even if Bedard and Frank Nazar take significant steps, there are still questions where enough offense will come from. They could be better than expected because they have a lot of potential promising pieces, even in net, and new coach Jeff Blashill's effect is unknown, but it still feels early for them to turn the corner and nearly every other team is trying to win now.' Thanks for reading. As mentioned, I have a few more of these queued up, so stay tuned for that. Plus, sign up for our hockey newsletter for more similar content from myself and Sean McIndoe all year. (Top photo of Aaron Ekblad: Bruce Bennett / Getty Images) Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
"We are only asking for a similar percentage of revenue that the men are getting" - Kelsey Plum on the misconception of what the players are demanding from the WNBA
"We are only asking for a similar percentage of revenue that the men are getting" - Kelsey Plum on the misconception of what the players are demanding from the WNBA originally appeared on Basketball Network. A lot has been said about WNBA players opting out of their current CBA to negotiate a new one, which would give them better salaries and benefits. Many critics say that the women are out of their minds for demanding to be paid like their counterparts in the NBA. However, this is a false statement. During her recent appearance on the "All the Smoke" podcast with Matt Barnes, WNBA union first vice president Kelsey Plum explained that the union is not asking for the same salaries as NBA players. What is demanded is the same percentage of the pie as the men. "A lot of times, the misinformation comes in where we're asking to be paid what the men are being paid. That's not true. We're asking just the same percentage of revenue or a similar percentage of revenue. And right now, that's not the case. And so that's what we're fighting for," explained Plum. WNBA players want a 50/50 share in revenue Currently, WNBA players receive a mere 9.3% share of the league's income, which is the lowest among the top pro sports leagues in the United States. Meanwhile, NBA players are guaranteed a 49 to 51 per cent share of their league's basketball-related income, which encompasses money generated from TV deals, ticket sales, merchandise sales, and licensing. Each year, the NBA has shared 51% per year to its players, except 2020-21, which was heavily affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking at other sports, the NFL shares 48 percent of its total income with its players, while NHL players get 50 percent of their total revenue. Meanwhile, MLB teams take 48 percent of their local revenue and put it in a pot, which will then be divided equally among the 30 teams. "There's no reason to think players shouldn't be thinking 50% belongs to them," said Andrew Zimbalist, professor emeritus of economics at Smith College and a leading expert on the economics of sports. "Moving gradually up, there's no reason why WNBA players shouldn't be able to get to that level: 50% in the WNBA is not the same as 50% in the NBA, but it makes sense."The league is booming The WNBA has grown exponentially in the years since the last CBA five years ago. Last year, it announced an 11-year $2.2 billion TV deal with Disney, Amazon Prime Video, and NBCUniversal. The league reported a jump of 48 percent in attendance last season, a 170 percent increase in viewership, and a 601 percent rise in merchandise sales. Expansion fees now cost $250 million, and the league recently awarded three expansion teams in Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Because of all these, Barstool Sports El Presidente Dave Portnoy recently said anybody who says the WNBA players don't deserve a raise is a moron because, as these financial indicators say, the W's potential is limitless. "I don't care about the past. I don't care what they've done for the past 10 years. I'm talking about right now. I'm talking about all the sponsors who want to be a part of this league, the TV deals they're gonna be able to sign. They have a product that people are watching. It may not be for you, but this isn't a handout. This isn't, 'Oh, we feel bad for women, so let's pay them.' This is marketing and the ability to make money in this league, and right now, it's endless. If you don't get that, you're a moron," said Portnoy. However, while both Plum and Portnoy expressed valid points, the two negotiating sides appeared to be far apart in their discussion on revenue sharing. Before the WNBA All-Star break two weeks ago, the players said the parties did not find much common ground during their last meeting. That was why the All-Stars wore the "Pay us what you owe us" shirts while warming up for the All-Star game. At about the same time, however, WNBA commissioner Cathy Englebert said she is confident that a fair CBA will be story was originally reported by Basketball Network on Aug 2, 2025, where it first appeared.
Entrepreneur
a day ago
- Entrepreneur
How to Build Leaner, Smarter Teams Through Job Pixelation
Forget rigid job titles — smart organizations are pixelating their work to automate the grunt, empower their teams and outpace the competition. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. When the Commonwealth Bank of Australia reimagined its financial crime compliance operations in 2024, it didn't just upgrade its tech stack; it fundamentally rewired how work gets done. By consolidating 12 legacy applications into a single, cloud-based AI platform, the bank automated large portions of its investigative workflow. Tasks like sifting through alerts, generating summaries and drafting suspicious activity reports — once handled exclusively by human analysts — are now managed, in fractions of seconds, by generative AI. This transformation freed up investigators to focus on nuanced, strategic decisions that machines still can't make. It also illustrated a shift many founders and small business owners are starting to experience firsthand: the traditional "job" is dissolving into discrete, dynamic pieces that move faster than ever before. This is job pixelation. It's not a theory anymore — it's already here. And for entrepreneurs, it's an opportunity hiding in plain sight. Whether you're managing a lean startup team, juggling multiple roles as a solopreneur or scaling a growing business, your work is becoming a shifting constellation of tasks. Embracing job pixelation means designing your and your team's work to adapt quickly, automate intelligently and stay resilient in the face of market shifts. Here's where to start: Related: Will You Be Able to Adapt and Thrive in the AI Era? Ask Yourself These 7 Questions. 1. Rethink your role as a set of tasks Your title as founder or business owner might stay the same, but the work beneath it is constantly in motion, driven by tasks that shift, shrink or disappear altogether. That's standard in business. But increasingly, those tasks are being automated, reassigned or supported by AI, especially in small or growing companies where every hour counts. This doesn't mean humans are being replaced; it means your and your team's roles are evolving into something more dynamic. In fact, 56% of company leaders surveyed by PwC report that generative AI has improved how employees use their time efficiently, while around one-third have seen increases in revenue and profitability. So, instead of clinging to static job descriptions, start by mapping how you and your team actually spend time. Which tasks still require humans' unique judgment or creativity? Which could be delegated, automated or made more efficient with the right tools? This exercise isn't about doing more work but designing a smarter workflow so your lean team can stay focused on growth. Try this: For one week, jot down everything you and your team do. Then, circle the items that feel repetitive or rules-based. These are your pixelation opportunities: places where technology or new processes could take over and free you up to focus on leading, innovating and driving the business forward. 2. Build a lightweight work operating system In a pixelated environment, the key isn't doing more yourself — it's orchestrating better across your business. As a founder, you juggle evolving priorities, remote collaborators, contractors and AI tools that change how work flows daily. Without a system, those moving pieces quickly become chaos. You don't need expensive software to start. Many small teams use simple visual boards to show who's doing what, when and with which tools. Even basic trackers can expose hidden delays, automation gaps or duplicated efforts that cost precious time and money. The result is smoother workflows along with a clearer view of your business operations. Take TechNova, a SaaS startup, for example. As it scaled, its distributed teams struggled to stay aligned, leading to costly miscommunication and slow releases. Instead of overcomplicating things with enterprise software, they streamlined how teams collaborated and tracked work using simple, shared boards and clear handoff processes. The result was faster decision-making and smoother product development without adding overhead. If your company's processes feel similarly tangled, build your own "Work OS" with what you already have, like Kanban boards, shared docs or sticky notes, to visualize how work moves. Don't aim for perfection. Aim for visibility so you can make smarter decisions faster. Related: How I Automated 50% of My Business Tasks and Scaled Without Hiring More Employees 3. Develop task versatility Specialization still matters, but adaptability is the real edge when you're leading a lean team. The most valuable entrepreneurs I've worked with aren't always the ones with the deepest technical expertise. They're the ones who can jump into any challenge, learn fast and contribute without everything spelled out. You don't need to become a generalist, but you do need a modular mindset — able to quickly connect with tools, clients and workflows as they evolve. One insurer I know retrains employees with AI-powered learning modules that update in real time as new tasks emerge. That way, skill-building happens inside day-to-day work, not in separate, time-consuming trainings. Want to pilot this? Pick one adjacent skill critical for your business, such as prompt design, automation scripts or data visualization, and dedicate 30 minutes a week to learning it. Then encourage team members to do the same. Your goal is to build cross-functional confidence that keeps your business nimble. 4. Update how you track and showcase impact If you're still measuring yourself or your team by how many tasks get completed, you're missing the bigger picture. As AI handles parts of your operations, your value shifts to designing better workflows, ensuring quality and integrating new tools — areas traditional KPIs rarely capture. For example, at one healthtech firm I worked with, performance reviews now include AI fluency, workflow design and learning agility. This surfaced under-recognized team members who quietly improved systems, not just output. As a founder, redefining what success looks like for yourself and your team can uncover hidden strengths and future leaders. Start tracking how often you or your team improve a process, adapt to a new tool or help others navigate changes. Bring that data to investor updates or team meetings. This reframes you from taskmaster to architect of smarter ways to work. Related: Want Your Workers to Be More Productive? You Need a Better Way to Measure Their Contributions 5. Pilot a micro-transformation You don't need to overhaul your entire company to benefit from pixelation. Pick one high-volume, slightly messy process and break it down. Where do delays happen? What can you automate? Which decisions need your input as a founder? One colleague redesigned their startup's weekly budget approvals using simple automations and clearer handoffs, saving several hours per week while revealing new leadership potential on their team. Try the same: Choose a recurring workflow, map it step by step and reassign or streamline wherever possible. Document what changes and share your results with your team or advisors. Small wins compound over time and create a blueprint for bigger transformation across your business. The job, as a fixed container, is fading — and that can feel unsettling. But for entrepreneurs, it's a chance to lead with vision instead of getting lost in busy work. Embracing job pixelation means adopting a mindset of continuous transformation. By designing flexible systems, investing in team versatility and redefining how you measure success, you position yourself and your business to stay resilient, responsive and ready to seize new opportunities as the market evolves.
