Transit workers have already begun to get notices from the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) telling them how much they must pay in fines for participating in the city’s first transit strike in 25 years. But that is no surprise. Everyone knew the Taylor Law demanded steep fines as a consequence of going on strike. What was surprising was the razor-thin rejection of the contract the leadership of the Transport Workers Union Local 100 negotiated with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the fact that no one seems to know for sure just how it happened or where things go from here.
With headlines like “Toussaint at a Crossroads” and “Strike 2,” some New York City newspapers have rushed to frame the transit contract vote as a condemnation of the leadership. Transit workers interviewed by the Amsterdam News like Transit Workers Union (TWU) executive board member Marvin Holland said, “Members voted the way they did for a lot of different reasons.”
One station agent said, “I’ve definitely had second thoughts, but I voted ‘no’ because I looked at the contract and while it wasn’t a bad contract there was that 1.5 percent (payment for health care) that wasn’t capped. It’s hard to go from paying no health care to having to pay an amount that could only get bigger.” This refers to a provision that health care costs could increase “by the extent to which the rate of increase in the cost of health benefits exceeds general wage increases.”
Another worker blames the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s “corporate greed” and poor management style. Saying the Transit Authority offered to little, this worker said, “The MTA should have offered a better deal especially given as much money as they have. At the time I voted “no” it was personal. Respect is a key issue. I went out on strike because they don’t treat us with respect. The respect issue was a big thing for me.”
Another said while she voted “yes,” those who voted “no” might have done so because they didn’t know the consequences. “Many of us get our information the way the public gets it, from the newspapers. Some people thought they could just vote “no” and the union and the Metropolitan Transit Authority would go back to the bargaining table,” she said.
Well, as recent events have shown, they were wrong.
On Tuesday, January 31, the Transit Workers Union executive board met to discuss the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s latest contract offer and passed four resolutions, including one reiterating the union’s refusal to accept binding arbitration and another calling the Metropolitan Transit Authority back to the bargaining table. In the meantime, the Transit Authority has filed with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for binding arbitration.
When asked if they were willing to negotiate with the union, MTA spokesman Tom Kelly said, “The MTA is ready to meet with and listen to what the union has to say.”
But Toussaint says the Transit Authority has yet to respond to the union’s requests, adding, “It’s not clear to me whether they’re serious or posturing.” In his words, the MTA’s latest contract proposal has “all of the worst features and more of their original proposal.”
The contract members voted down has been replaced with a less attractive one. Pension reimbursements that would have given some 20,000 members from $8,000 to $14,000 for overpayments are gone, as is maternity leave and assault pay for bus drivers, conductors, operators, and many more. Back is the hot-button item that triggered the strike that stopped the city’s subways and buses three days in December – the new pension tier for incoming employees and the demand that workers pay 1.5 percent for health care coverage.
Back, too, are sick leave restrictions that let inspectors visit workers at home. Union officials say this has given “no” voters a rude awakening. The Transit Authority has also included broad banding demands and the creation of a new subway operator title that some observers say would lead to significant downsizing and the expansion of its one person train operation.
Meanwhile, by Monday, February 6, the union had to file a counter to the MTA’s request for binding arbitration. And, by Thursday, February 9, it must nominate an arbitrator to serve on Public Employment Relations Board’s three-person fact-finding panel which will determine whether or not there is an impasse that would require binding arbitration.
In addition, the union is fighting to protect the income that allows it to function on a day-to-day basis – automatic dues check off, the process whereby the employer deducts union members’ dues from their paycheck and turns it over to the union. Union members’ dues, roughly $22 every two weeks, make up some 87 percent of the union’s total income. A large part of these dues go to providing basic services for the members, for example, defending thousands of them each year in disciplinary proceedings or conducting safety inspections. Without that money this cannot be done.
Union officials say they have contingency plans in place that would involve members voluntarily setting up an automatic dues-paying process. Some members told the Amsterdam News that while some of this is about the fact that “some people just don’t like the president of our union, this isn’t about him, it’s about the members.”
