May Ease Restoration:
MTA Faintly Backs TWU Dues Rights

By ARI PAUL

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority Oct. 31 supported Transport Workers Union Local 100's bid to have automatic dues deduction reinstated, although its request was harder to understand than the public-address announcements in subway stations.

ROGER TOUSSAINT: Won't swear off striking.

In language only lawyers could love, the MTA asked that the revocation of Local 100's dues check-off privileges - which has been in effect since June 1 as punishment for the 2005 transit strike - be conditionally suspended. The agency stopped short of endorsing outright lifting of the penalty on the grounds that the union had offered insufficient evidence that it would refrain from striking in the future.

Union Slow to File

Then-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Theodore T. Jones 18 months ago ordered that dues check-off be revoked for at least 90 days starting June 1 of this year as a result of the union's three-day strike in December 2005. While allowed to petition for reinstatement since Sept. 1, Local 100 waited until Oct. 4 to file its papers with the court.

ELIOT SANDER: Acting on faith.

"The MTA acknowledges the statement of Local 100 President [Roger] Toussaint that the union 'does not assert the right to strike' under the Taylor Law, and agrees that the union has been in substantial compliance with the mandates of the Taylor Law since the union ended its unlawful job action," stated court papers the State Attorney General's Office filed on the MTA's behalf. "The MTA opposes Local 100's motion for dues check-off restoration at this time, however, given the extent of the disruption to the public and to businesses caused by the unlawful December 2005 strike and the union's failure here to address that breach of the public trust by publicly committing to comply with the mandates of the Taylor Law."

Specifically, the MTA told the court that Mr. Toussaint's mere acknowledgement of the state law prohibiting public employees from striking "falls short of a commitment not to engage in such a violation in the future."

Cited Financial Hardship

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO: Wants it in writing.

Local 100 in its petition told the court that it had suffered financially during the loss of due check-off and that it needed the right reinstated in order to adequately represent employees and engage in collective bargaining. The union said last week that 62 percent of the 31,100 members who lost dues check-off were fully paid up as of Oct. 31, but that 84 percent had paid some portion of their dues since June 1. The MTA agreed that the court should consider the union's financial hardship and offered an alternative solution to increasing its cash flow.

"The MTA submits that the interest of the public and the union can both be satisfied by proceeding in a fashion other than reinstating the union's right to dues check-off," the MTA's memo stated. "In particular, the MTA respectfully suggests that this court conditionally suspend the dues deduction forfeiture required by the May 12, 2006 order and judgment, and that the suspension be subject to immediate revocation in the event of a strike or a strike threat."

The difference between this remedy and fully reinstituting dues check-off is that it allows for immediate revocation if the union goes on strike again, rather than requiring the MTA to go back to court in order to ask for dues deduction to be suspended.

Noted '80 Strike Process

The MTA claimed that this was how the court addressed the union's hardship following the October 1982 loss of dues check-off prompted by its 11-day strike in 1980.

Mayor Bloomberg opposed the reinstatement of dues check-off, and City Hall submitted papers to the court Nov. 1 asking it to deny the union's request, noting that the union had committed three strikes in the past 41 years.

"Local 100's current statement is not a complete renunciation of the right to strike, as ordered by the court," said Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo in a statement. "In fact, Local 100's Web site continues to carry statements suggesting it may strike again. The repeated strikes are sufficient argument of why the defendants must be required to make a strong statement, and a strong showing, of good-faith compliance."

Internal Turmoil

The past five months without dues check-off have caused more than just cash-flow problems for the union. Many members who claimed to have paid all their dues have complained that poor bookkeeping has led to them being falsely accused of being in arrears and therefore in bad standing. Local 100 members who fall into bad standing are ineligible to vote or participate in union meetings, but Mr. Toussaint has ordered union staffers to withhold lists of members who haven't paid dues from those union officers who did not run on his slate in last December's election. Some in-house critics charged that this was to keep members who haven't paid dues because of their dissatisfaction with Mr. Toussaint from voting in the next election in 2009.

Sander's Reasoning

"This was an extremely difficult decision for the MTA," said MTA Executive Director and CEO Elliot G. Sander in a statement. "The pain inflicted by the illegal 2005 strike has not worn off, but at the same time we have had good working relations with Roger Toussaint and understand the critical role that the union plays in keeping our system running smoothly. I believe that our position is the only one that recognizes both of these realities."

Attorneys for the MTA and Local 100 will appear before Justice Bruce Balter in Brooklyn Supreme Court Nov. 7. Local 100 spokesmen did not specify how the union would react to the MTA's proposal.

City Councilman Charles Barron, who publicly supported the 2005 strike, condemned the Mayor and the MTA for not asking for dues check-off to be fully reinstated, adding that a strong union was necessary for fighting against working conditions he likened to a plantation.

Gene Russianoff, the staff attorney for the riders' advocacy group the Straphangers Campaign, believed that the public would benefit from the union having dues check-off fully reinstated.

"My view is probably not shared by a large number of riders, because people might think the strike was a mistake," he said. "It's better that there be a united voice and not one that has to spend its whole time trying to collect dues money."