The city's Muni operators are about to have one of those "uh-oh" moments. You know, that awkward instant when a group realizes that it overplayed its hand - badly.

Even in San Francisco, a union town where labor issues are treated with kid gloves, politicians and transit riders are teeing off on the drivers like they stole rent money from little old ladies.

"There is no question in my mind that they completely misread the public," Mayor Gavin Newsom said Wednesday. "Either they step up or the people of San Francisco will."

Friday, the Municipal Transportation Agency will vote on ways to balance its budget.

Riders have already seen fare hikes and service cuts and they may face them again thanks to Muni operators who rejected a proposal for a package of concessions that would have saved the agency $15 million over two years. Those savings could have temporarily reduced service cuts and some fee hikes.

But 575 operators voted in favor of the concessions and 857 were against the plan even though Muni operators are guaranteed an 8 percent raise. Their pay, protected by the city charter, ensures they are at least the second-highest paid operators in the nation.

Cue the torches and pitchforks, the local populace is enraged. This may be about pension plans and compensation concessions in City Hall, but for long-suffering Muni riders, it tapped into the anger of every time a bus door was slammed in their face or every driver who snarled a response to a question. So while union officials were chanting, "No givebacks! No concessions!" they were winning the economic battle and losing the public relations war.

"There has been this huge level of outrage," said Drew Hoolhorst, whose anti-Muni rant in his blog, "Rocket Shoes," has been getting a huge response. "This is real anger."

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he plans to gather the 60,000 signatures needed to put a charter amendment on the November ballot that would have pay, benefits and work rules negotiated through collective bargaining. Elsbernd pulled the amendment in hopes the union would approve the concessions, but he says all bets are off since the proposal was rebuffed.

"I am going forward with the petition regardless if they vote again. That's a lot of signatures, but if ever there was an issue when you could bet on it, this is it," Elsbernd said.

The drivers insist they are the victims. They say the city should crack down on faredodgers and runaway spending.

"Did the public blame the tellers for what the banks did?" asked driver Eric Morris. Muni operators have a tough, demanding job. They take the flak for everything - a late bus, an unruly passenger and gum on the seats. Everyone understands that.

But this is a case of failing to see the larger picture. There was a chance to save this situation last week. If the operators had voted in favor of the concessions, they could have made the case that they were doing their part for the city, recognized that times are tough for everyone and built some good will.

Instead, they look defensive, angry and out of touch. Irwin Lum, head of the Transport Workers Union Local 250-A, says if Elsbernd is hoping to force another vote on the concessions, he is wasting his time.

"He's holding a gun to our heads for political advantage," Lum said. "As long as there is going to be a ballot initiative anyhow, why are we giving up $15 million if they are just going to take it from us later?"

Oh, I don't know, how about because it will be much worse for the drivers if the amendment passes? It will open the door for an examination of some of the work rules - like being allowed to call in sick one day a week and still earn overtime.

At this point, the operators say their position is set in concrete and they will just have to accept whatever comes out of the November election.

"We don't have a choice," said Lum.

Actually, you did. You voted it down. This would be a good time to see if you can get that deal again.