Locals Ignored Critics
DC 37 Deal Trumps In- House Opponents

By RICHARD STEIER

District Council 37 members felt so strongly that their new wage contract was a good one that even those whose local presidents had voted to reject the deal approved it by overwhelming margins, a local-by-local breakdown shows.

LILLIAN ROBERTS: Deal strengthens her politically.

Nearly 97 percent of the 55,543 rank-and-file members who returned ballots voted in favor of the deal, which provides 9.42 percent in raises over 32 months, eases residency restrictions so that city workers represented by DC 37 can live in six suburban counties in addition to the five boroughs, and provides a much-needed boost in city contributions to the union's welfare fund.

Easier to Take

That margin was not completely startling, given that in 2004, 89 percent of the union members who voted approved a considerably less-desirable deal that granted just 6 percent in raises over 36 months and required significant givebacks by future members. But officials from within DC 37 and at other unions characterized that vote as stemming more from resignation that no better deal could be achieved than from enthusiasm for its terms.

CHARLES ENSLEY: Members had to settle cheap.

Social Service Employees Union Local 371 President Charles Ensley, the most vocal critic of the new deal, noted that his members accounted for nearly half the votes against the pact, although they ratified the terms by a nearly 8-1 margin, with 6,451 in favor and 820 opposed.

He insisted during an Aug. 30 phone interview that while the deal was significantly better than DC 37's previous contract, members were less thrilled by its terms than their vote implied.

"The contract takes so long to be negotiated that the workers need money," Mr. Ensley said, alluding to the fact that the deal was reached more than a year after the old pact expired. "When I was out in the field, members told me, 'I know it's not much money, Charles, but when are we going to get it?'''

At other locals and among other local presidents, including some of Mr. Ensley's allies in his ongoing battle with Executive Director Lillian Roberts - whom he nearly unseated in 2004 and may challenge again if she seeks re-election next January - there seemed to be much less ambivalence. And the good feelings union members generally had about the deal should strengthen Ms. Roberts's hand in that campaign, doing much to banish the sour taste the previous contract had left among many members.

CLAUDE FORT: A better deal this time.

Defied Local Leaders

What was particularly surprising was that some of the biggest margins in favor of the new pact came from locals whose presidents had voted no when the deal was initially presented to the DC 37 executive board in July, a point that was made by Ms. Roberts.

Those included Hospital Workers Local 420, which ratified the terms by 4,790 to 23 - a ratio of better than 200-1 - even though President Carmen Charles opposed the deal. She did not return calls last week seeking her view on why the contract got such overwhelming support from her members.

Big With Library Local

A similar if slightly-less lopsided vote was cast at New York Public Library Local 1930, where the 942 to 16 tally fell just short of a 60-1 ratio. In that case, the local's president, Lynn Taylor, voted against the deal on the grounds that the wage hikes might not keep pace with inflation, but predicted it would prove popular with her members because it was skillfully crafted.

Mr. Ensley offered a similar characterization, noting that DC 37 had emphasized that in contrast to the previous deal, it contained no givebacks. "The labor movement is actually at a sad point in its history when we trumpet the fact that we don't give back anything," he said.

Ms. Roberts and other union officials maintained from the outset, however, that the lack of givebacks was just the cherry on the sundae, pointing to the needs met by other portions of the pact including the boost in welfare fund money to sustain member benefits and the right to live outside the city as significant gains along with the pay raises.

'Decent Deal This Time'

At Civil Service Technical Guild Local 375, which will hold officer elections in two months, President Claude Fort and one of his most-vocal would-be challengers opposed the deal, and yet it was approved by better than 11-1, with 3,321 voting in favor and just 293 opposed.

Mr. Fort said last week that the response of his members was "very different this time" compared to 2004, when they grudgingly accepted the deal from the belief that voting it down would not produce better terms. "Almost everyone I talked to said it was a decent contract," he said. "They were pleased this time."

His own reservations, he said, hinged on whether DC 37 had left a little money on the table. "I wanted to continue discussions later into that evening and squeeze another 1 percent from the city," he said.

Close to '372' Margin

The margin within his traditionally fractious local compared favorably to what was compiled at Department of Education Local 372, whose president, Veronica Montgomery Costa, is Ms. Roberts's most consistent political ally: her members voted for the deal by a count of 11,835 to 96.

The smallest ratio on behalf of the contract came from Laborers Local 376, where 124 members approved the terms while 18 dissented.

Several small locals rang up huge counts in favor, among them Recreation Employees Local 299, 259 to 4; Quasi-Public Employees Local 374, 333 to 5; Court Employees Local 1070, 400 to 3; Finance Employees Local 1113, 587 to 9; New York City Transit Clerical-Administrative Employees Local 1655, 283 to 0; and Off-Track Betting Local 2021, 586 to 6.

Even Better Without Fix

Perhaps the most telling vote in favor came from Clerical-Administrative Employees Local 1549, which approved the deal by a count of 10,592 to 126. That easily dwarfed the margin by which the local approved the 1995 DC 37 contract, 10,002 to 2,267, when its leadership enlisted corrupt cronies to stuff the ballot box to ensure that a contract that began with a two-year wage freeze was approved.

Suspicions about that vote were voiced by Mr. Ensley immediately after it was announced in early 1996, because there seemed no plausible way that so many Local 1549 members could have been satisfied with those terms. This time around, despite the objections in some corners of DC 37, no one suspected that rigged ballots were necessary to produce the far larger vote in favor at the local.

That doesn't mean, Mr. Ensley said, that there wasn't something wrong with the huge margin in favor of this deal, attributing it to years of lowered expectations.

'Blew Our Opportunity'

"We've got to educate our members and energize them so that they don't willingly accept such a paltry increase," said Mr. Ensley, who has noted repeatedly that the wage hikes may not keep pace with increases in the cost of living for the period in which the contract runs.

He concluded, "I've never been to the [bargaining] table when the city was so economically well off - a half-billion surplus. This was the opportunity of a lifetime, and quite frankly we let it slip through our fingers."