Toussaint's Troubles

To the Editor:

I'd like to add a few observations to Richard Steier's highly perceptive column on Roger Toussaint (Feb. 3 issue). Roger is, as you write, highly paranoid, though not without some reasons based on his past experience, as noted by Ray Sanchez in Newsday recently.

His tragic flaw is that he has never been able to realize that as president of TWU Local 100, he is no longer a victim; that it is not productive to the union he heads to strike back at every perceived slight or "disloyalty."

In the short run, Roger can always hit back harder than he is hit. In the long run, he has swapped independent-minded but hardworking and New York City Transithating allies (people like John Samuelsen, Tom Doherty, Tim Schermerhorn, to name a few) for enemies.

For a brilliant guy, Roger has shown himself to be completely obtuse on one of the most crucial tasks of running a union: managing your staff, finessing your elected officers. Roger once told me he didn't have time to become a skilled manager - missing the point that learning is a process. Unfortunately, we (me too) were all trained in how to manage by our years as transit workers: that is, we thought that management was the art of yelling at people, and writing them up if they didn't jump exactly as you said.

The New Directions core, on the other hand, was full of people who thought (sometimes wrongly) they had something useful to say and that there was value in debate.

Roger was right to argue that it made sense to all row in one direction under his leadership. However, throwing people overboard every time they missed a stroke has left him, as you pointed out, with few allies. He has shot himself in the foot, but it's the local that suffers.

Compounding the problem is the institutional independence of the local's vice presidents. Until 2000, each vice president was elected by all the members of the local as part of a local-wide ticket, virtually ensuring a united officer corps. To prevent a New Directions sweep of all top offices that year, the local's by-laws were changed to allow direct election of vice presidents only by the members of their own department.

This was more democratic. It also meant, however, that vice presidents had to become more "tribal," to use Roger's term, in order to get re-elected. They had to deliver for their own members. Several who failed to do so were ousted in 2003. This sent the message to all the new VPs: Roger can't protect me, I have to protect myself.

Roger chooses not to understand that seeming "disloyalty" is actually driven by the need for electoral self-preservation. He then compounded the problem by assigning his loyalists to staff the departments and watch the VPs. So the VPs are handcuffed, there's little trust among officers and everyone is forced to spend time watching each other rather than fighting the Transit Authority. What should be the most important priority gets pushed to the side.

Clearly, a far-sighted local would begin a discussion about how to address this complex institutional weakness (reduce democracy to build the local?) but I doubt it can be done in the current atmosphere. It's hard to have a reasoned conversation about the future of the local when most people will see it as a prelude to a gunfight with winners and dead people. That's the box Roger has gotten himself into.

What about the contract? Roger's wrong to say that the 1992 contract re-write wasn't an improvement. A one-time retroactive payment was transformed into an ongoing raise. There's no question his task is harder now because the local's gains come off the table in binding arbitration while the MTA keeps all its gains and can even add new demands that are beyond price to the union - things like Conductors out of cabs and Cleaners doing Maintainers' work.

It seems to me that a successful contract resolution goes one of two ways: either look to finesse the package or set a new strike date.

The former means Roger must do a mea culpa to the membership: this isn't what you wanted, but all the alternatives are worse; the real reward will be in 2009 because the MTA now knows transit workers aren't afraid to fight back.

The latter is potentially more rewarding but also dicey - after all, many members thought this contract acceptable. A successful strike has several pre-conditions: it should take place before winter ends, and it has to be based on virtual unanimity among the officer corps, who must then go out in the field and tell the membership, "No matter who you blame for the current state of affairs, we're now in a corner, but we all agree that we can smash our way out if we tighten our belt and stick together." I'm not sure if that kind of unity is possible after years of bad blood, but it would certainly have to start with an olive branch from the president's office.

Roger is right to say that this is a crucial moment for the labor movement; it would be heart-rending if this great moment of militancy winds up seeming like a mistake instead of a triumph. Unfortunately, Roger and the local are now weighed down by the circumstances and state of affairs he himself created: by self-made problems.

I am absolutely convinced, as I have always been, that transit workers - who are brave and independent and have great solidarity and hate management; everything the labor movement should be - can beat the TA. It will take more than Roger's force of will, though, to do so.

MARC KAGAN

Editor's note: Mr. Kagan served as Mr. Toussaint's top assistant from 2001 through 2002.