Two Views of TWU Local 100 Leader:
Where Toussaint Went Wrong

By IRVING LEE

As we approach the first anniversary of the historic NYC transit strike, members of the Transport Workers' Union Local 100 are still without a contract. While our contract is in arbitration, it cannot hide the profound disappointment over what has transpired.

Despite the recent acceptance by TWU members on a re-vote of a previously rejected contract proposal, the membership had higher expectations, especially after a strike and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announcing a $1-billion surplus. The surplus is contrary to previous statements of budget deficits before negotiations. Previously, these "deficits" were used as part of the MTA's strategy to extract concessions from TWU, and turned out to be lies.

'Payback' Didn't Happen

We wanted to set a positive pattern in negotiations for other workers, unlike our 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) where TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint gave us a wage freeze for the first year and it became a precedent for other municipal employees. It was supposed to be payback time at NYC Transit; instead TWU members are asked to pay more out of our pockets for health benefits. TWU members ponder why we don't have a contract while Taylor Law fines are being extracted from the union and individual members.

The MTA's approach to negotiations was to assume TWU would not call a strike. They would undermine serious negotiations on departmental and local-wide issues up until the last rounds, where a deal would be struck and concessions would be made with compliance from the union.

The MTA uses divide-and-rule proposals like pitting various departments within TWU and/or new and current employees against each other. This is possible because all members, regardless of title, vote on each other's contract. Finally, the MTA uses the Taylor Law, which makes strikes illegal, as negotiating leverage. There are no penalties for management negotiating in bad faith.

Once the MTA obtains the major concessions, it must agree to a few sweeteners to sell the contract. In the 2002 contract fight, the MTA called Toussaint's strike bluff, resulting in a wage freeze and the surrendering of joint administration of our health benefits to total control by the MTA. In return, we agreed to an MTA proposal of allowing employees with good sick records to have three days sick without doctor's certification, as opposed to two days. The 2005 CBA would have similar results with a slight twist.

Didn't Strike for 'Unborn'

In previous rounds of negotiations, the MTA had requested new employees pay additional contributions of 4 percent (6-percent total) for the 25/55 transit pension. Toussaint argued that he would not "sell out and sacrifice the unborn" as the slogan to justify a strike action, but it was the years of abuse from the MTA and the fight for respect that motivated membership to strike.

Toussaint staged a strike authorization vote at the Javits Center and orchestrated a chant, "A Deadline is a Deadline." But there were no strike preparations or strategic planning with the elected officers. Four days after our expiration date on Dec. 15, Toussaint's officers requested volunteers for strike captains a day before the actual strike. Picket locations were set up haphazardly.

I volunteered as a strike captain in the City Hall area. Members didn't know where to picket, which undoubtedly lowered participation. But despite all this, the strike was effective. However, MetroNorth was allowed to run additional trains despite the fact that their unions would not cross picket lines.

Toussaint made no attempt to organize picket lines at their locations. TWU International President Mike O'Brien betrayed us by immediately calling on Local 100 workers "to cease any and all strike or strike-related activities and to report to work at their regularly assigned work hours and work locations." The MTA repeated this statement on radio and TV ads and on posters put up near picket locations as part of its effort to undermine the TWU strike.

Toussaint's End Run

The potential success of the strike was aborted once Toussaint made his secret deal to settle the contract. This recent "revelation" doesn't exonerate Toussaint for his actions. He called off the strike before assembling the executive board, and his actions violate TWU Local 100 by-laws, which state the negotiation committee composed of local officers and the division committee chairs negotiate the contract.

Sensing a weakness in TWU's bargaining position, MTA responded by shifting its attempt to reduce costs on workers' benefits from pensions to medical benefits. TWU members felt the strike had no bearing on the contract. They are asking, "What about selling out the born and working?"

The heart of the proposed 2005 CBA were the first four points. This is where the MTA got its main concessions from TWU.

The first point extends the CBA to 37 months so it expires on Jan. 15, 2009 instead of Dec. 15, 2008. The expiration goes beyond the Christmas holiday season, undermining our bargaining leverage. It is clear why the MTA wanted this change. It also delays our future wage increase by at least one month.

Wages Fell Short

The second point outlines the wage increases of first year 3 percent, second year 4 percent and third year (13 months) 3.5 percent - total of 10.5 percent. This was far below expectations and barely keeps up with the rate of inflation. MTA pays MetroNorth and Long Island Railroad workers on the average of $8-$10 per hour more than subway workers. Our longstanding demand for parity is to address this past injustice, and the proposed wages puts us further behind.

The third point addresses the pension refund. Despite news coverage proclaiming, "The Great Public Employee Pension Raid" and that TWU members "made out like bandits," the money in question was employees' own money. In 1994, TWU members were given the option of contributing an additional 2.3 percent (total 5.3 percent) for a 25/55 Transit pension (allows collecting full pension at age 55 as opposed to 62 after 25 years of service). Based on the stock market boom throughout the 1990s, the MTA agreed to reduce the total contribution to 2 percent and allow incoming workers to get a 25/55 pension without additional contributions in the year 2000. This leads to a call for refunding to those who contributed.

While TWU members were not opposed to getting a pension refund as part of the CBA, it was used to sell a bad contract. The refund allows the MTA to avoid compensating us with a generous wage package. The MTA felt so strongly about this portion of the contract that it agreed to pay for the refund in case the State Legislature didn't pass it. The refund became the primary "sweetener" of the contract. It was the threat of Gov. Pataki's vetoing legislation for our pension refund that Toussaint blames as one of the many reasons why the contract was rejected. Pataki claimed that he wasn't informed of the agreement and strikers should not be rewarded with their pension refund and threatened a veto. Pataki is allegedly running for President of the United States and wanted to appear tough against strikers.

Ironically, it was Pataki who had vetoed previous TWU pension legislation on the grounds that he wanted contract concessions in return. He essentially got them in this contract. Chief negotiator Gary Dellaverson and MTA chair Peter Kalikow clearly stated that the strike had no relationship to this proposal, contrary to Toussaint's and Pataki's statements.

The fourth point calls for a 1.5-percent deduction from gross wages, including overtime, from all members to gain full medical benefits upon retirement before Medicare. In addition, there is an escalator clause if health costs exceed a certain level.

A Costly Giveback

This issue was the primary reason why this contract was initially rejected. It was viewed as overly expensive for upgrading GHI. Transit supervisors are paying a flat rate - $6 for singles and $23 for families for each pay period with more provider options. The proposal provides no exemptions for those who would not benefit from the plan.

Current and newly hired employees would subsidize those already retired. Many of our retirees in Transit Tiers 1 and 2 didn't have to contribute towards their pensions, thus creating a greater injustice and unnecessary burden for those who are working. We are actually subsidizing our entire medical benefits for active workers and retirees with our wages. Adding insult was Dellaverson stating that the proposed medical contribution provided greater savings for the MTA than the pre-strike proposal.

Naturally, members wanted to know what the final proposal from MTA before the strike included. Subsequent documentation shows that MTA has a surplus in the medical budget, making this contribution a windfall.

What Wasn't Addressed

As with previous TWU contracts, many primary issues were not addressed. Toussaint failed to address the MaBSTOA's pension liabilities, which burdens TWU in every contract negotiation. Major departmental issues were barely touched, such as broadbanding in the Car Equipment Department and reduction of cab time in Subways.

The sweeteners: in the current proposal, MTA finally agreed to grant a Martin Luther King Day holiday. Increases in the line-of-duty death benefit, a maternity benefit, a disability insurance benefit and assault pay were added but affect few employees. On balance, we would lose more than we would gain.

Initially, Toussaint waited for the MTA board to ratify the contract first to secure the pension refund guarantee. But once he got wind of the growing opposition to the contract, he quickly reversed his position. He held boroughwide meetings in mid-January to sell the contract for ratification. Many were not convinced. On Jan. 20, 2006, TWU members rejected the contract by seven votes. They saw the proposed contract of trading one giveback for another as not worthy of a strike. The membership voted down the contract with the idea that changes would be made in the language, especially the 1.5-percent medical tax.

Past Rejection Helped

It was not the first time the union rejected a proposed contract. In 1992, TWU President Sonny Hall tried to sell a contact with a first-year wage freeze. It was rejected and Hall had to go back to the bargaining table. We ended with a 2 percent compounded wage increase for the first year, which TWU members accepted.

Given this example, it was anticipated that Toussaint would aggressively renegotiate the contract. Instead, Toussaint took steps to undermine the will of the majority of the membership. He blames "misinformation" by opponents that resulted in members not understanding the issues.

Using union resources, a petition campaign calling for a re-vote was launched under his direction with the appearance of a grassroots organization. Toussaint denies any involvement. He used union staff and material resources to sell the contract and tried the age-old method of threatening arbitration to re-sell the contract. Toussaint worked with officials from Amalgamated Transit Union Locals 1056 and 726, which represent MTA bus operators in Queens and Staten Island, to vote for the contract overwhelmingly.

Kalikow's Reversal

Once ATU locals voted to accept the contract, MTA Chair Peter Kalikow urged TWU members to re-vote on the same contract that TWU members had rejected. He stated, "I wish they would accept the contract." This is understandable since the language is clearly favorable to management. Then, with apparent pressure from Governor Pataki, he changed his position, refusing to allow a board vote to approve the contract after TWU members accepted the contract after a re-vote.

Now that the contract is in arbitration, Toussaint argues, correctly, that binding arbitration denies the members their vote on the contract. However, Toussaint's actions put TWU in this position. It potentially allows the MTA to gain on issues where it couldn't achieve during contract negotiations. He has himself to blame but doesn't take responsibility.

Prisoner Too Late

In order to resurrect his standing amongst the rank and file, Toussaint staged "The Passion of Toussaint." Marching over the bridge, going to jail and returning after three days did not impress TWU members. The question most members were asking is why he wasn't willing to go to jail while we were on strike.

The corporate press has attacked Toussaint as being "Public Enemy No. 1" and a "madman" if he called a strike. Various presentations of Toussaint's image were racist. Clearly the attacks against the union were biased, as transit workers were attacked for being overpaid. There was no historical context on why a strike took place, nor comparative analysis. It is rarely noted that the MTA has often lied about its fiscal situation when dealing with us during negotiations. But the most important analysis the media fails to offer is that despite Toussaint's militant rhetoric, he failed to deliver the goods.

Didn't Gain Respect

Toussaint and his allies claim this strike was about "respect." Since the strike, the MTA has shown less respect and more aggressiveness. Toussaint points out the strike has national implications for the entire labor movement. But he didn't prepare for the strike nor stay out to win. He has excluded elected officers who disagree with him. Whether it's outright collusion or incompetence, Toussaint's tactical errors - aborting the strike prematurely, obtaining a second-rate contract and failure to gain amnesty from Taylor Law penalties - will have long-term ramifications.

TWU may not willing to strike for a long time due to lack of trust in leadership, besides the financial risks involved. This will weaken our bargaining and may lead to more concessions in upcoming contracts. TWU should never abandon its right to strike. It is the executive board's responsibility to enforce the by-law provisions and preserve the separation of powers within the union. But this has been corrupted by Toussaint, who allots staff positions to board members. In order get back on track, TWU must check the abusive power that Toussaint has created and restore the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers within the union.

Mr. Lee, a Train Operator, was one of the founding members of New Directions, the insurgent group on whose voting line Roger Toussaint first won the presidency of TWU Local 100 in 2000.