|
NEW
YORK—Almost a year after a transit strike paralyzed the city, a process
called “binding arbitration” ruled on Dec. 15 that it would impose a
contract on the Transport Workers Union Local 100, which represents
38,000 bus and subway workers.
The
37-month contract is nearly identical to the December 2005 agreement
between Local 100 and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), a
state-run agency. That contract was rejected in a ratification vote by
the Local 100 membership last January.
The
imposition of arbitration—particularly after a strike—without serious
worker resistance represents a major blow to Local 100 and the entire
labor movement. Unfortunately, fear of arbitration may convince some
workers to accept bad contracts in the future.
The
transit strike, the first in 25 years, began on December 20, 2005 and
lasted 60 hours. The heroic strike succeeded in stopping MTA attempts to
divide the union by forcing new hires to pay 4% more toward their
pensions than current workers. For Local 100, this was its third and
shortest strike.
However,
while the contract contained some gains it also included major
concessions or “givebacks,” such as a first-time health-care salary
deduction of 1.5% on gross wages, without a cap on increases. In
addition, the strategic pre-holiday contract expiration date of Dec. 15
was changed to Jan. 15. Wages will increase 10.5%, certain to lag
cost-of-living increases in the New York City region, amongst the
nation’s highest.
The
settlement was reached despite a $1 billion MTA surplus in 2005 and
another $1 billion surplus in 2006. The previous contract, contained a
first-year zero increase, with a highly taxed $1000 “lump sum” payment,
and two 3% increases over three years.
To
put it in perspective, in New York a gallon of milk will soon cost
$3.14—60 cents more than a gallon of gas! Workers are angry.
Last
year’s contract rejection, although by a slim seven-vote margin, was a
stinging rebuke to management and a union leadership tied to the
Democratic Party. To settle the dispute, the MTA aggressively pursued
“binding arbitration,” run by New York State. Arbitration pretends to be
even-handed toward labor and management—impossible under capitalism—but
is used by bosses to strip workers of their rights.
The
MTA sought arbitration even after Local 100 President Roger Toussaint
rammed a second ratification vote down members’ throats.
That
second vote provoked protests by members of the dissident Committee for a
Better Contract, who charged Toussaint with violating union democracy.
Composed mostly of former members of the New Directions Caucus (ND),
which brought Toussaint to power in 2001, they had campaigned to reject
the contract in January. (ND was crushed by Toussaint in early 2001, the
first of many purges.)
Toussaint’s
vow to make Local 100 “ungovernable” in the face of arbitration proved
empty rhetoric. The lack of a mass rank-and-file movement of transit
workers almost guaranteed that arbitration would impose a giveback
contract. Only a strike threat would have made the ruling class think
twice!
In
April 2006, a weary membership, demoralized by union passivity in the
face of arbitration threats, voted the contract up by 71%. The MTA
ignored it.
The
rest of the labor movement, tied to the Democratic Party wing of New York’s
boss class, also sat on its hands, just as it had during the strike
itself—except to pressure the union to end the walkout.
On
the same day the arbitration award was announced ballots were counted in
Local 100’s union-wide elections. Roger Toussaint was declared winner as
Local 100 president against four opponents, receiving just 45% of votes
cast. This will be his third term as president (see accompanying article).
During
the strike, the union negotiated with a double-barreled gun to its head:
first, in the form of the state’s infamous anti-strike Taylor Law, passed
by Democrats and Republicans, which fines government workers two days pay
for every day of a strike; and secondly, the threat of binding
arbitration.
In
April 2006, District Court Judge Theodore Jones fined the union $2.5
million, a million dollars a day, for violating court injunctions based
on the Taylor Law. The injunctions were sought by the MTA and Michael
Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor who called the mostly African American
and Latino strikers “thugs.”
Jones
added the suspension of automatic dues collection or “dues check-off,”
set to start in June 2007, potentially crippling the union. The judge
also sentenced Toussaint to a 10-day jail sentence. He was released after
three days.
Toussaint,
in an attempt to appear “reasonable” to the ruling class, did not
challenge paying fines for exercising labor’s right to strike, nor his
jail sentence.
In
contrast, was an April 24, 2006, statement issued by Socialist Action on
the day that Toussaint marched to jail in lower Manhattan. Said SA,
“Transit workers were right to strike! Release President Toussaint now!
Jail the real criminals, the MTA, (Governor) Pataki, (Mayor) Bloomberg,
and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer! Hands-off Local 100 President Roger
Toussaint! Hell no to jail and fines! Down with the anti-strike Taylor
Law! Hell no to binding arbitration! Socialists say the right to strike
is a human right!”
The
members viewed the contract as a bitter pill. They had supported a
powerful strike despite Taylor Law fines, worth a week in wages. There
was no serious union attempt to seek amnesty from fines, despite
leadership promises. Members fumed when the strike ended after just 60
hours, but lacked an alternate leadership to challenge going back to work.
High
on workers’ agenda was the concept of “respect,” often meaning both a
serious reform of discipline policy and a raise that surpassed inflation.
Many strikers said they were willing “to do whatever it takes” to get
justice. The membership and the Toussaint leadership simply weren’t on
the same page.
The
union said the strike was called mainly to stop an MTA proposal to divide
the union by making new hires pay 4% more toward pensions. Once entirely
funded by management, transit workers were paying 2%. The union defiantly
said it would not sell-out the “unborn,” mainly young workers at lower
pay.
Attacking
pension rights is part of capitalism’s war on working people, which began
in the 1970s in the form of concessionary contracts. The onslaught also
includes massive attacks on wages, healthcare, and job security.
Although
the strike stopped the MTA’s pension rip-off cold, it was exchanged for
other far reaching concessions. That was the demoralizing blow.
To
prevent arbitration and get the MTA to accept the December 2005 deal,
Toussaint organized token pickets during 2006, composed mostly of union
staff, and staged photo-opts with Democratic Party politicians. There was
no membership mobilization. The “protests” demanded that the MTA agree to
its 2005 agreement. Few rank and filers were inspired. The MTA was not
impressed.
Clearly,
Toussaint was relying on his gushing support for Democratic Party
candidate for governor, N.Y. State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, a so-called
reformer who won 69% of the vote in a landslide. Perhaps Spitzer was all
too happy to repay Toussaint by pressuring the arbitrator to impose a
giveback contract!
In
any case, despite Spitzer’s slick image as “the policeman of Wall
Street,” he did the dirty work of New York’s boss class when he wrote the
MTA’s injunctions against Local 100 in 1999, 2002 and 2005. In court,
Spitzer’s representative urged the judge to ignore the union’s arguments
to lower fines and added that “jail” or “community service” for Toussaint
was “acceptable.”
The
Wall Street crooks Spitzer investigated stole hundreds of millions, but
didn’t have to admit to wrongdoing and didn’t spend a day in jail. But,
for Spitzer, jailing a Black union president was just fine! Spitzer is
now backing the closing of many hospitals statewide, several in poor
neighborhoods.
A closer look at the contract
The
biggest gain for workers was a refund of up to $14,000 for membership
overpayments to their pension fund in the 1990s. Some 22,000 members are
eligible but will be heavily taxed if withdrawn before retirement. To get
the refund, Toussaint gave in to the MTA’s demand to change the
contract’s pre-holiday expiration.
After
the “no vote,” the MTA had argued that the refund was no longer part of
the contract, but arbitration ordered the refund if the state legislature
wouldn’t O.K. it.
The
new health-care deduction, which is for pre-Medicare retirees (under 62),
was worth more than the MTA’s original pension proposal. Pension payments
by new hires would have saved the MTA $20 million over three years. In
the new contract the MTA saves $32 million through membership
contributions to health benefits in the first year alone, and this will
increase each year.
Mike
Jerome, Toussaint’s former Health Care Coordinator, wrote in an open
letter to the membership that the new benefit was worth $13 million,
affecting some 2600 members, but all members would be paying $31 million
for it. Jerome was quickly fired from union staff.
On
Nov. 13, one week before election ballots were mailed to transit workers,
the New York Daily News revealed a “secret deal” signed by Toussaint and
the MTA just hours before the Local 100 Executive Board voted 37 to 5 to
end the strike on Dec. 22, 2005. Toussaint, without showing it to the
union’s Executive Board, had said, “Trust me, I know what I’m doing.”
According to the article, it was the same contract first presented to the
union on Dec. 27.
Toussaint
claimed that he did it before ending the strike to side-step Gov. George
Pataki’s public vow to not negotiate during a strike. If the secret deal,
kept quiet by Toussaint and MTA bosses were known, particularly the new
1.5% membership deduction without a cap on increases, despite a $1
billion MTA surplus, strikers may not have returned to work.
Left
out of the contract are some 1500 members in the Queens borough of the
Private Bus Lines (PBL) division. The MTA is taking over several Queens
bus companies, but members still are without a contract, despite a union
pledge that it wouldn’t end its strike without an agreement there.
Outstanding
are pension issues, although the workers have received back pay. Fueling
the anger amongst these workers is not having full pay and pension
equality with City bus workers.
The
Queens PBL workers were the first to strike on Dec. 19, 2005, following a
strategy conceived by Toussaint. Toussaint believed that it would
convince the MTA that Local 100 would shut the city down the next day and
settle quickly. It didn’t work. Private Bus Lines workers showed their
anger by dumping Toussaint’s PBL vice president in the recent union
election.
|
