good evening and welcome to the debut of "newsroom." the big story in the bay area has been the threat of transit strike. bart workers have walked off the job. >> reporter: hundreds of thousands of frustrated commuters scrambled this morning to find alternative ways to get to work. >> i'm trying to figure out how to get to class. my classes aren't until 9:00. >> i hope the union gets a fair shake, and i hope they get it done soon, and i hope management gets it together. >> i think the bart workers make a very good salary and have very good benefits, and i think they're somewhat greedy. >> reporter: the bus terminal was bustling with commuters from the east bay. workers picketed at bart stations around the bay area. the bart walk-out comes two days after ac transit workers stepped away from a strike once governor brown ordered an investigation. tonight we'll dig deep on this subject covering the intersections of various topics that have converged to make this story so compelling. from the shifting power of unions to the growing debate over banning transit strikes, and for analysis we're joined by debra saunders, san francisco chronicle columnist, carla, san francisco chronicle senior political writer, and tom bakar, consumer editor. i want to begin with you, tom. what are the latest developments, and how did this situation deteriorate so badly? >> i think it deteriorated so badly because both sides had great expectations for what they wanted, and they were so far apart that there was never a chance for them to actually meet. i think this thing was dead on arrival the minute they started and even though there were certain concessions made, the reality of the situation was that they were so far apart that it was impossible for them to get together. >> they had a press blush within the half hour basically saying nothing has changed. >> basically what the union said was, look, if -- we'll take the money we've agreed on and all of that stuff, but what we want you to do is allow these other issues, these work rules issues and some of these other issues to be arbitrated, and we'll just live with whatever happens, and bart basically responded, look, that's exactly why we broke this thing up yesterday. you didn't want to do that then, and we didn't want to do it then, and we're not going to do it now, and they're on strike, and they're going to stay there. >> tom, the political pressure here on the unions is just -- i mean, it's been amazing. the anger, the public anger when you look at the facebook pages. how much else can the union take on this in terms of pressure? don't they have to in a lot of respects come into the 21st century when it comes to things about work rules when you are talking about e-mailing people with their schedules and so forth? i think the public is looking at this and the politicians and saying somebody's got to move on this. >> well, this is what happens when two parties paint themselves into corners they can't get out of. the unions are very strident in what they want. bart is very strident in what it wants, and the unions have actually blinked about six times. three times on countering themselves and three times on saying they were going to strike and then not striking, so they're in a corner, and they're trying to get out. bart knows that it has them in a corner, but bart is going to get itself in a corner here very quickly as the anger spreads from the unions in a few days to bart, and then at that point in time other forces will come to work of the legislature, the business community. you think the business community in downtown san francisco is going to put up with this during the holiday shopping? no. >> this really is just like the tea party shutting down the government in washington. everybody looks at the tea party and ted cruise and they say you're crazy, you're not going to defund obama care by doing this, and finally reality hits, and that happens, and then what happens the next day in the bay area you have the same thing happening with the unions. everybody knows they can't win this. i was at the commonwealth club monday night, and i polled the audience, not exactly a conservative hotbed, and i said who do you side with management or labor? nine out of ten people management. one out of -- people have no sympathy. >> it's overwhelming. >> isn't that interesting. what impact do you think this will have in these increasing calls for a ban on -- >> i think assembly candidate steve blazer out in the east bay has really hit a nerve with his call for banning transit strikes. he is out there. he is getting signatures, electronic signatures on this. so far -- that's right. jerry brown, by the way. right now in the bay area we're overwhelmingly democratic, and lots of labor support. you're not seeing any of the legislators really coming forward yet, but as you said, i mean, look, rubber is hitting the road on this one. >> let's talk about what's happening. we know that the bart workers are paid more than most the people riding most of the trains. we know they're highly paid, and they found out they were highly paid. they pay $92 a month in health care. most people would kill for that. they don't put a dime into their pensions, and they're trying to -- the people of -- i think a lot of people in this area -- by the way, this is -- one of these tech workers, they're not that labor-friendly, and they look at what's going on with the strike, and they say you don't think you work for us, do you? you think we work for you. people are angry. >> i'm wondering if this may be the time where people say, you know, the power of labor, enough already. i mean, that when you are looking at the working people out there -- >> let me put it this way. >> is this the last stand, tom, in unions thinking that at a time when the power of unions is shifting and severely diminishing, do you get the sense that to them the sciu president said this is a street fight. it's almost like this is it. we've got to stand up and show that we still have some power left. >> i think they see it that way, but look what they're walking away from. i mean, you've got to understand, it's not like knee walking away from a rout here. 3% a year, 12% over four years, they pay 9.5% of their health care costs. they pay 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% into their own pension funds, and then they have to trade off some work rules, which they are loathe to do. it's not as though they don't have power. it's not as though there isn't still going to be a good living to be made working at bart. so we -- before we start tolling the death of the union, recognize that what they're walking away from is a pretty good package in the eyes of most people. >> tom, the question is bart management keeps saying put this before your rank-and-file and let them vote on it. what do you think happens? sdt rank and file say, yes, this is a good deal, or are they that entrenched, sort of like ted cruise and senator lee from utah with the tea party? >> it's hard for them too. >> remember, go just across the street to ac transet, which is represented by atu, and in that case two contract settlements suggested by the leadership were turned down by the rank-and-file. there's no guarantee that if it goes to the rank-and-file they're going to vote for it, and maybe large numbers of them will, as did the ac transit thing. there's absolutely no guarantee they're going to do this, and that would create greater anger on the part of the people who actually own this thing, the public, that they're not able to use it because of this. >> i think we know that bart management has made some mistakes all the way along, but the fact is you're starting to see these political calls that ban on transit strikes, and in san jose where you've got mayor chuck reid saying pension reform, look, well, maybe we can't get the legislature to do this. let's take this to the ballot and see what the voters think. if that's going to be the strategy, then labor unions have got to probably recalculate where they're going on some of these fights. >> just with the tea party in washington, there were a lot of republicans telling the tea party people don't defund obama care. it won't work. maybe you'll start to see some other of the labor unions saying don't do this to us because you never know what happens. once this thing gets rolling, more could happen. look, new york doesn't allow transit workers to strike. i think -- it's not as though this has never happened before someplace else. >> well, and the other thing is this. you have to remember this, though. when people overreach too far and they anger to the workers to the point that they're angry. maybe unions are overstepping, but there's a good reason why there are unions. that is baugh because when employers go uncontrolled, very often the result is that the employee gets abused, so there's a place for unions. they just have to figure out what the proper place is. >> a lot come out of this story, and a lot more coming out of it next week as well. thank you all for being here. tom, debra, and mayor. you can follow our continuing coverage of this story at kq kqednews.org. >> we've been feeling the impact of gridlock from transit strikes to the recent federal government shutdown. next we talk with someone who must listen to both sides of an argument in the state court system. the chief justice of the california supreme court, a republican, brings a unique perspective to the bench. she's the daughter of filipino-portuguese farm workers and was a former black jack dealer. in her nearly three years as the state's top judge, she has weathered severe budget cuts and a revolt by a band of unhappy lower court judges. she's also taken a special interest in the role courts can play in helping at risk youth. scott shafer has our interview. >> chief, welcome to the program. >> it's a pleasure, scott. thank you. >> this has been quite a week for our country and for the bay area. we've had a shutdown. week two of the shutdown in washington, what do you make of the seeming intractability of the partisan divide and the inability to come together for what seems to be the best in the country? >> i think it's the best and the worst of a civics lesson. this is your check and balance in action. however, there needs to be action. not just check and balance. i think that's when the parties have to start discussing coming together and thinking about this is this as a long-term solution. >> here in california, of course, the courts have seen about a 65% loss of their state funding. i think you got a little bit of that funding back in this current year. what impact has that had on justice in california? >> it's undermined justice. it's also contributed to a two-tier system of justice. what it has done has made your day in court unattainable. when closing courts and reducing hours are basically denying justice across the state. >> who suffers most? >> i would say primarily low income, middle income businesses trying to resolve their disputes in an orderly way. those who can, will use other private alternatives to resolve their disputes, but those of us who need to go to the court and don't have those kinds of resources find ourselves getting, i think, frankly, a second system of justice. >> this week the state -- the u.s. supreme court rejected the governor's appeal of cap that is have been put on prison population in california. the governor saying if we release any more inmates, it's going to threaten public safety. were you surprise the at all that the supreme court, the u.s. supreme court wasn't more sympathetic to those arguments? >> no, i'm not surprised. california is under incredible change with more resentencing and different kind of resentencing with more leads in county jails than in the prisons with courts having to deal with a split sentence, with prop 36 passed by the voters, where certain types of three strike offenders are entitled to be resentenced. we're looking at a sea change, and criminal justice in california, and the cap is part of that, but we've known about this cap for some time now. >> i know that one issue you've been very involved and concerned about is juvenile justice in california. tell us about why you feel that should be such a high priority. >> a child who is expended in school has three times the chance to have -- once in the juvenile justice system they're out of school, they're disconnected, and they have an even greater chance of going into the adult criminal justice system, and so i have instituted convened groups that we can address the issue sfwloosh when you were first named to the state supreme court by governor schwarzeneggerr, a lot was made of the fact that you were a filipina-american and the first filipina-american chief justice in the u.s. what did you make of all that? what do you make of it when you hear yourself described that way? >> in the beginning it startled me because i have been on the bench 20 years before i went to the supreme court, and i have always been filipina, portuguese-american, and i have always been female, and so you get sort of used to that over the years, and so when i walk into a room where i'm interacting with a group of new people, it's not necessarily what's on my mind as to how they perceive me, but -- so when there was that state-wide recognition, it reawakened old memories of starting out being the diverse person in the group, and it awakened memories of experiences my parents and parallel experiences of different immigrant communities in california. >> how do you think that influences the way you view the issues and the people that come before you? >> i think most definitely being of a minority party, being female in an otherwise previously male-dominated profession, it certainly opens my eyes to the bigger picture of what's going out there. i think my lenses taking in a little bit more having been part of those communities. >> and the court also is very diverse. the system. the court system in california is still about 68% male. it's becoming more diverse, but not nearly as much so as the state supreme court is. what difference does it make? >> well, i think it makes a big difference. first of all, i think for the public to have confidence and trust in our public institutions, that they need to know that they have access to those. not only to appear, for example, in court, but also to be a part of the court if they choose to be part of the decisionmakers, and it's true, the population of judges doesn't reflect the ethmiet ethnic population of california. we have a long way to go to reflect california's diversity. >> quick question about the initiative system in california. same-sex marriage proposition 8 has been there before you were there, since you have been there. one thing that happened during that period of time, you wrote a decision that was unanimous saying if you are a proponent of the ballot member and the governor and the attorney general don't want to defend it, you have standing to defend it in court. the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court says no, they don't have standing. where does it leave the initiative system in california? >> it's still intact because our decision still is controlling for the state of california in terms of standing in that unusual circumstance. of course, i have to say i read the disent as authored by justice antony kennedy very closely and with many tears understanding our initiative process in california that you alluded to is so different from initiative processes across the country. we're unique in calcle, and in california the supreme court is the final and the only review of an initiative measure. >> which some would argue should change. >> that's right. many would argue it should change. >> yeah. before i let you go, i know that when you were young, you were a waitress at one point, and you were also a card dealer. >> that's right zoosh i brought with me a deck of cards, and i'm going to see. you dealt black jack, i think. >> i did, but not for 30 years. >> not for 30 years. i remember you told me you could hit me with a card from across the room. let's see your chop here's. >> let's see. you know, it's been a while, and i'm usually -- i was usually on a felt table, so let's just see. i'm making my excuse now. you sort of angle the deck down, and you flick it. you flick it. give me a couple of hours, and can i -- >> stick to the briefs. lucky number. thank you so much for coming in. really appreciate it. >> it's been a pleasure. thank you, scott, as usual. >> now a look at a health trend that has medical experts worried in marin county. increasing numbers of parents are saying no to vaccines for their children, so many parents are now doing this and health experts are warning it's putting the entire community at risk for highly contagious and potentially debilitating diseases. >> reporter: when meana jones was a child, she came to this doctor for all her check-ups. today she's full circle bringing her own son leland to see dr. hyatt. he is here for his 2-year check-up and a discussion about immunizations. >> no. there's a series of shots protecting against 14 different diseases. it also lays out a timeline for getting those shots with multiple doses often bundled together in the same visit. >> chickenpox, what do you want to do? >> i'm real curious about chickenpox. i had chickenpox. it was no big deal. >> some normal healthy kid gets bad infections. >> reporter: nina is on the fence about two shots in particular. for chickenpox and for mmr, measles, mumps, and rubella. >> think about it wrash. >> reporter: marin county has seen a steady rise in the number of parents choosing to delay or skip vaccines altogether. in california by law children must be immunized against nine diseases, including polio, chickenpox, and measles before entering kindergarten, but parents can get around the law by signing a personal belief exemption. since 2004 the number of such exemptions in marin county has doubled to nearly 8%. the highest opt out rate in the bay area, and one of the highest in the state. >> there's the outbreak this year. >> whooping cough is on the rise this year. this trend alarms health officials like dr. matt willis and sharon forkel. they see a cocorrelation in the rise between personal belief exemptions and a dangerous dip, a kind of fire break which guards a community against the rapid spread of contagious diseases. >> we have many schools many marin county where the vaccination rates are below the level need for imunit. we've had outbreaks of veracella and outbreaks of protussis. a measles outbreak is really more a matter of when and not whether if we don't increase or vaccination rates. >> hi. >> dr. nelson finds these statistics troubling. as managing partner he decided draw a line in the sand when it comes to the vaccine for measles to protect his tiniest patients. >> measles is dangerous. infants under 1 can't be immunized against measles. we're on track to have more cases of measles in the united states this year than we've had in many, many years. the 2008 outbreak in san diego there were 11 children who were ill with measles. four were exposed in their doctor's waiting room. we decided as a practice that we were going to require all of the patients in our practice to receive the mmr vaccine by age 2 or we would ask them to seek care somewhere else. >> reporter: the move goes against the recommendations of his own pediatric academy, but frankel felt he needed to break ranks to show parents how strongly he feels about the vaccine. >> i have taken care of children in the intensive care unit with whooping cough and with meningitis and who had measles and after having measles have had brain damage. most children do just fine with vaccines and are protected against these diseases, which, fortunately, are not common, but would become very common if we weren't vaccinating against them. >> we have 33% of parents opting out. >> this fall willis and forkel sent a survey to 3,000 parents of kindergarteners asking them specific questions about their feelings on vab seens. they're hoping the results will help them better understand what is behind the parental decision to opt out. >> the majority of our citizens of personal belief exemptions are not choosing to opt out of all vaccines, but only some vaccines. >> for some people they don't like necessarily being told to vaccinate their kids. >> reporter: that sentiment was evident when we visited the tiberron home of maureen flock. >> everything is organic including the chocolate chips. >> this is sort of a study in healthy living here. all the stuff you have lined up here, your window sill. >> minerals, liver support. i have a water filter with extra filter on it and a felter under the sink. >> reporter: she's very concerned about toxins in both food and the environment and for the past ten years she's held the firm belief that vaccines contain toxic components. >> the actual anti-genitself isn't dangerous. it's all the adjunctives or other things added into the vaccine that cause an unknown reaction with the immune system. >> reporter: she says her skepticism began after her son nathaniel developed signs of autism at 18 months old. >> you believe your son's autism was linked in some way to the vaccinations he got? >> autism is a pervasive developmental delay, and i believe that my son's pervasive developmental delay would have not been as severe or profound had he not been vaccinated. >> i have a lot of sympathy for people who have a child with autism, and i can understand they're trying to find an answer for it, but the link between vaccines and autism is probably one of the best studied issues around vaccinations. >> it's interesting that we have such a well-educated community, and with 20 plus large studies, including one recent study from the cdc that says that vaccinations and autism do not correlate, but there are still people that hold that belief. >> we'll do the polio shot today. >> reporter: the doctor also discusses the benefits and risks of vaccine with parents on a daily basis. he expects those conversations to increase in january. that's when a new state law takes affect requiring parents to provide proof they've talked with a medical provider before asking for a personal belief exemption. >> you're all done. >> we're hoping the new law will increase vaccination uptake and better protect our community and providing providers with what parents are citing as their specific concerns. they'll be prepared for those conversations. we hope that after those conversations people will feel more secure about making the right decision to vaccinate their children. >> all done. good job. yea. >> and, finally, a quick look ahead at some of the stories we're watching next week. joining me is senior correspondent scott shafer to cut through all that noise. what are you keeping your eye sno. >> on the bart strike over the weekend, and into next week, and as long as it goes on. paying particularly close attention to the economic fall-out and the political fall-out. what impact is it having on business, and also, democratic politicians and their allies in labor. is there going to be a split there? we'll keep a close eye on that. also the next week is the last day on the job for state's top political watchdog who chairs the practical political practices. she was put on the federal elections commission. >> big move for her. >> she made a name for herself in sack mepto going after the arizona group that sent $11 million to try to defeat prop 30 just before the election last november. governor brown's proposition to increase taxes. she went to court to force them to disclose the real source of that. she's going on to bring some of that to washington as well. >> she's also stepping into a political mine field with the supreme court decision on campaign contributions. >> absolutely. citizens united has opened the floodgates. now before the supreme court. she'll be provideding over that situation. >> also, you're going to focus on something south of the border. >> south of the border, the california reporter talking about the increase between the increasing tides. an $80 million terminal being built at the tijuana airport, and when you land in tijuana, you'll be able to walk over a pedestrian bridge right into san diego instead of going through the border and waiting for hours in your car. they're hoping it's going to increase tourism and business ties between the u.s. and mexico. there's already a lot of that at the border, and they're hoping that this terminal when it's built and finished at the end of next year, is really going to seal the deal. >> how long has that been in the works? probably for a while. >> they have been talking about this for many, many years. probably the better part of a decade. there were disagreements over who was going to pay for it and how. it's going to be privately funded. there's now real excitement about it. of course, some controversy as well. especially as we take up immigration reform potentially in washington, and issues of border security and all those things. >> all right. well, much happening, and i knowure going to be on top of it all, scott. thank you. >> yes. not just me. the whole team. >> that's true. it takes a village, doesn't it? >> yes, it does. >> well, before we leave you, take note, as we continue to shape and define kqed "newsroom" we would like to invite you to be our partners in this process. please share your feedback and suggestions by going to kqednews.org. we look forward to hearing from you. thank you for joining us on this debut show of kqed "newsroom." >> good night. announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ >> must have soup. >> the pancake is to die for! [ laughter ] >> it was a gut bomb, but i liked it. >> i actually fantasized in private moments about the food i had. >> i didn't like it. >> you didn't like it? oh, okay. >> dining here makes me feel rich. >> and what about dessert? pecan pie? sweet-potato pie?