Kalikow: I Goofed

    Remember all the folks who pointed fingers at the transit union, claiming it was at fault for provoking the recent strike? Well, as the strike recedes in memory, we begin to get more of the truth. Today, Sewell Chan and Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times tell us that the chairman of the transit authority, Peter Kalikow, now says he made a mistake in "making pensions changes a central demand in contract negotiations..."

    Indeed. As the article makes clear, "Before the strike, Roger Toussaint, the president of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, had repeatedly said he would not accept a pension plan that did not treat future workers the same as current ones." So, Kalikow either wasn't listening very well, didn't care about the union's position or botched the negotiations.

    Either way, the question is: why shouldn't Kalilow be forced to resign? Isn't it time for the newly-elected billionaire mayor of the city--the one who was re-elected thanks to union support and who referred to the transit union's behavior as "thuggish"--to hold a press conference blaming Kalikow for the strike? Yes, unlikely, but if we're about pointing fingers, he should at least be accurate.

    The other point in the article worth mentioning is something I raised when the settlement was first announced. The deal calls for workers to pay 1.5 percent of their wages towards health care--a new concession. From Kalikow's perspective, he wrung money out of the workers, one way or another--at an authority sporting a billion-dollar surplus. Three years from now, when the contract comes up for renegotiation, I suspect further concessions on health care (if we don't enact Medicare For All) or new demands on pensions will be the order of the day.

    Which is why it would help for the union to begin today a little bit of public education. A piece of that surplus was given back to the public in the form of discounts for a few weeks during the holiday season. We really need to ask ourselves the question: what would have been a better use of the money? A cheaper ride during the holidays or maintaining some basic living standard for people who have one of the hardest jobs in the city--and by maintaining the transit workers standard of living, safeguarding the notion that every worker deserves a decent living?