It's unclear when or if new talks will start. "We're waiting on the MTA," said Jesse Derris, a union spokesman. The MTA, which oversees the city's mass transit system, said on Friday it would prefer to seek binding arbitration rather than return to the table. The union is opposed to arbitration.There are a couple of different things going on. First, the militant leadership within the Local 100 wanted a strike, and got one. The results weren't what they wanted, so they're pissed that Toussaint didn't hold out longer. The rank and file that wasn't behind the strike but thought that they should get raises are screwed because not only did they lose days of pay, but they're now in a potentially worse situation than before the strike. And the not-yet-born transit workers (and those who just came into the union) are pissed because they're now being required to pay for health benefits when that was never even one of the bargaining positions in the first place.
The contract, which added one month to the initial three-year deal to avoid future strike threats before Christmas, included raises of 3 percent in the first year, then 4 percent and 3.5 percent over the next 25 months.
But many union members were upset by another provision of the deal, a contribution of 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health care premiums. Currently, the workers pay nothing.
After the union went on strike Dec. 20, Toussaint went toe to toe with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki as his union shut down the city for three days with the first transit strike since the 11-day walkout of 1980. He spoke forcefully about the workers' need, and even risked a jail term.
The walkout was "a bold and strong move," said Bruce Raynor, president of the garment workers union UNITE, after the tentative agreement was reached.
But after the announcement of the contract's rejection, Toussaint was viewed a bit differently on local editorial pages. "What a jerk," said the New York Post. For Gregory, the no vote indicated that Toussaint's leadership was not as strong as it seemed.
"He had the support for going on strike, but never really had the support of the whole union," said Gregory. "The militant vice presidents saw him as not sufficiently militant."
Of course, this all goes back to the original problems with the union leadership and that was a failure to define negotiating parameters and bargain within reasonable terms. The opening gambit by the TWU showed just how far out of touch the TWU was. And it only went downhill from there.
The MTA isn't without fault either. Their repeated failure to come clean about the fiscal health of the MTA, the pension plan, and other costs undermined their positions as well. However, the fault remains with the union, which begged for, and got a strike of its time and choosing. It was the union that had the last chance to avoid the strike by continuing to negotiate at the bargaining table and instead sought to hit the picket lines. After all, it wasn't the MTA that walked away from the bargaining table.
Prior Coverage: The Train Wreck Continues, Hold Onto Your Hats: NYC Transit Workers Rejected Contract, The Cowardly Lion
Dissecting the Transit Deal, Awaiting a Deal, A Deal In Sight?, Tallying the Toll, Winners and Losers, Strike Over?, Seeing The Humor in Striking, Three Strikes and You're Out?, Rogering New York, A Pox On Both Their Houses, The Pension Gap, The TWU to NYC: We're Gonna Strike, Taking Sides in the Transit Strike.
UPDATE:
Stan at Logic and Sanity hopes that the union goes on strike again. At that point, alternatives to the transit workers become a whole lot more attractive - like computerized systems. That's not a cureall mind you, but the union's rejection of modernization of the system makes safety and efficiency of the system more difficult.
Technorati: toussant, toussaint, strike, nyc, transit strike.
No comments:
Post a Comment