Transit Union Strikes a Deal

By Laura Conaway Wed., Dec. 28 2005 at 12:03 AM

Categories: Transit Strike 2005

Pin It

By 37 to four Tuesday night, leaders of the union that staged a three-day strike against the New York City transit system last week agreed to accept a new contract from the MTA. The workers got the same wage increases included in the MTA's "final offer" before last week's transit strike, but without having to give an inch on pensions. A proposal by the MTA to raise the retirement age from 55 to 62 had caused union chief Roger Toussaint to call the strike.

Newsday has a nice early roundup of the new contract terms, which include a first-ever employee contribution, of 1.5 percent of their wages, for health insurance. The union members will now vote on the proposed contract by mail. Even before the terms were announced, some had questioned whether the strike had been worth it. Newsday quotes a few who saw little difference from the offer on the table before the strike:

To the east, at East 92nd Street and York Avenue in Manhattan, a bus operator on break expressed doubt the strike was worth it. He wondered how much the health care contribution would cut into the pay hike.

Across the street, another driver on break, Robert Fuhrmann, was quick to say, "I don't think we should have went on strike at all." Fuhrmann, with 16 years on the job, said the new agreement is "a little bit" better than the one offered just before the strike. "You're getting a bigger percentage on your pay increase but you're going to contribute on your health insurance," he said.

Also at issue is whether Transport Workers Union members will see any lessening in the rate of disciplinary actions against workers by management, another early union demand. As Kristen Lombardi and Jarrett Murphy report in the Voice this week, MTA management slapped on some 16,000 disciplinary actions in 2005--one for every two members. They write:

George Perlstein, a TWU executive board member who works as a car inspector at the 207th Street yard in Manhattan, was cited several years ago. He was preparing a train for a run when he noticed a problem with the air conditioner, tried to fix it, and received a 600-volt jolt of electricity. Suffering from minor burns, he took seven days of sick leave.

"To add insult to injury," Perlstein relays, he returned to the job only to find that he'd been written up for "not working safely."

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: (Sent out every Thursday) Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

in response to Mr. Matthew: yes, I do have a right to ask for more money or benefits, but I should not have a right to hold a city hostage and therefore blackmail my employer into giving it to me. I exercise my rights for just compensation by ensuring that I always have an option to quit and work somewhere else where I can get a better deal. No one is saying we live in a true free market when it comes to trade or corporate handouts, but the labor market in the competitive, non-unionized segment of the economy is flexible enough where those who have the skills and the drive will be rewarded and those who don't will not and should not. Furthermore, this is not like the UAW striking against GM or Ford, where only the company gets hurt. These were transit workers striking against an entire city, not much different than kidnapping an innocent person for ransom. A disagreement with the MTA led the TWU to take an action that did not really hurt the MTA, but did hurt millions of innocent people. The crucial flaw in your argument is that you continue to use subjective terms. What's a "fair wage?" Would you still support the TWU if their average compensation was $100K? What about $200K? One could argue that even $1 million is not a "fair wage" depending on the job.
Mr. PJ said: " I guess the job doesn't suck so much after all..." How glib. But the fact that there are many applicants for the transit workers jobs does not reflect the meaning you think it does, as much as you might need it to. The job sucks, but since the union has been able to ask for a workable/livable wage, the job is in demand. This is still people trading their days and nights driving an electric train in circles for YOU. And what would you prefer, an even MORE pissed-off subway conductor/operator in charge of getting you to and from work every day? Maybe some taskmasters to make sure they work right! Think of what you're asking with that whole "let the market decide" crap. Its inhuman. What the demand for MTA jobs actually shows is that unionized jobs are better than working at comparable jobs without a union. That's just obvious. Instead of whining about "Well, WE don't get a raise like that" why don't you get organized and realize that you as a worker actually do have the right to ask for what you want if you're smart about it, start thinking like the valuable human being you are, instead of accepting your sheephood. And since, thankfully, we don't live in a that mythical free-market economy (check out the billions of government subsidies/tax breaks to large corporations for evidence of this, as well as tarrifs on imports), we can have some sense of control of what a worker should get by pooling our (human) resources. So, no, I don't personally decide, and god forbid we put it to a vote -- its organized barganing that allows a fair wage to be set. But if large companies with huge operating budgets and legal representation (not to mention lobbyists) are left to run amock caring nothing about anything except the bottom line, this country will collapse. The point is -- there is more to life than the bottom line, or financial profits. As it is half the world thinks the most noble way to make a living is wage slavery, and this is the climate in which you can make your comments.
The TWU strike just reminded me of how proud I am of being a union member. Was the strike a success? Totally!! Do you think the MTA/Governor/Mayor will mess with this union for the next negotiation? No way!! And other unions may be willing to take risks to preserve/improve benefits. I wish we had more union leaders like Toussaint!
What is wrong with the negotiators which allowed a strike to occur and inconvenienced the public and caused so much financial loss to the city? Why couldn't they have prevented a strike in the first place?
"you pay people to do a job because its right to pay humans for giving up their safety and convenience to serve you, not because you can't get away with less." really? and who decides what that right amount of pay is? do you decide? do politicians decide? since we fortunately don't live in a socialist society, maybe we should do the democratic thing and have a referendum and vote on their pay. since that's not feasible the next best solution is to let the market decide what the pay should be. if the job really sucked that much, turnover would be high and no one would apply for open positions. the MTA would have no choice but to keep raising the compensation until they got some good people. last I heard, there were 30 applications for every transit job. I guess the job doesn't suck so much after all...
Boots does not know how to do math. the 1.5 for health insurance only effects their increase in the first year. After that it is only 1.5% of their total compensation.
Was this offer worth the strike? The workers kept the door shut on their pensions and protected new workers, important victories, otherwise maybe not so good, but Toussaint and the Local leadership did what they had the responsibility to do, fight for their membership, future membership and at the same time show that working people can stand up against the attacks being waged on their pensions & health. Unfortunately there wasn't a lot of solidarity outside of the Local in this important fight waged by the folks who are responsible for the safety and transportation of millions of people everyday.
"The strike also served to shine a very bright light on the fact that the TWU workers receive pay and benefits that far exceed what their skill and education level would warrant in the private sector." I'm sorry but this sentiment disgusts me, its one that I've heard a lot since the strike, and it makes me feel the strike was neccesary if only to remind these neo-con/"free market" types that wealth is generated by the workers, not by the investors: Do YOU want to do that shitty monotonous job down in a hole in the ground all day with no sunlight or fresh air with the risk of all kinds of dangers? I don't! So don't give me this "skill level in the private sector" crap -- you pay people to do a job because its right to pay humans for giving up their safety and convenience to serve you, not because you can't get away with less! And I'd like to remind everybody that the MTA is so terribly cash strapped (if you can believe them at all about this one) thanks to years of the govenor and the state cutting their damn contributions to what is a PUBLIC SERVICE. Every time the state needs to give a tax break to some corporation holding the state or city hostage economically, who do they shift the burden to? The working class and poor who make up the majority of the subway ridership, and now the working people who run the subways. Look this up -- its called a regressive tax. And if it serves to remind the REAL thugs like Bloomberg and Pataki, the ones who are accepted as such for giving away public money to private corporations as a matter of course, that they wouldn't have ANY money if not for the millions of people doing the actual work that generates their capital, then the strike was a resounding success. The only reason the public isn't more aware of this is because the media is corporate-owned, and therefore reflects corporate values. Otherwise they might have been able to look past their own short-term inconveniences and economic pains to see the long term social and economic benefits of a strong labor movement.
What happened to the Taylor Law fines? Is the state going to collect $3,000,000 from the union and six days pay fronm each union member? When are they going to be collected?
Guess what: I told you so. Bastards got what they deserved.
Not to nit pick, but the proposal to raise the retirement age from 55 to 62 was taken off the table before the strike was called. Also, the MTA had never made a final offer. The last offer made before the strike was put forth by the MTA, but they did not leave the barganing table. Instead of making a counter offer the TWU decided to strike.
The transit workers decided it was time for the revolution and the rest of us, kind of said, "not yet, I'm not ready." I wouldn't criticize them, I would criticize us.
With the new health care premium, the MTA got pretty much everything they wanted, as it will offset the pension issue. Money is fungible. Add in the worker and union fines, and from a pure economic basis the strike did not help the workers at all. From a non-economic basis, the TWU may have evaded the two-tier pension system, but they lost the majority of public goodwill, which will take years to earn back. The strike also served to shine a very bright light on the fact that the TWU workers receive pay and benefits that far exceed what their skill and education level would warrant in the private sector.
10.5% raises over 3 years, MINUS 1.5% for health care contributions each year, works out to a total raise of ***6%*** over 3 years. Wasn't that what the MTA was offering BEFORE the strike? Plus, a precedent has now been established by requiring workers to pay into their benefits for the first time. Now that the MTA has a foothold in that area, look for them to demand increased employee contributions with each successive contract. Oh, and before anyone crows about the pension refunds... .the MTA is not "giving" anything -- simply returning (finally!) what rightfully belongs to the employees to begin with. (Maybe the workers can use it to pay the fines levied against them for striking.) Was it worth it? Hardly. Anyone who votes to reelect Toussaint after this fiasco must be huffing exhaust fumes.