TOUSSAINT'S DUES OF DECISION
Razzle
Dazzle
Toussaint's Dues of
Decision
By
RICHARD STEIER
When
Roger Toussaint was sentenced April 10 to 10 days in jail, he immediately
removed his watch and bracelet. It was premature - Brooklyn Supreme Court
Justice Theodore Jones stayed the sentence for 30 days - but it seemed a tacit
acknowledgment that Mr. Toussaint had been handed something more valuable than
the jewelry he was ready to leave behind. |
The president of Transport Workers' Union Local 100 had just begun a re-vote
on the wage contract his rank and file rejected by seven votes in January, and
he is seeking re-election in December. How better to convince his members that
the contract he negotiated in the wake of the three-day transit strike was worth
ratifying, or that they would never find someone more dedicated to fighting for
them, than to be given a trip to the slammer?
Tabloids Lighter on Blood-Lust
Even the editors of the Daily News and the Post, which formed
competing hanging parties last December with an editorial entitled "Throw Roger
From the Train" and a front-page headline of "Jail 'Em," seemed to understand
that getting what they wished for wasn't necessarily happy news for Mr.
Toussaint's enemies. Both reacted without their past blood-lust to the Local 100
leader's pending incarceration, even as the Post urged Justice Jones to finish
the job by upholding the $3 million in strike penalties he had imposed against
the union and rescinding its right to have dues automatically deducted from
employee paychecks.
The Chief-Leader/Pat Arnow
MONEY MATTERS: Transport
Workers' Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint, leaving the
courtroom with Recording Secretary Darlyne Lawson, fought
considerably harder to reduce fines against the union and the
potential loss of its dues checkoff rights than he did to avoid a
10-day jail sentence that was imposed April 10.
Justice
Jones's decision April 17 to suspend checkoff rights indefinitely and impose a
$2.5-million fine on the union posed a far greater problem for Mr. Toussaint
than joining Michael J. Quill among the ranks of Local 100 presidents locked up
for telling a judge and the transit system where they could file their
cease-and-desist order. |
Jail has been a winning career move at Local 100 even when the issue is less
serious than a transit strike. Eight years ago, then-President Willie James's
narrow re-election victory was overturned by the International TWU because he
improperly withheld portions of a union mailing list from his opponents during
the first week of voting.
Two weeks later, as his rivals were preparing a rally against him for being
too accommodating to management, Mr. James was arrested for disrupting an MTA
board meeting to demand that part of a transit surplus be used to raise
salaries. He briefly went to jail, and two months later won re-election by
nearly the same margin as in the tainted vote where he had a clear campaign
advantage.
At a time when his political foes are hoping to capitalize - even if the
re-vote goes his way when ballots are tallied April 18, the same day this
newspaper is published - on members' unhappiness at the prospect of paying a
portion of their health-benefit premiums, Mr. Toussaint can draw solace from the
impact Mr. James's jailing - which was for a shorter duration than his and
received little media attention - had on voter sentiment in Local 100.
On the morning after Mr. Toussaint received his deferred jail sentence, he
responded, "Yes," when asked by Metropolitan Transportation Authority lawyer
Neal Abramson whether the strike had been "worth it."
'Struck Because We Had To'
"I stand by the statement I made yesterday before this court," the
Local 100 president testified. "We went on strike because we believed we had to
do this."
In doing so, however, he placed his union's financial stability at the mercy
of Justice Jones, who was empowered under the Taylor Law prohibiting
public-employee strikes to impose heavy fines and indefinitely suspend dues
checkoff rights. Those punishments, even if they could be spun for political
gain by Mr. Toussaint, will severely affect the union's ability to service its
33,700 members. And so, while it was quickly indicated that he would not appeal
his jail sentence or his $1,000 fine, he and his attorneys took a far
less-passive stance on the financial issues.
One Local 100 lawyer, Terry Meginness, sought to make clear in his own
questioning of Mr. Toussaint that the cause for the strike ran deeper than the
expiration of the union's old contract and the failure four days later to gain
new terms. He elicited testimony from Mr. Toussaint that Local 100 had continued
negotiating with three private bus lines for extended periods after contracts
expired as evidence that the union did not flex its strike muscles unless
provoked.
Mr. Meginness called Local 100's treasurer, Ed Watt, to the stand to testify
to the precariousness of the local's financial condition. He stated that the
union - which takes in $20 million in dues annually, virtually all of it through
dues check-off - has just $542,000 in cash on hand.
Where the Money Goes
Thirty percent of members' dues are forwarded to the International
TWU, Mr. Watt testified, 12 percent of it is committed to fixed costs such as
office equipment and supplies, and about half of it goes to the payroll costs
for staff members, whose duties include representing members in disputes with
management. The local also has, he noted, "quite substantial severance payments"
to make to former staffers.
Mr. Abramson pointed out discrepancies between the financial disclosure forms
the union had filed with the U.S. Department of Labor for 2004 and 2005, trying
to establish that the union had under-reported its current assets to strengthen
its argument against heavy financial penalties. Mr. Watt responded that this was
not fancy book-keeping but rather reflected a change in Federal regulations
under which "they have taken all the entities and assets that used to be listed
separately and combined them."
He told the courtroom that union leaders had circulated pledge cards seeking
a commitment from members to pay dues by hand if the checkoff right was
suspended. To illustrate how great the problem could become, he noted that
during 1982, after a judge suspended checkoff rights because of the 11-day
strike in 1980, only 44 percent of Local 100 members paid their dues by hand.
Compounding the problem, Mr. Watt testified, it cost the union an additional 10
percent in expenses to make those collections. The then-head of Local 100, the
late John E. Lawe, got the checkoff right restored by arguing that the union was
nearly bankrupt due to its revocation.
Mr. Abramson noted that updated technology could relieve some of the burden,
asking whether the union had explored online payroll accounts. Mr. Watt
responded that having members make payments by credit card would be the most
expensive way of collecting dues.
'Drastic Measures Loom'
The loss of dues checkoff, he said, would force the union "to take
drastic, drastic measures," including cuts in staff that would wind up reducing
services to members.
Left unsaid was that the last thing any chief executive seeking re-election
wants to do is reduce services to his constituents. And so Mr. Toussaint was
left to hope - vainly, as it turned out - that Justice Jones, having come down
harder on him personally than anyone would have expected (the representative
from State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's Office who urged a jail term had
said it could be worked off through community service) might show some leniency
on the monetary sanctions by reducing the original $1-million-per-strike-day
fine and leaving the dues checkoff rights alone.
The situation raised anew the question of whether accepting the MTA's
pre-strike offer of arbitration, which Mr. Toussaint rejected because it would
deny members the right to vote on their own contract, would have really been
less acceptable than the spot he's in now.
Mr. Toussaint was willing to figuratively pay to find out. The price his
union may wind up literally paying is anything but modest.