Transit Equity Day

Los Angeles – Mark your calendars! On February 4, 2025, Southern Californians will have the unique opportunity to ride Metrolink free of charge, as the region’s six-county passenger rail provider celebrates Transit Equity Day. This annual event honors the legacy of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks and underscores the essential role public transportation plays in fostering access and equity for all communities.

On this special day, riders can board at any of Metrolink’s 67 stations without needing a ticket and can travel systemwide, including the Arrow service. To further celebrate Transit Equity Day, numerous local transit carriers will also waive fares, providing additional options for those seeking to explore the region.

A Statement of Purpose

Metrolink Board Chair and Orange Orange County Fourth District Supervisor Doug Chaffee expressed the significance of Transit Equity Day, stating, “This day honors Rosa Parks’ enduring legacy, while highlighting the vital role public transportation plays in ensuring people from all communities have access.” He continued, “When Metrolink introduced the largest service expansion in our history last fall, it was to create a more equitable system that works for all Southern Californians. Offering free rides on Transit Equity Day helps fulfill that promise.”

Exciting Changes in Service

In October 2023, Metrolink increased weekday service by nearly 23%, adding more midday and late-evening options for those needing to travel outside traditional work hours. Thanks to this expansion and recent improvements, Metrolink has seen a surge in ridership, setting multiple post-pandemic, single-day records. Moreover, a new San Bernardino Line schedule implemented on January 27 aims to enhance on-time performance along this high-volume corridor, allowing riders to experience efficient travel firsthand on Transit Equity Day.

A Commitment to Accessibility

Metrolink is not just about free rides on special occasions. The agency is dedicated to making public transit accessible to everyone year-round. In addition to offering three free-ride days each year, Metrolink provides everyday discounts for children, seniors, riders with disabilities, low-income riders, and active military members. For students, the Student Adventure Pass program allows K-12, college, and trade school students to ride free with a valid student ID, an initiative extended through June 30, 2025.

Metrolink ticketholders also enjoy free transfers to many connecting local transit providers, further enhancing accessibility across the region.

Advertisement

Explore the Region

If you’re looking to discover new places, Metrolink has curated a special repository of destinations that are easily accessible from its stations. Check out these exciting travel options at metrolinktrains.com/explore and start planning your adventure on Transit Equity Day!

Join Metrolink, LA Metro, Omnitrans, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, and other agencies in taking part in this celebratory day of equitable access to public transportation.

Ride Free, Celebrate Equity!

Transit Equity Day is more than just a free ride; it’s a reminder of the importance of public transport in promoting equity, access, and community connection. We invite all Southern Californians to take advantage of this opportunity, explore the region, and honor the legacy of Rosa Parks. This February 4th, hop aboard Metrolink and experience the freedom of transit—at no cost!

Metrolink website: Travelers looking for inspiration can view Metrolink’s specially curated repository of destinations easily accessible from Metrolink stations at metrolinktrains.com/explore.

https://stmdailynews.com/groundbreaking-for-a-sustainable-future-la-metros-southeast-gateway-line-light-rail-project/

Please leave this field empty

Want more stories
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Advertisement

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Paul F. Clark, Penn State

Whole Foods workers at the Philadelphia flagship store in the city’s Art Museum area voted to unionize on Jan. 27, 2025. They are the first store in the Amazon-owned grocery chain to do so.

Paul Clark, a professor of labor and employment relations at Penn State University, talked to Kate Kilpatrick, The Conversation U.S. Philadelphia editor, about why this is happening – and why in Philly.

The Whole Foods workers in Philadelphia voted 130-100 in favor of unionizing. What do we know about their grievances?

From what I understand, these workers have felt that compensation, benefits and work conditions were not what they should be. Some are long-standing employees and say they struggle to afford their basic necessities.

Why did the union drive effort succeed now, and in Philly?

In the last five years, there has been a surge in union organizing. There are a number of reasons for this. First is the labor market. Low unemployment emboldens workers to take the risk of organizing a union. If workers feel their employer can’t replace them or that they can easily get a similar job, they are less fearful of angering the employer by trying to organize.

The second reason is that the Biden administration was a labor-friendly administration – perhaps the most in history. The U.S. president appoints a majority of members to the National Labor Relations Board, which interprets and enforces the labor law that governs organizing. Under Biden, the NLRB regularly issued decisions that provided greater protection to workers and held employers accountable when they violated workers’ rights. During Republican administrations, the board’s decisions are generally pro-business and provide less protection to workers. So workers had the wind at their back in that regard.

Advertisement

Also recent polling shows that 70% of Americans approve of unions, compared with less than half of Americans just 15 years ago. The generally favorable view of unions creates a more supportive environment for organizing.

And the last factor is that Generation Z, the youngest group of workers, clearly wants more out of their work and employment than previous generations. So we see a lot of young workers across the country organizing at Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, Apple and now at Whole Foods and other stores.

Why Philadelphia? Philadelphia is a relatively strong union town. The percentage of the workforce that is represented by a union is higher in Philadelphia than in most cities and areas of the country. So when workers express interest in organizing in Philadelphia they get a lot of support. Other unions might turn out members for their rallies, pressure the company to not oppose the organizing drive and offer other aid and assistance.

The starting wage at the Philadelphia Whole Foods store is US$16 an hour. Is that considered low when the city’s minimum wage is just $7.25 an hour?

The minimum wage in Philadelphia is $7.25 because that is the federal minimum wage. States can institute a higher minimum wage if they choose to, but Pennsylvania is one of the few Northeast states that hasn’t adopted a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. The minimum wages in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, for example, are $15 or above.

But the minimum wage in Pennsylvania is almost irrelevant because of today’s labor market. Unemployment is low, and many employers have to offer significantly more than the minimum wage to get workers.

And the minimum wage is supposed to be a starting wage for workers with little experience or seniority. What workers want is a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a single person in Philadelphia needs to earn around $24 per hour to cover the basic costs of living. And Whole Foods is a profitable business. It’s part of Amazon, one of the most profitable, largest companies in the world. I think workers at these companies believe that they play an important role in generating those profits because of the work they do. And they think they should get a fair share of those profits.

Advertisement

How might the Whole Foods workers expect the company to fight back?

When employees win an organizing election as the Whole Food workers have, they have won a battle but not the war. The purpose of forming a union is to improve wages and benefits and working conditions, and you do that by negotiating a contract with the company. That is the next step in the process. But the law only requires employers to bargain with employees – to meet at reasonable times and exchange proposals. It doesn’t compel them to agree to anything.

The typical strategy of companies that aggressively oppose their workers having a union is to drag their feet in bargaining and not sign a contract. That is technically illegal, but labor law in the U.S. is relatively weak, and with good legal advice you can drag out bargaining for a very long time.

We’ve seen this with the Starbucks campaign. The first Starbucks store unionized in 2021. Over 540 stores have organized since then. And Starbucks workers at those stores still do not have a contract.

Could the new Trump administration have any impact on how this plays out in Philly?

The fact that the Trump administration has taken over gives companies more confidence that the standard delay strategy will work.

On Jan. 28, 2025, President Donald Trump fired Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the NLRB. The general counsel is the official at the board who basically enforces the National Labor Relations Act. Abruzzo was very aggressive in holding employers accountable if they violated the act and in protecting the rights of workers who tried to organize.

Advertisement

Trump’s approach to labor law in his first four years in office was at the other extreme. He appointed as general counsel Peter Robb, who was seen as far less aggressive in protecting workers’ rights and his interpretations of the law were much more pro-business.

Under the Biden administration, if a company was coming to the bargaining table month after month and not agreeing to anything, the NLRB would eventually step in and cite the employer for not bargaining in good faith. The NLRB could find the employer guilty of unfair labor practices and genuinely put pressure on it to bargain a contract.

Based on the board’s actions during the first Trump administration, the board in the next few years will be more likely to allow companies to delay and delay in reaching a contract.

What leverage do the Whole Foods employees have?

They can go on strike. But Amazon has the resources to put up with a strike at one Whole Foods store forever.

Other Whole Foods stores may be considering union drives. The more stores that organize, the more momentum the Philadelphia store will have. But for now, these workers in Philly are going to have their work cut out for them.

That said, they won’t be alone. The Whole Foods workers organized with the UFCW Local 1776, which is basically a statewide union that’s been around for decades. It has a lot of resources and experienced and knowledgeable leaders, plus the resources of the national UFCW. So it’s going to lean into this fight, and these workers will also have a lot of support from the rest of the labor community in Philadelphia.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, three Congressional representatives from Pennsylvania wrote a letter to Jason Buechel, the Whole Foods CEO, and to Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, that expressed their concerns about efforts to suppress the union drive. Is that support typical?

It’s not unusual. But there is no legal basis for elected officials to intervene in a labor-management dispute. I’d put that under the heading of community support.

You have a lot of progressive elected officials in Philadelphia who are supportive of unions, and that’s true in Pennsylvania right up to the governor.

Paul F. Clark, Professor of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Jeb Card, Miami University

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

“Investigating the Paranormal”

What prompted the idea for the course?

My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

What does the course explore?

The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

Advertisement

In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

Why is this course relevant now?

Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

Advertisement

The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

What will the course prepare students to do?

This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement