The Train Wreck Continues

So why did transit workers vote down the deal made between the TWU and MTA? Benefits. Transit workers didn't want to contribute to the health care benefits like nearly every other private company and even a growing number of government jobs.

Roger Toussaint took a huge hit with this rebuke of his administration of the union. And that's got even seasoned labor experts shaking their heads:

Once the Transport Workers Union Local executive board reconvenes in the coming days, the leadership will have to decide on a strategy for renewed negotiation with the MTA.

MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow said he wants to seek binding arbitration to resolve the impasse.

"The MTA is amenable to meeting with the union in the coming days," Kalikow said. "However, in order to ensure a timely resolution of this matter for the sake of all New Yorkers, we will also begin to take the necessary steps to pursue binding arbitration."

Toussaint has said he would never agree to arbitration, and if the two sides are unable to reach a new deal, workers could conceivably go back on strike.

"We're not going to rule out the possibility," said John Mooney, a union vice president. "But first we have to get back to the table and reach a real deal."

The rejection was surprising, experts say, because the deal seemed like an offer transit workers couldn't refuse: modest raises of 3, 4 and 3.5 percent, and whopping pension rebates — some as high as $14,000 — for many workers.

"I have never seen anything like it," said David Gregory a labor expert and law professor at St. John's University. "The union is more militant, more resolute, and more committed to their position than anyone had estimated, including the president."

And the scary thing is that there are those within the union who think that a strike is a possibility and may be gunning for a rematch. The terms provided in the first deal showed that they could probably get even more if they threatened another strike. After seeing how NYC suffered during the strike in December, the City and State should make it clear in no uncertain terms that a strike will not only bring down the harshest penalties, but that they will break the union.

UPDATE:
John Podhoretz has some interesting observations about the TWU - they don't have any attractive options at this point. Accepting binding arbitration will put them in a worse position, starting negotiations over means accepting a worse deal, and striking will almost certainly result in a worse outcome. Toussaint has taken the union over a cliff from which it may never recover.

What has happened here is an instructive example of how dangerous it can be to use paranoia and victimization as political tools. Roger Toussaint, the transit union boss, stoked the sense of grievance among his membership, and then could not control the bitterness he helped induce.

Transit workers have come to believe they are horribly mistreated, even though they earn an average annual salary of $52,000 with unbelievably generous pension and health benefits — making them far more highly paid than other transport workers in the city, who earn an average of $36,000 a year. (It is, presumably, from their ranks that new MTA employees would come if there are to be mass firings.)

Now, to be fair, the contract was rejected by a mere seven votes out of more than 22,000 — which means that at least 11,000 transit workers understood they should just have taken the money and run.

That's too bad for them. Maybe they can help their brethren see reason, take whatever they can get now, and do whatever they can do to make sure there isn't a second strike — a second illegal strike that, like the first, will do hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to the city's economy and make life impossibly difficult for 4 million straphangers.

The NYP editorial staff is similarily harsh on Toussaint and the TWU leadership. Even the New York Times is saying enough is enough to Toussaint and the TWU. They want a deal done although they place blame for the failures on the MTA and Governor Pataki. Well, I'd only partially agree with the Times' rationale on that one. Pataki is to blame for letting things get this far. He should have made it explicit from the outset that any strike would result in the breaking of the union - firing all striking workers and opening up the jobs to any qualified applicants. Now, we're facing a union that is not only split, but emboldened to take yet more illegal action to wring even more concessions from taxpayers.

Prior coverage: 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

Technorati: toussant, toussaint, strike, nyc, transit strike.