Still no contract for Local 100

By Marty Goodman / May 2006 issue of Socialist Action newspaper

As of this writing (May 2), TWU Local 100 does not yet have a new contract, despite a second contract vote on April 18, which ratified a December agreement. The union’s demand that the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) accept the contract it already negotiated was rebuffed. Until a new contract is finalized, the old contract remains in place.

Last December, members rallied to Toussaint’s militant “no givebacks” slogan and his vows not to sell out “the unborn.” The union went on strike Dec. 20 against the MTA’s attempt to make new hires pay an extra 4 percent toward pensions.

Rank-and-file workers opposed pension givebacks, but they also wanted a big raise to get ahead of inflation, health-care improvements, job security, and dignity on the job—including discipline reform. The membership and Toussaint clearly had different agendas. Returning to work without a contract and the lack of real progress in the above areas, despite a $1 billion MTA surplus, contributed greatly to widespread anger and frustration (see the January and February issues of Socialist Action).

Despite limited improvements in pre-Medicare retiree health benefits and a promised refund on pension contributions, the gains negotiated last December did not offset “givebacks,” and members knew it. Members balked at a first time 1.5% health-care deduction on gross wages, including overtime, without a ceiling on increases. Actually, health-care givebacks in the settlement saved the MTA some $80 million more than the pension givebacks would have over the life of the contract.

The health benefit deduction reflected a nationwide attempt by management to shift skyrocketing costs of health care onto the backs of workers. With the precedent set by the TWU, Mayor Bloomberg threatened city unions with a first-time health-care deduction in upcoming contract talks.

The agreement included a 10.5% raise over 37 months, not three years, lagging New York’s cost-of-living increases, and failed to make up for a first-year zero raise in the 2002 MTA-Toussaint contract. Lastly, the contract’s expiration date was pushed back from a Dec. 15 pre-holiday date to Jan. 15, a huge loss of future leverage.

On Jan. 20, the giveback contract was defeated by just seven votes. Union “dissidents” in the Vote No Coalition had campaigned for its defeat. Toussaint blamed the “no” vote on “lying” and “misinformation,” not his contract givebacks. Ignoring calls for a mass membership meeting to vote on contract strategies, Toussaint orchestrated a “grassroots movement” for a second vote, using paid staff.

An intensified campaign was begun to frighten members with “binding arbitration,” initiated by the MTA in December when it declared an “impasse” in negotiations. Binding arbitration, imposed by a “neutral” panel of the Public Employees Relations Board, has meant giveback contracts for unions.

The process, however, usually takes many months, during which Local 100—which officially opposes arbitration—could fight for an improved contract while organizing to resist arbitration. Since January, nothing of the sort happened; only demoralizing union passivity amidst MTA threats.

On March 17, at Toussaint’s urging, Local 100’s Executive Board approved a second contract vote by 24 to 12. Acting TWU International President Jim Little was on hand to urge a re-vote and membership ratification. In December, the International told the board that it would not support a strike, a betrayal of historic proportions.

Also favoring ratification was Mayor Bloomberg and a number of Democratic Party politicians, including Spitzer. Joining the giveback chorus was the capitalist press. Toussaint reassured the MTA that everything was still under control, and told the press March 19 that “another strike is not in the cards. Take me at my word.”

An April 6 press conference called by the dissident Committee for a Better Contract charged that “the MTA bullies have been joined in their fear campaign by President Toussaint.” Local 100 Vice President John Mooney blasted Toussaint for presenting members with a “take it or leave it contract” and violating union democracy by a second vote.

Adding to the controversy, a letter circulated April 10 by Mike Jerome, Toussaint’s Health Benefits Coordinator, accused the leadership of a health-care cover-up and orders “not to answer questions on benefits” from members.

Jerome charged that the 1.5% health-benefit deduction was “paying $31 million for a $13 million benefit.” He asked, “Where is the money going?”

Nevertheless, overwhelmed by an expensive vote “yes” campaign—which included a top Hollywood PR firm—the April 18 membership vote count was 71% in favor of ratification.

Since then, Toussaint has intensified his calls for the MTA to accept the December deal, using his high profile jail sentence to promote it. But, MTA Chairman Kalikow declared April 26, “They have no right to push that deal, in its exact form, down our throat,” and arrogantly insisted on binding arbitration.

In response, Toussaint threatened legal action, but also floated the possibility that MTA intransigence may provoke unauthorized job actions, citing reported slowdowns in Brooklyn bus service. However, job actions may spark genuine independent rank-and-file mobilization for a contract without givebacks, which is not welcome by the MTA or Toussaint.

But that’s an uphill fight. Will it happen? It’s not over yet.