A Shameful $20 Million Demand

    So, now we know, thanks to Steve Greenhouse's analytical story about the fight over the pension issue, that the entire savings to the MTA--an authority that has a surplus of at least $1 billion--if it got its pension demand (which both sides agree triggereed the strike) would be a whopping $20 million over the next three years. This is a story that needs widespread attention.

    For those people here and elsewhere who blame the union, please, get a grip. It can' t be more clear now that the M.T.A. forced a strike over a pittance to its coffers--but a 4 percent cut to workers. The union's position was: we are not going to hurt the people who want to work in the future. Lord, here's a union standing up for the principle that it has a responsibility to protect the interests of workers who are not even paying dues to the union!!! In other words, for the union, for Roger Toussaint, this wasn't entirely about solving an internal political issue--though, obviously, there are great tensions inside the union leadership.

    Contrast that to the M.T.A., Mayor Bloomberg and George Pataki: you've got high-paid executives at the M.T.A., a billionaire mayor and a governor who is raising millions to run for another political office telling workers trying to make a middle-class living that they should take a hit. The M.T.A. is using the rhetoric of slowing down future pension obligations--a crisis that does not exist today. Yes, long-term pension obligations have to be addressed but those can be solved without taking a big whack at workers.

    But, you have to give the M.T.A. and their allies credit. They are successfully turning part of the working class against its brethern. Because most people no longer have a decent pension, they are told that those who do have a decent pension should give it up. The same is true of health care. Rather than the debate turning to a public policy strategy that would give everyone affordable health care and decent pensions, employers have masterfully made the debate about the need for workers to sacrifice and get less--a chorus that is joined by some  workers who are angry that their living standards are declining but have turned their anger against the wrong people.

    On the other hand, The Times' Sewell Chan completely whiffs in his story about the struggle between the local and the international, showing that he knows nothing about the political battles inside the union, which I referenced yesterday. For an international union to make public comments undercutting its own local during a strike is much more than a disagreement about the strike itself. The TWU's international president, Michael O'Brien is clearly trying to destroy the leadership of Roger Toussaint in a bid to take control of the local.

Comments

[Joe Hill]

The USA has failed to ratify the most basic conventions of the International Labor Organization, ILO Convention No. 87, the Right to Organize, and ILO Convention No. 98, the Right to Collective Bargaining. These two conventions guarantee the right to strike, subject to certain limitations. The ILO has ruled that "it is admissible to limit or prohibit the right to strike in essential services, defined as those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population."

These conventions are considered so essential that they were made part of the ILO Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which is considered obligatory on all ILO member states whether or not they have ratified the individual conventions. The USA has often been found in violation of these fundamental rights by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, and the CFA has specifically identified the restrictions on striking by state and municipal employees as violations of these fundamental rights.

That's the legal situation: the striking TWU workers are exercising a fundamental human right, guaranteed by international law, and Mayor Bloomberg, the MTA and the courts are acting in contravention of international law by invoking the Taylor Law. Pataki, who appointed the MTA executives, endorses this lawbreaking by his silence and inaction.

The TWU workers are indeed striking for all workers, upholding our human right to withhold our labor; while Mayor Bloomberg and the MTA are attempting to impose their dictatorial will.

One final thought: where are the unions that supported the reelection of Bloomberg and Pataki? Are they surprised? Are they satisfied?

[Robin O. Hunter]

Is it shameful that the MTA would start a war over $20 million when it's sitting on a billion dollars. Of course it is. But is that what the fight is about? I don't think so. It's about power and rights. MTA's candy-asses in suits want to come away from the bargaining table gleeful that they've stomped the opposition's butts. That gives them power right then and the whole contract through.

Most likely they have a media relations crew spewing out press statements carefully designed to exploit the public's feeling that the strikers are greedy and should lower their living standards. Successfully planting that idea gives management power. You've probably already seen TV interviews with irate commuters mouthing the corporate line that these workers are greedy.

You are correct that their anger is totally misplaced. Corporate America decided long ago that there would be no universal health care in America and there isn't. It also would like to separate itself from supplying pensions and inch-by-inch it is succeeding in doing that.

The trick is to reverse that anger so that every worker who is pissed off at the transit workers for protecting their benefits would be instead pissed off that they don't have those benefits. Their anger should be directed at their own employers who are using their power over the workers to pocket money that could pay for those benefits.

Barbara Ehrenreich's blog today is about workers' lack of rights at work. It's worth a read to see another area of the ordinary workers' lives that corporate power has diminished. It's at http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/.

[NewYorker]

The reason the Taylor law exists is because the lives, health and safety of the public are all put in jeopardy when the city's transit system is shut down. Regardless of what you think about whether or not the TWU's demands should or shouldn't be met, the fact is that this strike is illegal and dangerous. Think about how many New Yorkers are unable to get around for life-saving treatments such as dialysis. Imagine having a heart-attack or stroke and having to wait an hour for an ambulance instead of 5 minutes. Arbitration is an available option in the event of an impasse, but Toussaint refuses to do it, thereby endangering the lives of the people in this city. The way he is handling this is not in the best interest of commuters or even in the best interest of his own union members.

In terms of the 20 million over three years figure, you have to remember that what's at stake in pension negotiations goes way beyond three year savings. To look at pension through such a short-term lens is utterly meaningless. Whatever they agree to now regarding pension is going to have financial ramifications for decades, since employees will collect their pensions from teh time they retire until their deaths. Eventaully the resources of the current system will be spent.

I agree the the MTA is extremely inefficient, and should probably be investigated. I also agree that the entire U.S. economy needs an overhaul, because neither the private nor public sectors can keep up with the ever-expanding costs of health care and pensions.

There would be great potential for all working people to ban together to make significant change if a dialogue were opened, but the TWU is not proceeding in a way that's going to generate public support. Yes--people making low wages with no benefits should demand more for themselves, but it's going to be hard for them to think about doing that this week if they bring home no money because the transit strike kept them from getting to their jobs so that they can pay their rent and feed their families. They're the ones being most adversely affected by this strike.

[NewYorker]

Here's a snippet from the actual Greenhouse article in the NYTimes explaining how the savings are small in the short terms, but significant in the long term. This passage is about halfway into the article on the second page.

"John J. Murphy, a pension expert and former executive director of the New York City Employees' Retirement System, said he computed that the authority's pension proposal would have a modest saving at first: $2.25 million in the first year, $4.8 million in the second year and $7.8 million in the third year.

But he said the plan would achieve significant savings, more than $160 million in the first 10 years, with some officials estimating that it would save more than $80 million a year after 20 years."

[Kevin F Droste]

New Yorker: If this statement is true:

Think about how many New Yorkers are unable to get around for life-saving treatments such as dialysis. Imagine having a heart-attack or stroke and having to wait an hour for an ambulance instead of 5 minutes.

then have these people call the mayor, the MTA and Pataki, and tell them to stop their nonsense, and agree to go back to the table to get this resolved, without having the pension issue on that table. Problem solved!!!

[Peter H]

New Yorker,

Even the long-term numbers the MTA officials give are still a tiny fraction of the MTA's expenses, when you consider that it has an operating budget of almost S5 billion. IF you want to address the pension issue, do it through statewide legislation, which is how it's traditionally done. Don't single out 34,000 transit workers.

[NewYork]

There are other negotiation avenues for the union besides striking, and Touissant was the one who ended talks.

I came across this board because I was really excited about Tasini as a progressive candidate who might successfully run against Clinton. However, I'm thoroughly disappointed and turned-off by the utterly one-sided arguments here, as if the TWU can't possibly be wrong on any count.

I'm no fan of the MTA or Pataki, but as a working New Yorker who has read a considerable amount about this issue in order to better understand both sides, quite frankly, Toussaint has done an abysmal job of garnering public support.

I think some of what the union is asking for is reasonable, but some of it is not. It seems to me the most effective avenue the Union could have taken in building public support for their cause would have been to focus on the working conditions, rather than their salaries, which exceed those of many workers in both the public and private sectors. Whether or not you think everyone in New York deserves a pay increase is beside the point. Plain and simple, you're not going to win advocates by arguing for 8% increases, which most people don't receive in any kind of job, in any sector. It's a losing strategy.

However if, as some sources I’ve read have suggested, it is true that TWU employees face significant risks to their health due to exposure to carcinogens and other toxic agents, than those issues should absolutely be redressed. Unfortunately no one is publicly putting those issues on the table, most surprisingly Toussaint. If transit workers do indeed have shorter life expectancies due to hazards on their jobs, then the union leadership should devise a strategy to make sure the public hears and understands this.

Here are a few questions I’ve had based on what I’ve read:

-Statistically, how many transit workers die on the job?
-Statistically, how many transit workers are diagnosed with mesothelioma or other cancers due to exposure to carcinogenic agents on the job?
-What, if anything, has the MTA done to minimize the dangers to transit worker employees?
-What would it take, both in terms of finances and labor, to clean up our subways so they are safer and cleaner both for employees and commuters?

If the union were to provide solid facts on these issues and focus on quality of life for their employees, you'd see a huge difference in how members of the public, including myself, feel about these negotiations.

A transit worker with cancer is not going to suffer less $53K than they will at $47K. Instead of arguing that transit workers need to be able to retire at 55, because they have shorter life expectancies, let’s make sure they get to enjoy long healthy lives. That’s what makes sense in the long term, and that's what will garner public support. Further, the union should consider whether or not it’s appropriate to lump all of their employees under one umbrella. While a track worker has a physically taxing job that they can probably only perform for so many years, a token booth clerk does not, and somehow that needs to be accounted for.

Mr. Tasini, you argue that the media is turning working class people against one another, but I think that you need to consider this issue from multiple viewpoints, as I certainly hope you would do if you were to become Senator. Workers with lower wage jobs and no benefits might like to sympathize with the union, but the union has chosen to employ a strategy that is going to keep those families from paying their rent next month. Who’s going to help those people if their landlord serves them with an eviction notice? Will Mr. Toussaint pay their rent? Obviously it’s not the union’s intention to screw over other workers, but it is the inevitable result of their actions, and it’s going to cost them support.

For this campaign to be successful, public buy-in was essential, and strategically, Toussaint did a lousy job of leading the local in a campaign that could earn public sympathy and support, which might have pressured the MTA to make further concessions. This strike only weakens the TWUs position, as other workers are now adversely impacted in the extreme.

To unequivocally defend Toussaint and the manner in which he has handled this labor dispute is incredibly myopic. This is a complex issue that affects 7 million people, and no party involved is above reproach.

If we’re really going to do something about a corporate dominated-society and create a system that works for all, than it’s going to be necessary to listen to multiple viewpoints and think about how to build coalitions among groups of disenfranchised people whose needs may often be incompatible. To monolithically defend the actions of the TWU, with total disregard for how their actions are affecting millions of other people and the potential danger to the lives of New Yorkers does NOTHING to bring us closer to the admirable goal of creating a more equitable society.

[JR]

Not a New Yorker, but I think the New Yorkers who says "Taylor law exists is because the lives, health and safety of the public are all put in jeopardy when the city's transit system is shut down" is mistaken.

Many states, like Minnesota, allow public workers to strike, with certain exceptions such as fire and police. Minnesotans justify these exceptions by saying that an interuption in fire or police service is just too dangerous.

But the Taylor law covers all NY public workers. If the purpose of the Taylor law is to protect people, why can't people working at the NY lottery agency strike? Would a week without the lottery put people's lives in jeopardy? No, in fact, people would be better off.

The purpose of Minnesota's prohibition on fire and police striking is one state's reasonable attempt to protect public health and provide for the right to strike for most public sector employees. The Taylor law is designed to allow millionaire Mayors and Governors to "bully" honest working people who, as freemen, have the right to put down their tools and stop working whenever they fucking feel like it.

[NewYork]

JR,

The Taylor law was enacted as a response to the NYC Transit Workers Union strike of 1966. The purpose of the law was to prohibit state employees from disrupting essential services. While it prohibits striking, it grants employees the right to unionize and bargain collectively, and provides for mediation and arbitration in the event of an impasse. The complete text of the Taylor law is here:

http://www.perb.state.ny.us/stat.asp#pol

Though aspects of the Taylor law may be flawed, it does serve the purpose of protecting the public from disruptions in critical services, without which the city cannot function.

A city as large as New York City literally cannot function without public transportation. We are simply too densely populated for it to be feasible for everyone to drive into the city, hence the High Occupancy Vehicle restrictions currently in effect. Even with that restriction, people are waiting for hours in traffic. Some avenues have lanes roped off for emergency vehicles, which helps, but does not completely eliminate the delays being caused by bumper to bumper traffic conditions.

So a transit strike without a doubt has potential to be dangerous in a city this populous, as it impedes the ability of emergency vehicles to get to people who need help. Beyond the obstructions for emergency vehicles, many sick and elderly people who need medical maintenance will not be able to access it, due to the incredible difficulty involved in navigating the city during a strike.

This is not a mere inconvenience. They are crippling the city, and whether you like it or not, as the law currently stands, they do not have the legal right to do so.

[union militant]

bush had a plan to eat away at social security, and liberals and big unions cried out. but businesses and local governments have long been slowly nibbling at the pensions and other benefits of everyday workers, and there is almost utter silence. now, with the threats of over one million dollar per day fines to the union, possible jail time for the Local 100 leaders, and the International's stance, this battle in the class war has heated up.

and this is a much larger struggle. its a struggle not just against the gradual elimination of hard-earned rights (both the pensions and the right to strike), but also against the neo-liberal onslaught against workers globally. the IMF's attempted imposition of the privatization of social security in panama set the ground for several general strikes (not locally legal), massive demonstrations, and a final month-long general strike that led the workers and students for an indefinite victory.

now, this is a test for new york city's activists, others else where, and perhaps most of all for Change to Win and the AFL to assert their politics and power. Local 100 doesnt need to take these massive fines and threats of incarceration alone, especially not in the city of heavy weights such as Local 1199.

in my opinion, Katrina was also a test for both federations, and they failed woefully at the opportunity to lead the reconstruction efforts which unions in other countries have often been at the fore of. but at least Change to Win appears to be doing better. wait and see, i guess.

[Teresa Tobin]

What can we do to support the Strikers? I went to their website and saw a call to call the MTA and the governor - is there more we could be doing? As an SEIU member I also went to the 1199NY website thinking I would see solidarity pics but nothing was up. Are other union members out supporting the strikers?

[Joe Hill]

Union militant is right to characterize the TWU strike as "a battle in the class war". For thirty years the American ruling class has been consciously fighting to break the back of American labor, and they are now on the verge of achieving their goal. They have reversed the expectation of economic progress for working class people, and rolled back trade union gains in wages, health care and pensions. They have reduced the unionization rate to under 10% in the private sector, and begun a major assault on collective bargaining in the public sector. Politically, the rightwing has gained power in the Republican Party, and they openly proclaim their disdain for labor as they prosecute their crusade in Iraq and tap our phones. The Democrats have moved to the "center", and pro-union Democrats are few and far between. The labor movement, under tremendous pressure and led by men of big egos, little vision and less competence, has split into two camps, neither of which has shown the capacity to provide the leadership needed to face the vicious assault of corporate America. The AFL-CIO continues to throw dues money at the Democrats, hoping to win some favor, in spite of the shameful record of inaction (labor law reform, health care) and worse (NAFTA). CTW unions opportunistically ("tactically") support Pataki and Bloomberg for some temporary gain, unmindful or uncaring of the longterm consequences.

In this context, the strike of the TWU Local 100 is an act of tremendous courage, and deserves our wholehearted support. Workers in NYC should be attacking Kalikow, Bloomberg and Pataki, who forced the strike, not Toussaint who is risking all in a righteous struggle. The purpose of the Taylor Law is not to protect the public against threats to their health and safety, it is to protect the wealth and power of Bloomberg, Pataki and the interests they represent.

[jim]

To new york,

I too, am being adversly affected by this strike. I too have sat in traffic for hours cursing the traffic.
However, I have not, not even once cursed the TWU workers on strike, or their Eboard for calling for a strike. It's simple.
In order to effective, a strike has to cause people to suffer adversly. If you want to rant about the TWU fine. But lets focus on the cause(s) here.
MTA has a billion dollar surplus.
MTA has decided to cut fares in half on the weekends in December to spur rides and "reward" riders.
MTA has decided that they put their final offer on the table 3 hours before the expiration of the contract.

In my opinion the MTA would be better served if they devoted more energy to bargaining with the union then in trying to put them in jail and fining them 1 million dollars a day.
Do you really think in your wildest dreams the average worker wants to be on a picket line in sub freezing weather, 1 week before christmas, losing 2 days for every one they are out?
This is about respect and pensions. Whether you think they deserve the pension and retirement ages they have they were BARGAINED for. That means that both sides agreed to it. Nobody held a gun to the MTA's head to get it to sign those older contracts with those benefits. In most instances the union gave up the easy faster pay increase for the promise of a pension when they retired. Isnt any company or municipal agencies word good anymore?

Wake up. Look around, if you are one the few lucky people to have both a pension and retirement fund, count your lucky stars. And pray your company doesnt decide to do away with it because "future expenses" are too expensive.

[jim]

To new york,

I too, am being adversly affected by this strike. I too have sat in traffic for hours cursing the traffic.
However, I have not, not even once cursed the TWU workers on strike, or their Eboard for calling for a strike. It's simple.
In order to effective, a strike has to cause people to suffer adversly. If you want to rant about the TWU fine. But lets focus on the cause(s) here.
MTA has a billion dollar surplus.
MTA has decided to cut fares in half on the weekends in December to spur rides and "reward" riders.
MTA has decided that they put their final offer on the table 3 hours before the expiration of the contract.

In my opinion the MTA would be better served if they devoted more energy to bargaining with the union then in trying to put them in jail and fining them 1 million dollars a day.
Do you really think in your wildest dreams the average worker wants to be on a picket line in sub freezing weather, 1 week before christmas, losing 2 days for every one they are out?
This is about respect and pensions. Whether you think they deserve the pension and retirement ages they have they were BARGAINED for. That means that both sides agreed to it. Nobody held a gun to the MTA's head to get it to sign those older contracts with those benefits. In most instances the union gave up the easy faster pay increase for the promise of a pension when they retired. Isnt any company or municipal agencies word good anymore?

Wake up. Look around, if you are one the few lucky people to have both a pension and retirement fund, count your lucky stars. And pray your company doesnt decide to do away with it because "future expenses" are too expensive.

[Afree Marquette]

MTA board members are confirmed by the New York State Senate.
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/leadership/index.html

All the striking workers and their supporters are
registered voters in a New York State Senate district.

That means the MTA is a democratic institution,
controlled by the people.

Republicans hold a slim majority in the state senate.
The swing districts are the southeastern
suburban counties in the MTA commuter rail districts.

The strike is a disaster.
Target state senate districts in the 2006 election.

[patricia royall]

After listening endlessy to the misinformed New Yorkers whine about the TA workers making too much money, I was very happy to hear good ole mayor Blumberg give a breakdown on TA vs corporate america salaries. The average salary for a TA worker is $24,000; now tell me is that what these people consider a livable salary in NY? Don't these people who are tired of working(and I am being mild) under plantation rules have a right to a raise and better working conditions? It has been disclosed that the MTA has "two books" If you ask me, this is a matter for intense investigation. That is what the public should be in an uproar about; ask the MTA to give accountability for the $1 billion surplus!! I too, am inconvenienced by the strike but I totally understand and support the TA. If changes are to be made in the work force and living conditions in general, sacrifices must me made and the TA workers are making the ultimate sacrifice. They are not being paid for
standing on a picket line, their families are suffering too. These bullying actions by the govenor, the mayor and the MTA are as scary as it comes. They are the ones holding the city hostage by being totally unfair and insensitive to the workers's needs. Also, as I understand it, under the
Taylor Law, the issue of pension cannot be brought to the table when negiotating a contract; so isn't MTA is also breaking the law?

[Seth Edenbaum]

Breakdown by city

Fares as a Percent of Operating Expenditures

MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad 54.8%
MTA New York City Transit 53.1%
---
---
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 9.5%
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) 8.9%

State and Local General or Dedicated Funds as Percent of Operating Expenditures

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) 89.8%
---
---
MTA New York City Transit 44.9%
MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad 41.6%

[Kate Bronfenbrenner]

It's important to remember that a large number or the workers in NY who are not able to get to work because of the transit strike are public sector employees who feel greatly in dept to the striking workers because they know that if the transit workers give up on the pension issue then the Mayor will just move on to them, and for paraprofessional workers in the school districts, or clerical and service and maintenance workers in the city these kinds of cuts would be even more devastating. So you will find there are an awful lot of workers in the city who find those strikers their champions.

[r]

If the city cannot function without transit and there is no transit withuot transit workers, then we have all just realized how essential their work and skills are are, haven't we?

The city cannot function without them yet they are belittled for demanding that they be paid accordingly and for protecting the rights of future workers who will also be performing vital work.

Why should comparisons to lowest common denominator workpalce rules and pay scales be dispositive for their contract at all, but especially in light of the work they do?

"I wish I had that!" or "The law says they have to take what they are given!" or "But walmart only pays $5.75 hour!" is no justification for anything.

[notAFSCME]

Seth,

Do you have the figures for WMATA or the CTA? It seems that comparing Dallas or Santa Clara expensiture percentages to NYC is slightly disingenuous, since neither Dallas or Santa Clara has the vast public transit infrastructure that NYC does. While I appreciate that you've cited percentages, one might tihnk that in a much more complex system, costs ncrease exponentially.

I don't doubt that the MTA has very shady accounting practices and I'm pro-TWU, but I think we should at least compare the NYC system to other similarly large and complex systems.